Is Piracy a Form of Terrorism????

[bonnie]

Glad to see I have company in the world I inhabit. Maybe people like this are seen has having contempt for "their fellow human beings" as well

The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/opinio...amp;exprod=digg

THE golden age of piracy has returned. Just as Henry Every and William Kidd once made their fortunes in the Red Sea, a new generation has emerged, armed with grenade launchers and assault rifles, to threaten trade and distract the world’s navies. With the recent capture of the Saudi supertanker Sirius Star, a crime that once seemed remote and archaic has again claimed center stage.

And yet the world’s legal apparatus is woefully confused as to how to respond to piracy. Are the Somali pirates ordinary criminals, or a quasi-military force?

The question is not insignificant. It has virtually paralyzed the navies called to police the Gulf of Aden. The German Navy frigate Emden, on patrol this spring to intercept Qaeda vessels off the Somali coast, encountered pirate vessels attacking a Japanese tanker. But since it was allowed to intervene only if the pirates were defined as “terrorists,” the Emden had no choice but to let the pirates go. Currently, 13 vessels are held by pirates in the Gulf of Aden, while the navies of a dozen nations circle almost helplessly.

The legal confusion extends to what happens once pirates have been caught. In theory, any nation can shoulder the burden of prosecution. In fact, few are eager to do so.

Prosecuting pirates puts enormous strain on a country’s legal system. A state whose ship was not attacked, and whose only involvement with the incident was as rescuer, might balk at being asked to foot the bill for lengthy and costly proceedings. Yet it might find itself forced to do so, if neither the victim’s nor the pirates’ state is willing. As Somalia has not had a recognized government since the early 1990s, the situation is all the more precarious for would-be capturers. The result is that ship owners, knowing that no rescue is imminent, pay the ransom. This emboldens the pirates further, and the problem worsens.

Fortunately, there is a way out of this legal morass. Indeed, the law is very clear — we just seem to have forgotten about it.

The solution to piracy lies in the very nature of piracy itself. The Roman lawmaker Cicero defined piracy as a crime against civilization itself, which English jurist Edward Coke famously rephrased as “hostis humani generis” — enemies of the human race. As such, they were enemies not of one state but of all states, and correspondingly all states shared in the burden of capturing them.

From this precept came the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, meaning that pirates — unlike any other criminals — could be captured wherever they were found, by anyone who found them. This recognition of piracy’s unique threat was the cornerstone of international law for more than 2,000 years.

Though you wouldn’t guess it from the current situation, the law is surprisingly clear. The definition of pirates as enemies of the human race is reaffirmed in British and American trial law and in numerous treaties.

As a customary international law (albeit one that has fallen out of use since the decline of traditional piracy) it cuts through the Gordian knot of individual states’ engagement rules. Pirates are not ordinary criminals. They are not enemy combatants. They are a hybrid, recognized as such for thousands of years, and can be seized at will by anyone, at any time, anywhere they are found.

And what of the Emden’s problem? Are pirates a species of terrorist? In short, yes. The same definition of pirates as hostis humani generis could also be applied to international organized terrorism. Both crimes involve bands of brigands that divorce themselves from their nation-states and form extraterritorial enclaves; both aim at civilians; both involve acts of homicide and destruction, as the United Nations Convention on the High Seas stipulates, “for private ends.”

For this reason, it seems sensible that the United States and the international community adopt a new, shared legal definition that would recognize the link between piracy and terrorism. This could take the form of an act of Congress or, more broadly, a new jurisdiction for piracy and terrorism cases at the International Criminal Court.

There is ample precedent. In the 1970s, the hijacking of airliners was defined by the United Nations as “aerial piracy.” In 1985, when Palestinian terrorists seized the cruise ship Achille Lauro and held its passengers hostage, President Ronald Reagan called the hijackers “pirates.” Recent evidence also indicates that the Somali pirates hand over a part of their millions in ransom money to Al Shabaab, the Somali rebel group that has been linked to Al Qaeda.

The similarities and overlaps between the two crimes have prompted some jurists to advocate abandoning the term piracy altogether in favor of “maritime terrorism.” By reasserting the traditional definition of pirates as hostis humani generis, and linking it to terrorism, the United States and other nations will not only gain a powerful tool in fighting the Somali pirates, but other incidents of terrorism around the world as well.

Recognizing piracy as an international crime will do something else: It will give individual states that don’t want to prosecute pirates an alternative — the international court. If pirates are recognized under their traditional international legal status — as neither ordinary criminals nor combatants, but enemies of the human race — states will have a much freer hand in capturing them. If piracy falls within the jurisdiction of the international court, states will not need to shoulder the burden of prosecution alone.

