NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, another pirate thread on NS General!

But this one is vaguely serious.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp

It's an incredibly interesting concept - treat terrorists in the same way that we treat pirates (and we have plenty of historical precedence for relations between nationstates and pirates - look at how the US handled the Barbary Pirates).

Coming up with such a framework would perhaps seem impossible, except that one already exists. Dusty and anachronistic, perhaps, but viable all the same. More than 2,000 years ago, Marcus Tullius Cicero defined pirates in Roman law as hostis humani generis, "enemies of the human race." From that day until now, pirates have held a unique status in the law as international criminals subject to universal jurisdiction —- meaning that they may be captured wherever they are found, by any person who finds them. The ongoing war against pirates is the only known example of state vs. nonstate conflict until the advent of the war on terror, and its history is long and notable. More important, there are enormous potential benefits of applying this legal definition to contemporary terrorism.

Read the entire article. It is well worth the read, and an incredibly good idea.

Probably the core of the article linked to:
Piracy has flourished on the high seas for as long as maritime commerce has existed between states. Yet its meaning as a crime has varied considerably. The Roman definition of hostis humani generis fell into disuse by the fifth century A.D. with the decline of the empire. But the act didn't disappear with the definition. By 912, pirates along the coasts of Western Europe who styled themselves as "sea-warriors," or Vikings, had terrorized Britain and conquered Normandy. In the early Middle Ages, with no national navies to quash them, pirates held sway over nearly every trade route in Europe. Kings like Edward I of England then began to grant "Commissions of Reprisal" to merchantmen, entitling them to attack both pirate ships and any other merchant vessel flying the same country's flag as the one flown by the pirates they had seen before.

By the 16th century, piracy had emerged as an essential, though unsavory, tool of statecraft. Queen Elizabeth viewed English pirates as adjuncts to the royal navy, and regularly granted them "letters of marque" (later known as privateering, or piracy, commissions) to harass Spanish trade.

It was a brilliant maneuver. The mariners who received these letters, most notably the famed explorers Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh, amassed immense fortunes for themselves and the Crown, wreaked havoc on Spanish fleets, and terrorized Spain's shoreside cities. Meanwhile, the queen could preserve the vestiges of diplomatic relations, reacting with feigned horror to revelations of the pirates' depredations. Witness, for example, the queen's disingenuous instructions saying that if Raleigh "shall at any time or times hereafter robbe or spoile by sea or by lance, or do any acte of unjust or unlawful hostilities [he shall] make full restitution, and satisfaction of all such injuries done." When Raleigh did what Elizabeth had forbidden—namely, sack and pillage the ports of then-ally Spain—Elizabeth knighted him.

This precedent would be repeated time and again until the mid-19th century, as the Western powers regularly employed pirates to wage secret wars. After a series of draconian laws passed by George I of England effectively banished pirates from the Atlantic, the Mediterranean corsairs emerged as pre-eminent maritime mercenaries in the employ of any European state wishing to harass another. This situation proved disastrous. The corsairs refused to curtail their activities after each war's conclusion, and the states realized that they had created an uncontrollable force. It was this realization that led to the Declaration of Paris in 1856, signed by England, France, Spain, and most other European nations, which abolished the use of piracy for state purposes. Piracy became and remained beyond the pale of legitimate state behavior.

IF THIS CHRONOLOGY SEEMS FAMILIAR, IT SHOULD.

I've always thought the closest analogy to the current problems with terrorism was the British war on piracy two centuries ago.

Read the entire article. It is well worth the read, and an incredibly good idea.

Sorry, it's a little too long for me. I like to pick out the main idea from a news report within the first few paragraphs.

Sorry, it's a little too long for me. I like to pick out the main idea from a news report within the first few paragraphs.

Go ahead, confine yourself to soundbites and headlines. Just make sure you don't vote.

Go ahead, confine yourself to soundbites and headlines. Just make sure you don't vote.

