Somali Pirates - Page 2

Alex · 04-10-2009, 09:32 AM

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

Betty · 04-10-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

Moonliner · 04-10-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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

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!

scaeagles · 04-10-2009, 09:39 AM

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.

Alex · 04-10-2009, 09:43 AM

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.

Alex · 04-10-2009, 09:47 AM

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.

Moonliner · 04-10-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

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.

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.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-10-2009, 09:50 AM

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

SacTown Chronic · 04-10-2009, 09:53 AM

Suggestions, really.

Alex · 04-10-2009, 09:59 AM

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

04-10-2009, 09:32 AM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, because kidnapping for ransom is a criminal offense deserving of execution without trial even after no one is in at risk any longer.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:39 AM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:43 AM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:47 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	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.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:50 AM	#8
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Besides, they're more...guidelines than actual rules. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:53 AM	#9
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Suggestions, really. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2009, 09:59 AM	#10
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, which is what you suggested. I'll pre-emptively and post facto apologize for responding to what you actually say.
	Submit to Quotes