Author Topic: What do they do with the teenage pirate who lived? (Read 2099 times)

240 is Back · « **on:** April 13, 2009, 09:55:56 AM »

FOX news reported this AM the pirate is between 14 and 16 years old.

3 options...
1) Try him in NYC as per FBI jurisdiction
2) Have kenya try him
3) turn him over to somalia.

What should they do?
It'll be a slap on the wrist if they try him in America. if a 14 year old tries armed piracy, he'll be out by age 21, right?
Somalia is lawless... imo thye'll release or glorify him.
Kenya? Maybe they string him up?

Hereford · « **Reply #1 on:** April 13, 2009, 09:58:28 AM »

Put him in Genpop in San Quentin.

loco · « **Reply #2 on:** April 13, 2009, 10:03:47 AM »

Deicide · « **Reply #3 on:** April 13, 2009, 10:09:48 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on April 13, 2009, 09:55:56 AM

FOX news reported this AM the pirate is between 14 and 16 years old.

3 options...
1) Try him in NYC as per FBI jurisdiction
2) Have kenya try him
3) turn him over to somalia.

What should they do?
It'll be a slap on the wrist if they try him in America. if a 14 year old tries armed piracy, he'll be out by age 21, right?
Somalia is lawless... imo thye'll release or glorify him.
Kenya? Maybe they string him up?

Who cares? We should have never gotten involved in their business back in the 90's and we should have never used Ethiopia to topple their government and invade in the 2000's. It's a big mess and the best solution is to stay away from it all.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #4 on:** April 13, 2009, 11:57:38 AM »

Quote from: loco on April 13, 2009, 10:03:47 AM

lol.

According to this they were 17 to 19, not 14 to 16:

Gates: Pirates Were Heavily Armed Teenagers

Monday, April 13, 2009 2:30 PM

The Somali pirates who took a US merchant captain hostage for five days were heavily armed but inexperienced youths, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday, adding that the hijackers were aged 17 to 19.

The pirates who kidnapped Captain Richard Phillips, three of whom were killed by US Navy snipers Sunday, were "untrained teenagers with heavy weapons," Gates told a group of 30 students and faculty members at the Marine Corps War College in Quantico, Virginia.

"There is no purely military solution to" piracy in the region, he added.

"As long as you've got this incredible number of poor people and the risks are relatively small, there's really no way in my view to control it unless you get something on land that begins to change the equation for these kids."

A Pentagon spokesman confirmed Gates' quotes, which were first reported in the American Forces Press Service.

President Barack Obama on Monday said the United States was resolved to hold those who prey on merchant shipping accountable.

Earlier, he pledged to combat the rise of piracy off the coast of Somalia, after naval forces rescued Phillips from the small lifeboat where he was being held, surrounded by US warships.

"We remain resolved to halt the rise of piracy in this region," said Obama.

"To achieve that goal, we must continue to work with our partners to prevent future attacks, be prepared to interdict acts of piracy and ensure that those who commit acts of piracy are held accountable for their crimes."

Phillips, who commanded the US-flagged cargo ship Maersk Alabama, was held captive after the American crew on Wednesday fought off the pirates' attempt to capture it.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pirates_gates/2009/04/13/202495.html

headhuntersix · « **Reply #5 on:** April 13, 2009, 11:59:54 AM »

Ok well..as I don't care about Somalia or any of its people, I might agree. But, since toppling the shitbag terrorist government barely running that place was in our best interest, once again Decide has his head in the sand. I don't want to rebuild it, feed it..or anything else...i want the pirates to die and the rest to leave our ships alone.

Deicide · « **Reply #6 on:** April 13, 2009, 12:13:25 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on April 13, 2009, 11:59:54 AM

Ok well..as I don't care about Somalia or any of its people, I might agree. But, since toppling the shitbag terrorist government barely running that place was in our best interest, once again Decide has his head in the sand. I don't want to rebuild it, feed it..or anything else...i want the pirates to die and the rest to leave our ships alone.