I read the news everyday, just not reports that are 37 paragraphs long! I form my own opinions, and I just don't care much for this issue.

d

Wow. A first for NS General. A pirate thread where no one could be bothered to read the article linked to.

Makes me wonder if people ask for links, just to say "linky".

Here's betting that most people can't be arsed to read a linked article.

Didn't pirates fall into a "shoot on sight" category? Something like that couldn't be done nowadays.

Didn't pirates fall into a "shoot on sight" category? Something like that couldn't be done nowadays.

Yes it can. On the high seas, you can shoot pirates on sight.

Long established law.

Those "pirates" off the coast of Somalia recently? The US Navy shoots them on sight. And not because they're the US Navy - it's 100% legal.

Yes it can. On the high seas, you can shoot pirates on sight.

Long established law.

Those "pirates" off the coast of Somalia recently? The US Navy shoots them on sight. And not because they're the US Navy - it's 100% legal.

I guess it is certainly understandable. Still shooting terrorists on sight while satisfying would result in their being dead and not able to give us information to possibly learn of future attacks.

I guess it is certainly understandable. Still shooting terrorists on sight while satisfying would result in their being dead and not able to give us information to possibly learn of future attacks.

Have you had a chance to peruse the article yet?

Yes it can. On the high seas, you can shoot pirates on sight.

Long established law.

Those "pirates" off the coast of Somalia recently? The US Navy shoots them on sight. And not because they're the US Navy - it's 100% legal.

Its good practice for them.

Ninjas.




No pirate thread is complete without the comparisson. Though terrorists aren't really like ninjas.

Have you had a chance to peruse the article yet?

I read what you posted as the "core" of the article.

An interesting idea. I can see it now being debated in UNGA! Maybe you could write a resolution for our NS UN forum? I would attempt to give it a go but I actually forgot to apply for UN membership.

An interesting idea. I can see it now being debated in UNGA! Maybe you could write a resolution for our NS UN forum? I would attempt to give it a go but I actually forgot to apply for UN membership.
I could write it up. Has there been a previous resolution about piracy in the UN forum?

Thus the mens rea of piracy—the desire to inflict death, destruction, or deprivation of property through violent acts accompanied by deliberate use of terrorism—is a close cousin to the perceived mens rea of organized terrorism. The main distinction between them is that, although pirates might use terror as a means to an end or an end in itself, terrorists necessarily employ it for the latter purpose.

This, to me, is the most important sentence in the article. If a prosecutor could succesfully argue that an individual or group of individuals commited an act of depravity as an end in itself, in an impartial court, then someone could be justly imprisoned for terrorism. If, as the author suggests, an international criminal court is used, such problems as Guantanamo would not exist.

This would also protect soldiers and freedom fighters as well. If they could argue that a valid military objective was the end goal, and the acts of depravity were merely an end to that goal, the defendants could not be charged as terrorists, though they could still be charged as common criminals.

Nice article, DK.

This, to me, is the most important sentence in the article. If a prosecutor could succesfully argue that an individual or group of individuals commited an act of depravity as an end in itself, in an impartial court, then someone could be justly imprisoned for terrorism. If, as the author suggests, an international criminal court is used, such problems as Guantanamo would not exist.

This would also protect soldiers and freedom fighters as well. If they could argue that a valid military objective was the end goal, and the acts of depravity were merely an end to that goal, the defendants could not be charged as terrorists, though they could still be charged as common criminals.

Nice article, DK.

I thought that the parallel between state-sponsored piracy and state-sponsored terrorism was extremely well done.

Well considering the horrific ways in which pirates were often dealt with... no, let's not. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

And the key issue here is that Pirates may(note the may, I'm sceptical on this one) have been at war against any and all, making them enemies of all mankind, but with almost no exceptions do terrorists fit that mould. They have declared ends and declared enemies, and are in no sense declaring war on the world. Rather, the problem is that they do not obey a proper code of conduct in achieving those ends and defeating those enemies. They butcher civilians, making themselves criminals. But to call them subhumans, or people with no rights, or universal enemies of mankind is... how to put this... incorrect in an extreme.

