Posted on 02/24/2011 9:27:43 AM PST by Pan_Yan
In the context of death, which was the context in which I posted my comment, it doesn't seem like the maximum. Perhaps you think life in prison is the "maximum punishment". I don't.
"The FBI agents knowingly corresponded with pirates in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1657. Are they in jail yet? "
Fascinating logic. Capt. Richard Phillips of the Alabama Mersk had numerous conversations with the pirates, as did most of his crew. I suppose they should be in jail too, right?
I little common sense, goes a very long way. Just saying.
I disagree. Take them back to their home port an hang them for all to see. Let their last value to this world be as an example to others.
I suspect that if you were to examine the records of domestic hostage situations, MANY would involve drugs and/or alcohol. That is one reason they tend to be so problematic for domestic law enforcement agencies - the cops frequently don't know how medicated the perps are - tweakers, junkies and other drug addled miscreants are frequently just looking to get enough cash for their next score and that innate drug-induced instability is what oftentimes causes a robbery to go bad.
"of our enemies, even at the expense of Americans on the ground. Thus, this is a matter for “Law Enforcement”, not the military, and these guys need to be arrested, not killed. "
Then, you need to change the law. But, the law as it exists today, is quite clear. The US Navy is not in the execution business. It's in the war business. To the extent that pirates can be engaged in non-territorial waters is pretty clear, legally - they can only be engaged legally when they are either firing upon US (or non-combatant) vessels, or have boarded a ship under hostile conditions.
Lastly, I wonder how many of the people commenting have spent even a few days on the open seas. There seems to be a prevailing opinion that the US Navy could have diffused this situation with a couple super-double-top-secret SEAL insertions that surely would have happened absent the intervention of the FBI and Obama himself. It's patently absurd.
We're talking about boarding a stand-off vessel in open waters while at the same time, four hostages literally have automatic weapons trained on their heads. The FBI played the only card they had - negotiation. And, it was right to pick the FBI to play that card, because ship captains aren't trained to negotiate with hostage takers. Now, whether that card was played appropriately or not, is for others to decide. I'm not a hostage negotiator, nor was I there. But given the tactical situation, talking was the only realistic option at that time.
the Q ship fans should read their history. in the case of u boats Q ships are effective only when the sub surfaces and
conducts a attacks according to the ‘cruiser rules’, i.e.
boarding, checking the cargo manifest, evacuate the ship and then scuttle or sink it with gunfire or demolition.
u boat captains quickly realized that a torpedo was a lot faster and safer.
Why, on God’s Earth, would FBI agents be involved with pirates in foreign waters?
This is a job strictly for the Navy.
Fascinating logic.
I agree.
I little common sense, goes a very long way. Just saying.
However, since this has become a legal discussion the chances of even a small amount of common sense showing up is slim.
Piracy has always existed, but in the last two years, the number of attacks in that area has climbed from about 358 to 444 (and until the late 90s, it was negligible). So that means the situation has been changing for several years, has recently gotten much worse, and needs a much firmer response than what a bank robber who kidnaps some hostages might get. This is a different situation; furthermore, the money goes to organizations (that is, terrorist organizations) and is not just somebody’s way to make a fast buck.
The captain of the USS Bainbridge, a guy named CDR Castellano, offered to tow the pirates that were holding Phillips in a life-boat. Castallano wasn't a hostage, was he? And, not only did he tow them, he also offered them food & water. Surely, Castellano's trial will come before the FBI agent's, right?
"However, since this has become a legal discussion the chances of even a small amount of common sense showing up is slim."
That's right, even wars have laws, at least they do in the west.
Perhaps you'd feel better if we crowned Kings, rather than elect Presidents and legislators? Kings after all, aren't encumbered by all that legal business and stuff.
Good grief, the stupidity of some people who claim that they're conservative, is sometimes breathtaking.
No, they wouldn’t be alive - or if they were, they’d be wishing they were dead. Read about how the pirates treated some British yachters they caught.
And what about the people on freighters who have been captured? They’re just doing their job, but the pirates are so emboldened now that the pirates hold more than 30 ships and hundreds of people of all nationalities. That is not the fault of the victims, regardless of who they are.