Today the world’s navies are hamstrung by conflicting laws and the absence of an international code. A comprehensive legal framework is the only way to break the stalemate off Somalia. In a trial before the Old Bailey in 1696, Dr. Henry Newton, the Admiralty advocate, declared, “Suffer pirates and the commerce of the world must cease.”

More than 300 years later, the world is suffering again. Fortunately, this time we have the answer.

Douglas R. Burgess Jr. is the author of “The Pirates’ Pact: The Secret Alliances Between History’s Most Notorious Buccaneers and Colonial America.”

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on December 5, 2008, on page A33 of the New York edition.

Past Coverage

[Gerr]

Of course, piracy is a form of terrorism! Executing pirates by whoever catches them will solve

the legal problem, and reduce the number of pirates by that much.

[Dr. Shane]

We need a President that will show an iron will and squash these pirates. Please, can we get some leadership happening? I sure hope something big is happening behind the scenes. A wimpy President is embarrassing.

[Jeannieb43]

We need a President that will show an iron will and squash these pirates. Please, can we get some leadership happening? I sure hope something big is happening behind the scenes. A wimpy President is embarrassing.

I totally disagree that our President is being wimpy regarding the pirates who have taken a captain hostage in foreign waters. First of all, the boat is/was not a part of our U.S.Navy; it was a commercial boat although flying the U.S. flag. Secondly, the captain himself has been in contact with his superiors and his family and is in negotiation with his captors on his own behalf and on behalf of his ship; and professional negotiators are currently6 working the situation on behalf of the shipping company. Thirdly, the U.S.Navy has that lifeboat (where the captain is being held by the pirates) surrounded and can fire a shot whenever it is warranted; Fourthly, the lifeboat has run out of fuel for its engine, so it's anchored there lifeless.

I read that the President is being kept apprised of the situation and that it is the better part of valor that he NOT involve himself personally with the pirates. [i can just imagine W rushing in on somthing like that with full air artillery, with the loss of many lives, just to make himself look big.] We don't have a "war-happy" President this time, for which I am eternally grateful. We don't want the U.S. to give those puny pirates any satisfacftion at all. They're just peanuts when compared with the big picture of the world powers.

I praise President Obama for his self-control.

[Bravus]

If the term 'terrorism' is used for everything bad or violent that's done, eventually to comes to mean nothing. Domestic violence is terrorism. Professional football is terrorism. There are many forms of violence in the world, and none of them are 'sanitary' compared to the others... but mushing all the words together just impoverishes the language and impedes more sophisticated efforts to fight violence.

[Bravus]

So, as I said, and was disparaged for saying, 'leadership' is code for 'kill them all'.

Not sure why euphemisms are even needed. Why bother messing with the language? Come out and say what you believe in plain language, all of you.

[Bravus]

And 'because justice is expensive' is no justification for murdering someone in cold blood without a trial.

[bonnie]

So, as I said, and was disparaged for saying, 'leadership' is code for 'kill them all'.

Not sure why euphemisms are even needed. Why bother messing with the language? Come out and say what you believe in plain language, all of you.

The word "leadership" may be a code for "kill them all"in the owrld you inhabit but not for the majority of people.

Not quite sure why that is a code word euphemisms.

But waiting to see what the UN will do sounds like a euphemism

for doing nothing if the the captian is rescued. If they resist and end up dying that would be a euphemism for killing in cold blood.

They are in control of living or dying

[Dr. Shane]

1. I have not called our President wimpy. I said, "I sure hope something big is happening behind the scenes."

2. This is the first I have heard, 'leadership' is code for 'kill them all'. I don't know where that is coming from. It sounds close to paranoia. Leadership is making a decision and getting others to follow. It is not waiting for others to make decisions so we can decide which one to follow.

3. The comment was made "I can just imagine W rushing in on somthing like that with full air artillery, with the loss of many lives, just to make himself look big." I must reflect on the situation of Iran taking a British ship and sailors. Since President G.W. Bush did not go rushing in with an air full of artillery then, I see no reason to believe he would do so now.

4. I have not seen any statement made by the President himself on this. I don't see everything. Has anyone else seen an official comment made by the President himself? Most certainly we would have seen President Bush or President Clinton making a statement on this type of international incident. They may have simply said something condemning piracy but they would have said something.

5. The comment was made, "Domestic violence is terrorism." In the United States it is. A husband threatening an estranged wife can be charged with making terroristic threats.

[Dr. Shane]

1. I have not called our President wimpy. I said, "I sure hope something big is happening behind the scenes."

2. This is the first I have heard, 'leadership' is code for 'kill them all'. I don't know where that is coming from. It sounds close to paranoia. Leadership is making a decision and getting others to follow. It is not waiting for others to make decisions so we can decide which one to follow.