Yes, another pirate thread on NS General!

But this one is vaguely serious.

http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/July-August-2005/feature_burgess_julaug05.msp

It's an incredibly interesting concept - treat terrorists in the same way that we treat pirates (and we have plenty of historical precedence for relations between nationstates and pirates - look at how the US handled the Barbary Pirates).



Read the entire article. It is well worth the read, and an incredibly good idea.
Good points brought out in that article. Considering a terrorist or a pirate as an enemy of humanity is the right path to take. As I read the latter part of the article, I realize that Reagan "got it" on yet another level when it came to protecting American interests.

Well considering the horrific ways in which pirates were often dealt with... no, let's not. This is the 21st century, let's act like it.

And the key issue here is that Pirates may(note the may, I'm sceptical on this one) have been at war against any and all, making them enemies of all mankind, but with almost no exceptions do terrorists fit that mould. They have declared ends and declared enemies, and are in no sense declaring war on the world. Rather, the problem is that they do not obey a proper code of conduct in achieving those ends and defeating those enemies. They butcher civilians, making themselves criminals. But to call them subhumans, or people with no rights, or universal enemies of mankind is... how to put this... incorrect in an extreme.

The last person you need to feel compassion for is a pirate. I've known two Vietnamese that escaped from Vietnam on a raft. Both were the sole survivors of their encounter and only because they were so close to dead that they looked dead. Modern day pirates are no different than their predecessors. And they deserve no better treatment.

The last person you need to feel compassion for is a pirate. I've known two Vietnamese that escaped from Vietnam on a raft. Both were the sole survivors of their encounter and only because they were so close to dead that they looked dead. Modern day pirates are no different than their predecessors. And they deserve no better treatment.

No. Pirates may be villanous scum, but they are still humans, with human rights. You don't give up your most basic rights just because you're being a dick. Sometimes different groups rights need to be balanced properly, like my right not to be pirated might infringe on his right to Liberty, but at no point can we say they deserve a gross violation of their rights.

No. Pirates may be villanous scum, but they are still humans, with human rights. You don't give up your most basic rights just because you're being a dick. Sometimes different groups rights need to be balanced properly, like my right not to be pirated might infringe on his right to Liberty, but at no point can we say they deserve a gross violation of their rights.

As far as pirates are concerned, it's already a matter of settled international law.

If I'm a naval vessel, and I catch pirates in the act, I can sink their ship and machinegun the survivors in the water with absolutely no repercussions.

It's only at the discretion of my ship's commander that I let any of them live.

Still reading through the article, but this caught my eye, so... Meh.

By the crew and passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft . . . against another ship or aircraft or against persons or property on board."

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but that doesn't seem to fit the modern usage of hijacking, in which the passengers aboard a (private?) aircraft sieze control of that aircraft. The definition quoted seems to imply that two seperate aircraft are required.

Still reading through the article, but this caught my eye, so... Meh.

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but that doesn't seem to fit the modern usage of hijacking, in which the passengers aboard a (private?) aircraft sieze control of that aircraft. The definition quoted seems to imply that two seperate aircraft are required.

Even if pirates board a victim ship from a pier, it's still piracy when they attack the ship.

As far as pirates are concerned, it's already a matter of settled international law.

If I'm a naval vessel, and I catch pirates in the act, I can sink their ship and machinegun the survivors in the water with absolutely no repercussions.

It's only at the discretion of my ship's commander that I let any of them live.

Someone as anti-UN as you should know by now that 'well that's settled international law' isn't really an argument. Laws can be wrong, and in this case, I'd argue they are. A pirate doesn't give up his humanity, thus he doesn't give up his human rights, which include such minor things as not being machinegunned to death.

Are they criminals who deserve to be punished? Hell yes. This is why the world's nations have courts, waterborne police and prisons. Are they subhuman scum we can kill at will? Nope.