These sailors were not in Somali waters and American sailors, in any case, have usually been ignored because the pirates thought it might be too dangerous to them. Obviously they don’t think that way anymore.
But why are you willing to hand over a whole stretch of the ocean to a bunch of crazy qat-chewing primitives who believe they’re doing Allah’s work (since a lot of the money goes to terrorist causes after the war-lords get their share)? We can’t let that happen.
It’s like saying that if you get mugged, you shouldn’t have been out on the street in the first place. That’s idiotic, and all blaming the victim does is embolden the criminals.
The dead Americans aren’t talking. They don’t have that option any more.
You think the FBI team has sea legs? Did any get sea sick? Did being on a rocking boat mid-ocean after a half-day flight out degrade their judgment?
Just tell us, what damn good did any talking do?
You’re the one with the 25 years experience in the field of Naval Law. You pointed out a section of USC that says one thing, I pointed out another. So rather than use your vast knowledge and experience to show me how the FBI agents were not violating 18 U.S.C. § 1657 you started throwing up straw men and name calling.
You must have been a hell of a lawyer.
Sometimes the truth hurts, I guess. If you think what I posted was a "straw man" argument, then you don't understand the term, which wouldn't surprise me.
"You must have been a hell of a lawyer."
Believe me, it doesn't take a lawyer to understand (and point out) how facially absurd your argument was.
By the way, if you want legal speak, I'd start with mens rea, and work from there.
Primary error: thinking of piracy as Law Enforcement problem rather than a military problem. Everything else devoloved from there.
Once again, you're the expert. If my argument is "facially absurd" then you should have been able to explain why in one post, instead of name calling in three.
One person's "name calling", is another person's detailing of the the absurd. Just saying.
And, you compound your absurdity by not extending your argument to its logical conclusion. If you believe the FBI is in violation of US code for "corresponding" with pirates, then if you are going to be intellectually honest, you must also believe that any US Navy personnel who correspond with the same pirates would be equally culpable.
And no, that not a straw man argument, that's just a hypothetical extension of your posited theory.
Law enforcement agents negotiating the surrender of criminals, or a peaceful release of illegally detained citizens, are not after the fact criminal accomplices. But, that's EXACTLY the argument you're making. I'm not sure what else to call it, other than "facially absurd". I'm sorry that you think that's "name calling".
I cede the field. I still don’t think the FBI should be negotiating with pirates, and I am more than a little concerned about how much operational control of a Navy mission they may have had. Clearly the USC shouldn’t be applied to agent of the government acting in official capacity, however I would be curious as to where that is defined.
Read my response again and focus on the part where they deliberately left the relative safety of the small flotilla that had been organized (by fellow yachtsmen) to ensure some degree of a safe passage thru these dangerous waters. That was incredibly stupid on their part, actions have consequences, and when people act in a stupid & irresponsible manner they should expect to deal with the results of their action. Not put others in harms way to extricate them from a situation that could have been avoided.
They just leave a trail of dead bodies -- the families and friends of others. Like Chief Moose during the DC Sniper era -- the wrong men in the wrong place at the wrong time ends up killing people. Yet they still can claim that they were fully professional and fully legal.
Get out of the way! Let the right men in. That's duty. It's also law too.
There's a civil and administrative culpability at some point.
You are right of course. The FBI is outside the chain of command of the naval commanders there, that alone creates friction, failures in communication, gaps in reaction — bad vibes. In such a situation even bad vibes are killing forces.
You can’t win on points of classroom and wood-paneled hearing room law here, that’s true. But that also is not the field.
Tell ODH to try holding a criminal trial in the middle of a prison yard when the inmates are out, and the guards are on strike. Maybe that would be an experience for him to use as a comparison.
The field in this case was one tiny boat and one big boat on a open sea, with killers and hostages on the small one. The law there is rescue. One word: rescue.
Like in that hypothetical trial in a wild jail yard — the law there would be one word too: survival.
ODH loves his law. But his kind of law as he loves it got 4 innocents killed.
Who knows? What we do know is that things went wrong, and a good commander's role is to reduce what can go wrong. Having a non-Navy team on that boat added greatly to what could go wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.