Pirates Released - Given Fuel and Water

[ViribusUnitis]

Originally Posted by stevensc

Mule, you see, it is not about the crime, it is all about the criminals. If you, I, a Britisher, German or Australian went over there and hijacked a ship and were caught we would surely be brought to court by the EU or US or whoever is patroling over there and be put in chains and severely punished.
The Somalis who are "underprivileged" are given a free pass.
Steve

Couldn't we just find a Somoli Warlord to quietly kill 'em? And when he wants too much money, just go hire a cheaper one. Keep 'em guessing, and killing pirates for lower and lower prices?

After all, there appears to be no shortage of guys with guns and dillusions of grandure in Somolia.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by sneuman

... I guess what I was trying to suggest is that those who look at a situation like this and wonder WTF are often the same folks who oppose international institutions, whether it be the ICC or some other mechanism, that might deal with them.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent, permanent court that tries persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The ICC is based on a treaty (The Rome Statute), joined by 110 countries*.

* Parties to the Rome Statute ➥ ICC - The States Parties to the Rome Statute

Crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court
Article 5 - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
(a) The crime of genocide;
(b) Crimes against humanity;
(c) War crimes;
(d) The crime of aggression.
2. The Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression once a provision is adopted in accordance with articles 121 and 123 defining the crime and setting out the conditions under which the Court shall exercise jurisdiction with respect to this crime. Such a provision shall be consistent with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

As excerpted from the Rome Statute of the ICC
➥ http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/...te_English.pdf

See also the UN website un.org/law/icc, and the Court's web site icc.int.
➥ Web site of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
➥ www.icc.int

The U.S. opposed the ICC from the beginning, but did eventually sign up to the ICC, just before the December 2000 deadline, ensuring that it would be a State Party that could participate in decision-making about how the Court works.
However, by May 2002, the Bush Administration "unsigned" the Rome Statute.
The U.S. has threatened to use military force if U.S. nationals were held at the Hague*, and continues to pressure many countries to sign agreements not to surrender U.S. citizens to the ICC.

* President George Bush signed into law the American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002, the so-called “Hague Invasion Act”. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on ‘national interest’ grounds.

ASPA ➥ American Service-Members' Protection Act

[mike d.]

the easy solution to these pirates that were just released with food fuel and water is to have put them back on their boat and then sink it where they were in the ocean. this is not to hide anything but to make sure they don't get back to land and do it again. the whole world has become sissified, because of "POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" and it will lead to the down fall of all who embrace it.

[hglad]

"* President George Bush signed into law the American Service-Members Protection Act (ASPA) of 2002, the so-called “Hague Invasion Act”. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution. At the same time, these provisions can be waived by the president on ‘national interest’ grounds."

Makes sense to me. The US likes the idea, but if our feet get too close to the fire we can pull back. Am I missing something?

HG

[LtBrett]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Remember: America has opposed an international criminal court, presumably a legal venue that could have prosecuted these guys. I am not stating an opinion one way or the other, just pointing out that Uncle Sam has had a hand in this sort of dilemna.

Here we go with yet another attempt to blame the US for the world's troubles. The ICC is up and running. Any failure by the ICC to prosecute Somali Pirates cannot possibly be the fault of the US because as you pointed out, the US is not a member. Here's their website in case you wish to file a complaint:

ICC - International Criminal Court : Home

Brett

[GordMay]

International law, order, and justice are very complicated issues, very poorly suited to simple solutions.

Originally Posted by LtBrett

Here we go with yet another attempt to blame the US for the world's troubles. The ICC is up and running. Any failure by the ICC to prosecute Somali Pirates cannot possibly be the fault of the US because as you pointed out, the US is not a member ...

I’m certainly not laying blame, for the world’s troubles, (solely) on the U.S.A.
Piracy is not included in the ICC’s mandate.
The US was a party to the Rome Treaty discussions. The US’s active opposition to the Court may play some part in determining it’s success or failure.

[sneuman]

I was only trying to say in general that the U.S. has stood in the way of international arbitration in favor of unilateral action (mainly its own). I agree with Gord that these are complex issues.

I only point this out in case anyone is surprised that there's no mechanism for prosecuting the bad guys.

[David M]

For the pirates, an occasional capture or being killed is the cost of doing business.

For the underwriters, an occasional insurance payout is the cost of doing business.

For the shipping companies, increased insurance premiums is the cost of doing business.

The chance of a ship transiting the area being pirated is less than one in a thousand.

As long as innocent people are not being killed on a frequent basis, I doubt anything will change. The benefit/cost ratio to change the situation is not high enough to make it worthwhile.

[TexSail]

Originally Posted by idpnd

The intention with the ICC is the persecution of crimes against humanity perpetrated by states, the US has been attempting to stall it and negotiated exemptions for their military staff for obvious reasons, even threatening to invade the Netherlands should the case arise..

I read the article you cited and here is the only part that mentions invading the Netherlands:

The bill provoked an outcry in the Netherlands because of a provision authorising the US President to use "all means necessary and appropriate" to free from captivity any US nationals held by the Court, leading the media to dub it "The Hague Invasion Act ". The US Embassy responded by stating that it could not imagine any circumstances in which the US would invade the Netherlands.

Could you point out the part that caused you to conclude that the US had threatened to invade the Netherlands?

[James S]

I think I'm with the "take no prisoners" side of the scale.
We should never of even heard that they were captured!

[anjou]

Theres a time and place for everything, and maybe in this case a shoot first and question after policy is the best one, especially when the boat in question is going equiped to commit a crime.

[speakeasy]

ASPA ➥ American Service-Members' Protection Act

Gord, I think the name of the act was a Euphamism for The Chicken Hawk Politician Protection Act. Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to turn over MonkeyBoy, Cheney and Rumsfeld to the ICC for the world's judgment. Righteous indignation felt by much of Europe over our Iraq invastion would surely giveway at some point to their self-examination of being complicitous while not paying for the military guarantees of a relatively stable world order. The US did underwrite the security of the globe since WWII to a large extent, but the unilateral action by Neocons, with counterfeited justifications, has made the world a more violent place IMHO, giving permission to the rule of the gun.

Tho' I have no love for the pirates, and while combat takes place believe they should be shot and sunk, to detain a vessel for inspection and Then find arms, puts all militaries from nations ruled by law in a quandry. Killing them at that point would be simply execution without anything approaching due process of law, which the law defines as murder. It must drive the navy guys nuts.

You are very right that there is no simple solution.

[GordMay]

I don’t think it will serve any useful purpose to point fingers or throw stones at those (countries, organizations or individuals) that aren’t doing the “right” thing about piracy, or enough of it (in our honest, but varied, opinions).
In fact, I suspect we’ve already tested the limits of our Moderators’ patience.
Let’s remember that politics generally has no place in the CruisersForum.

[44'cruisingcat]

If nobody will prosecute them, then fine, let them go. No need to let them have fuel and water though.

[Hud3]

Originally Posted by GordMay

... In fact, I suspect we’ve already tested the limits of our Moderators’ patience.
Let’s remember that politics generally has no place in the CruisersForum.

Gord, you beat me to it.

Let's keep our political opinions to ourselves, folks. There are plenty of websites out there that welcome that sort of discussion, but we prefer to stick to cruising/sailing/boating related topics.

99.44% of our members like it that way.