Even if pirates board a victim ship from a pier, it's still piracy when they attack the ship.

This is according to what legal definition?

Someone as anti-UN as you should know by now that 'well that's settled international law' isn't really an argument. Laws can be wrong, and in this case, I'd argue they are. A pirate doesn't give up his humanity, thus he doesn't give up his human rights, which include such minor things as not being machinegunned to death.

Are they criminals who deserve to be punished? Hell yes. This is why the world's nations have courts, waterborne police and prisons. Are they subhuman scum we can kill at will? Nope.

On the high seas, it's not only legal, it's common practice.

Firing up a boat full of pirates off of Somalia until the boat is shredded metal and wood, and the humans on board are hamburger in the water is standard practice.

Go ahead, confine yourself to soundbites and headlines. Just make sure you don't vote.

Talking points! :p

On the high seas, it's not only legal, it's common practice.

Firing up a boat full of pirates off of Somalia until the boat is shredded metal and wood, and the humans on board are hamburger in the water is standard practice.

... again, I do not discuss the world as it is. I speak of what is right and wrong. Those two are often in conflict.

... again, I do not discuss the world as it is. I speak of what is right and wrong. Those two are often in conflict.

It sure keeps the number of pirates down, which is more than we can say about terrorists.

It sure keeps the number of pirates down, which is more than we can say about terrorists.

And if I killed everyone in Compton without a trial or conviction, it would sure keep the gangbangers numbers down. But it wouldn't be right.

God, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

God, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.
God, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

echo echo echo echo

DK is right...and (unless I am missing something so far) he stating fact....not opinion...

DK is right...and (unless I am missing something so far) he stating fact....not opinion...

I do believe you're missing something. I keep saying 'X is wrong.' He keeps saying 'X is happening.' I say 'But I don't care. I'm saying X is wrong.' Then he responds with 'X is helping.' And I respond with '... so? X is still wrong.' It's like having two different conversations at once, and it's getting tiring.

I do believe you're missing something. I keep saying 'X is wrong.' He keeps saying 'X is happening.' I say 'But I don't care. I'm saying X is wrong.' Then he responds with 'X is helping.' And I respond with '... so? X is still wrong.' It's like having two different conversations at once, and it's getting tiring.

Who said laws/punishments had to be moral?

Who said laws/punishments had to be moral?

I'm more concerned with whether a law or punishment actually works.

To some extent, morality can be a consideration, but not the primary one.

But if a law works, I'm all for it.

Who said laws/punishments had to be moral?

Pretty much any basic theory of governance requires laws to be just. A government that upholds injustice is not legitimate.

I'm more concerned with whether a law or punishment actually works.

To some extent, morality can be a consideration, but not the primary one.

But if a law works, I'm all for it.

The ends rarely if ever justify the means, especially if the means are barbaric and unjust.

Pretty much any basic theory of governance requires laws to be just. A government that upholds injustice is not legitimate.

Tell that to the Aztecs!

Tell that to the Aztecs!

LOL. I've seen the light, and it took a 15th century IndoAmerican empire renown for human sacrifice to do it. I'm sorry I ever doubted you guys.

I can't help myself from thinking of grizzled turban-wearing men swinging from ropes and yelling 'Allahu Ack-Yar!'.

On the high seas, it's not only legal, it's common practice.

Firing up a boat full of pirates off of Somalia until the boat is shredded metal and wood, and the humans on board are hamburger in the water is standard practice.

I don't know where the controversy in this issue comes from. This is the same treatment that I would give an uninvited guest to my home, who was bent on mischief. Except it would be with a shotgun and not a machine gun.

I'm more concerned with whether a law or punishment actually works.

To some extent, morality can be a consideration, but not the primary one.

But if a law works, I'm all for it.

To be honest, the law from the article would only work if we had an International Criminal Court that could prosecute legally elected government officials. Otherwise, states could still harbor terrorists with impunity. This would only work with the consent of most nations in the world. Unfortunately, international opposition to such a court makes this law unworkable right now.