1) That particular claim would not be coming from the pirates (alleged), so I will assume that in order to remain consistent you meant the statement should be taken as gospel.
2) So we are now in a war with Somali pirates and we should be able to kill Somali fishermen willy nilly and if they don't to be shot they shouldn't fish where there might be pirates?

In your desperate efforts to legitimize the pirates, (Or is it more correctly regarded as an effort to de-legitimize the US?)

Let's separate out the two.
Number one merely pointed out your misreading of the original.
Number two points out the consequences of your proposed course of action.
We do and should continue hold ourselves and our nation to a higher standard than pirates, terrorists, or other bad actors. Your proposed course of action on these and apparently all fronts is to descend to the level of the worst actor involved (at least until some undefined future conflict free time).

Did I say "By virtue of their being there'

Very much like your 'I predict' gambit. Require a specific formulation and attempt to deflect because you did not use that exact formulation.
You advocate ignoring rule of law and abandoning any legal oversight, the result of this is no consequences for killing the wrong people and more innocents dead.

Willy nilly is of course hyperbole. What you write I fear is not intended as such.

1) That particular claim would not be coming from the pirates (alleged), so I will assume that in order to remain consistent you meant the statement should be taken as gospel.
2) So we are now in a war with Somali pirates and we should be able to kill Somali fishermen willy nilly and if they don't to be shot they shouldn't fish where there might be pirates?

In your desperate efforts to legitimize the pirates, (Or is it more correctly regarded as an effort to de-legitimize the US?) you seem to be leaving logical thinking further and further behind. Not to mention what's actually been said.

Remember, the fishermen by virtue of their presence in the same area as pirates are also pirates and should be treated as such.

And at what point did I actually say that, pray? Did I say "By virtue of their being there', or 'by virtue of their shooting at us'?

Right, and when you show up after the fact and the guys claim they were shot at, what do you do?

Ignore the claim. We're in a war, after all.

Two things.
1) That particular claim would not be coming from the pirates (alleged), so I will assume that in order to remain consistent you meant the statement should be taken as gospel.
2) So we are now in a war with Somali pirates and we should be able to kill Somali fishermen willy nilly and if they don't to be shot they shouldn't fish where there might be pirates?

Ya know, Anjin, it'd be helpful for your image if just once, the people you leap up to defned against America, invoking the 'ruule of law' actually gave a crap about our laws and the culture therein... and weren't about destroying it.

Because, as an extension of Bit's rules for terrorists, all accused pirates are actual pirates and out to destroy America and so should be executed and/or tortured.
Remember, the fishermen by virtue of their presence in the same area as pirates are also pirates and should be treated as such. This obviates the need to point out that no one who mistakenly killed a fisherman would claim that fisherman was a pirate.

marc, I suspect that Lt. Cmdr. Fernandes is adhering rigorously to the fiction that the area where the pirates were apprehended was within the jurisdiction of the Somalia and, consequently, the Convention on the LOTS didn't apply.

It's rather reminiscent of one of those newspaper cartoons, “How many things can you find wrong with this picture?”. Somalia is a state in name only (at best) and doesn't have the capacity to apprehend pirates even within its supposed jurisdiction.

@Anjin; Re-read this comment by Dave, and tell me again about the rule of law.

Right, and when you show up after the fact and the guys claim they were shot at, what do you do?

Ignore the claim. We're in a war, after all.

At least skippy is being honest about his true feelings regarding the rule of law.

Ya know, Anjin, it'd be helpful for your image if just once, the people you leap up to defned against America, invoking the 'ruule of law' actually gave a crap about our laws and the culture therein... and weren't about destroying it.

a "nautical mile" is a measure of distance. A "knot" is a measure of speed (nautical miles per hour).

That's right!

Many if not most of them are occurring well outside that range -- often hundreds of knots outside.

Anal retentive editing note: a "nautical mile" is a measure of distance. A "knot" is a measure of speed (nautical miles per hour).

The Article’s principle contention is that many of the difficulties in dealing with pirates are exactly the same ones presented by terrorists and Guantánamo detainees. If anything prosecuting pirates should be easier because they have no obvious political constituency. Thus, the piracy fiasco has cautionary implications for the idea that terrorists can easily be dealt with through regular civilian law enforcement mechanisms. Also attached is a piece in the forthcoming American Journal of international law about the first universal jurisdiction piracy case decided by America in hundreds of years, decided by the Ninth Circuit last year. The little noticed case also demonstrates the difficulties involved — the entire crew had to be detained on material witness warrants, translators found for everybody, etc.

LINK

It looks like a cop out by NATO and the nations involved. Why invent NATO Rules when there are perfectly adequate international rules available.

I quoted from Proceedings the other day but here is part of what Commander James Kraska, JAGC, U.S. Navy, and Captain Brian Wilson, JAGC, U.S. Navy wrote about the right to capture and detain pirates and their vessels:

"The UNCLOS, the UN Charter, and more broadly, customary international law, provide authority that may be invoked for seizing a pirate ship, boarding a ship on the high seas, conducting hot pursuit, and taking action in furtherance of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense. On the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of a state, any nation may seize a pirated ship, arrest the pirates, and seize the property on board and submit the matter to its civil and criminal courts. Only warships and military aircraft or vessels in government service, however, may exercise this authority."

WRT to the 12 mile limit. The same article notes that UN Resolution 1816 authorizes anti-piracy operations inside the 12 mile limit.

"which was decided under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore legally binding on all states, called on them to cooperate in counter piracy actions off the coast of Somalia. The resolution authorizes operations inside Somalia's territorial waters to deny that area as a safe haven for pirates who operate outside the 12-mile limit. It also provides for disposition and logistics of persons-under-control detained as a result of counter piracy operations."

It's rather reminiscent of one of those newspaper cartoons, “How many things can you find wrong with this picture?”. Somalia is a state in name only (at best) and doesn't have the capacity to apprehend pirates even within its supposed jurisdiction.

Mind if I raise the BS Flag? NATO is in the area under a UN directive.

Well then I'd suggest Lt. Cmdr. Fernandes read Article 105, "Seizure of a pirate ship or aircraft" of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that reads as:

On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

Damn sure looks like a legal basis for arrest to me.

But what the hell do I know.

over reliance on law

At least skippy is being honest about his true feelings regarding the rule of law.

Here's a clue: If they're shooting at you...

Right, and when you show up after the fact and the guys claim they were shot at, what do you do? Nothing. So guess what you just created a new cottage industry of piracy where you scream "they're coming right at us" before killing the people and taking their boat, and its all nice and legal because there's no system of review or laws against it.

Thank you so much.

Some people just don't get the concept of due process.

Oh, I think they understand quite well what it suppsoedly is intended to do.

They also know, however, what it does in reality, all too often... and in turn, then, the danger that imposes on us all, in cases such as terrorism.

ut you have no system to make sure the people being killed are in fact guilty of anything, merely the word of those who, you know, hung or shot them.

Here's a clue: If they're shooting at you...