Daylife/AP Photo
|
When pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia surged last year, the world sent its navies to tackle the problem. But now that we are taking the pirates on, does anyone know what to do when we catch them?
It is not just a question of headline-grabbing attacks on prestige ships. Vessels from states across the developed and developing world face the threat of piracy from a new generation of pirates, often from failed or failing states.
Piracy is what is known as a universal crime. That means that because the pirates commit their crimes on the high seas, beyond any one country’s jurisdiction, they are treated as a threat to every country.
In turn, each country may arrest pirates at sea and prosecute them at home.
At least that is how it is supposed to work. In practice, whether a country can prosecute arrested pirates depends on its own laws…
According to Rear Admiral Philip Jones, who heads the European Union’s piracy task force Operation Atalanta, when a navy intervenes to stop a pirate attack, they often do not know whether the pirates they catch can be prosecuted.
“That depends on where we find them, on the nationality of the ship that arrests them, on the nationality of the pirates themselves and the circumstances in which they are arrested. There is a different response available in almost every case.”
This is what happens when you start building ships without yardarms.
#29, They’re keeping the Trans-Siberian railroad clear . . . with spoons.
Bobbo, I usually find you reasonable, but the Paddy argument style does not become you.
Since you cherry picked the easiest example, lets stay with that one: Where does the discriminating yacht owner get a gun in your firearm free utopia? Why do yacht owners get rights homeowners and other citizens dont have?
I uderstand the point your trying ot make about guns being available next door. The flaw in that argument is this: Do you really think international drug cartels with nearly limitless funding are going to be concerned with “legal availability” next door, or anywhere? A suitcase full of money can buy a lot of guns, legal or not.
#32–tcc3==Yes, you are being reasonable in everything except your opinion.
Studies uniformily show a positive correlation between % of guns and death by guns. Its only a correlation that does not prove causation, only implies it. Lots of seeming exceptions with Switzerland and concealed carry laws etc. Still, the statistic holds and makes common sense.
The gun IS “the equalizer.” I’m not afraid of punks with knives or baseball bats. They can’t hurt me in a drive by and I can handle 4-5 of them in the narrow hallway to my bedroom. Guns don’t make me safe, they make me vulnerable.
If guns were less prevelant, they would be harder to come by whether you had the money or not, easier to trace, easier to confiscate, prosecute their use of and so on.
If you don’t have a gun, you can’t commit a crime with a gun==the logic is unassailable. Yet, people argue guns prevent crime==but those studies show that is factually incorrect.
Guns are symbolic. I prefer reality.
Drown ’em, cheap, simple, and final.
Thank you for stating your case instead of calling me names. I don’t agree, but you make a strong argument and I respect your POV.
#35–tcc3==what is in a name?
What do you do with a captured pirate?
Well, I suppose it depends on if you’re gay or not.