Yes, because kidnapping for ransom is a criminal offense deserving of execution without trial even after no one is in at risk any longer.

The voice of reason doesn't sound nearly as "fun" as going all Rambo on their ass though.

I don't know....having someone at gunpoint sure seems to me like they are at risk. Holding someone against their will sure seems like they are at risk. Freeing the man might be the highest priority. If the men surrender and release the hostage I wouldn't suggest they should be executed. However, prior to releasing, I do not think trying not to harm the pirates should really come into the thought process.

Yes, the acceptability of using violence against them is completely different during the actual hostage crisis.

That was completely a response to the idea of getting the hostages freed by paying them off and then following them home and then killing them and anybody else who happens to live in the building.

I also do not think that preventing harm to the pirates should play into how you get the hostage freed. My argument is that a blitz attack is probably greatly increasing the risk of death to the hostage and is therefore counterproductive.

Since this is piracy on the high seas (aka International Waters), according to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea, Pretty much.

Ok, technically you would have to order them to stop first but after that.... Rambo!

First, the United States has not ratified the Law of the Sea treaty so that is somewhat irrelevant. Second, no it does not allow for what you suggested.

Besides, they're more...guidelines than actual rules.

Suggestions, really.

It allows for the arrest of anyone involved in piracy. If they fail to stop use of force is not prohibited.

Bombing their home village while providing an effective deterrent to future crimes is admittedly not a realistic option.

Yes, which is what you suggested. I'll pre-emptively and post facto apologize for responding to what you actually say.