3. The comment was made "I can just imagine W rushing in on somthing like that with full air artillery, with the loss of many lives, just to make himself look big." I must reflect on the situation of Iran taking a British ship and sailors. Since President G.W. Bush did not go rushing in with an air full of artillery then, I see no reason to believe he would do so now.

4. I have not seen any statement made by the President himself on this. I don't see everything. Has anyone else seen an official comment made by the President himself? Most certainly we would have seen President Bush or President Clinton making a statement on this type of international incident. They may have simply said something condemning piracy but they would have said something.

5. The comment was made, "Domestic violence is terrorism." In the United States it is. A husband threatening an estranged wife can be charged with making terroristic threats.

[Gerr]

If the term 'terrorism' is used for everything bad or violent that's done, eventually to comes to mean nothing. Domestic violence is terrorism. Professional football is terrorism. There are many forms of violence in the world, and none of them are 'sanitary' compared to the others... but mushing all the words together just impoverishes the language and impedes more sophisticated efforts to fight violence.

Woooooooooooooooo. Football terrorism? Hey, Bravus, you're stepping on my entertainment foot!

[there buster]

Quote:

If the term 'terrorism' is used for everything bad or violent that's done, eventually to comes to mean nothing.

I agree. Kinda like the word "torture."

[Gerr]

And 'because justice is expensive' is no justification for murdering someone in cold blood without a trial.

Would it be murder if in the process of self-defense you kill someone? Or kill someone in the process of rescuing people who are in danger?

[Gerr]

Quote:

If the term 'terrorism' is used for everything bad or violent that's done, eventually to comes to mean nothing.

I agree. Kinda like the word "torture."

One man/woman loaded with dynamite kills dozens of innocent people. Is that terrorism?

A group of pirates takes over a ship and threatens the lives the crew, that's not terrorism?

[Woody]

We need a President that will show an iron will and squash these pirates. Please, can we get some leadership happening? I sure hope something big is happening behind the scenes. A wimpy President is embarrassing.

Good One Shane.

For sure we don't need a wimp.

[Woody]

Quote:

If the term 'terrorism' is used for everything bad or violent that's done, eventually to comes to mean nothing.

I agree. Kinda like the word "torture."

Good Comment there buster. I guess it just depends upon which side of the fence you are on.

[Joe_in_RP]

Folks, this is a diversion. They are distracting you here while they do something you will not like elsewhere.

[Woody]

All I know is that this makes the US look weak. How many warships do we need to take care of this little raft with pirates? Geeezzz

[bonnie]

All I know is that this makes the US look weak. How many warships do we need to take care of this little raft with pirates? Geeezzz

Pirate ships are on the way to the american cargo ship planning on using the hostages they held as a human shield to "rescue" the pirates holding the captain captive.What a brave group

[phkrause]

I don't think this makes anyone look weak. I think this shows that we are concerned for the life of the man that gave himself up for his crew. This is the kind of thing that terrorists take advantage of when dealing with the USA. They know that we are unwilling to waste lives. But I'll tell you if they kill the captain of the ship I think the US will destroy the hijackers, ship and crew. What I don't understand is why we've let this go on for the past few years.

pk

[Key Guy]

1. I'm willing to bet big bucks that the administration is not on their knees in the Oval Office asking for God's leading and intervention.

2. What would John Wayne do? That rhetorical question just means that a character like he normally played would have done something definitive... and quickly.

3. If you were the captain being held, would you want your life spared at any cost? Would you want the country you loved to be aggressive, even if it meant your life? I think the answer to that has been answered already with his attempted escape overnight, knowing the risk. His actions should be a really big hint as to what he would like done.

[phkrause]

Yes I understand what your saying, and agree. But the US has always done this for many years. Or as far back as I can recall, no matter who is in office.

pk

[Bravus]

Incoherent. Apparently the president should drop everything - stop looking after the lives of the other 300 million Americans - in order to deal with this one situation with one life at stake (is it the life of an American citizen? I believe the ship is American registered but Norwegian (?) owned and operated). But apparently it also doesn't really matter if the captain gets killed in the firefight: just as long as America gets tough and kills somebody, it's all good.

[Bravus]

On torture, it's really pretty simple: you know it if it's happening to you.

Terrorism has a specific meaning about the use of violence to change policy. That is not the goal of these pirates - they want to make money from ransoms. Therefore what they are doing is not terrorism. It's really pretty simple.

[Key Guy]

Quote:

as long as America gets tough and kills somebody, it's all good.

Yeah, baby. But I would define 'somebody' as a bad guy or two.

next subject