Please explain to me why A) Clinton's intervention was necessary and B) why hiring out a foreign government to do dirty work we weren't willing to do are in US interests. You consistently call me anti-American yet I disagree because the foreign policy I am proposing is very PRO American. There is no need for us to be involved in some third world dirthole and it only brings us misery.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #7 on:** April 13, 2009, 12:25:01 PM »

Clinton did not intervene...Bush Sr sent humanitarian aid as part of the usual UN whining. We sent in Marines that were able to get the aid in and they did a pretty damm good job. Once Clinton came in,the ROE changed. The Marines pulled out and the Army began to go after the terrorists..we call this mission creep. The Army also asked for Armor and AC-130 gunships...the White House or State pissed their panties and saw this as an escalation. That was denied but we kept on with the missions. This resulted in losing 19 heroe and the US pull-out. This emboldened BIn Laden and led directly to 911. Obama has one job here...kill pirates. No rice...no UN bs..kill bad guys and get out. 3rd world dirtholes now breed shitbags who fly planes into buildings...rubble doesn't make trouble.

Deicide · « **Reply #8 on:** April 13, 2009, 12:43:09 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on April 13, 2009, 12:25:01 PM

Clinton did not intervene...Bush Sr sent humanitarian aid as part of the usual UN whining. We sent in Marines that were able to get the aid in and they did a pretty damm good job. Once Clinton came in,the ROE changed. The Marines pulled out and the Army began to go after the terrorists..we call this mission creep. The Army also asked for Armor and AC-130 gunships...the White House or State pissed their panties and saw this as an escalation. That was denied but we kept on with the missions. This resulted in losing 19 heroe and the US pull-out. This emboldened BIn Laden and led directly to 911. Obama has one job here...kill pirates. No rice...no UN bs..kill bad guys and get out. 3rd world dirtholes now breed shitbags who fly planes into buildings...rubble doesn't make trouble.

They breed them because we constantly meddle (unnecessarily) in their affairs, at the behest of the UN, or for other reasons. If we stopped meddling in their activities would cool down as well. Most practically it is a waste of taxpayer money and if you have to spend then do it domestically or even better save.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #9 on:** April 13, 2009, 12:58:28 PM »

No ur right....when we didn't get involved in the Balkans, they killed tens of thousands, and we have'nt gotten involved in Darfur...they're pretty close to killing everybody there...things really settle down when there is nobody left to kill..plus that stuff never spills over to other peaceful places..places where we have interests...yep ur right.

Deicide · « **Reply #10 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:03:17 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on April 13, 2009, 12:58:28 PM

No ur right....when we didn't get involved in the Balkans, they killed tens of thousands, and we have'nt gotten involved in Darfur...they're pretty close to killing everybody there...things really settle down when there is nobody left to kill..plus that stuff never spills over to other peaceful places..places where we have interests...yep ur right.

The Balkans; if you study the evidence, there is little supporting the idea that tens of thousands were killed and even if they were it was highly unlikely to spill over into 'peaceful' nations. Dafur is far more complicated than we are led to believe but nonetheless there are people being killed; I fail to see how that is our responsibility. Interests? You mean control of oil, gas and other natural resources? Why can't we just buy the stuff off the market like say, Holland and Japan do?

Stormspirit · « **Reply #11 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:03:50 PM »

Somalians are scum of the earth

Stormspirit · « **Reply #12 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:07:06 PM »

Quote from: Deicide on April 13, 2009, 12:43:09 PM

The Balkans; if you study the evidence, there is little supporting the idea that tens of thousands were killed and even if they were it was highly unlikely to spill over into 'peaceful' nations. Dafur is far more complicated than we are led to believe but nonetheless there are people being killed; I fail to see how that is our responsibility. Interests? You mean control of oil, gas and other natural resources? Why can't we just buy the stuff off the market like say, Holland and Japan do?

There are much more clever ways to get oil than wars, like slant drill into another countries oil field like from kuwait into iraq, install puppets into power in oil rich country/s who will give us free oil under the table...this is historically the European way of doing things, we need to go back to it and prosper.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #13 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:09:23 PM »

Quote from: Deicide on April 13, 2009, 01:03:17 PM

The Balkans; if you study the evidence, there is little supporting the idea that tens of thousands were killed and even if they were it was highly unlikely to spill over into 'peaceful' nations. Dafur is far more complicated than we are led to believe but nonetheless there are people being killed; I fail to see how that is our responsibility. Interests? You mean control of oil, gas and other natural resources? Why can't we just buy the stuff off the market like say, Holland and Japan do?

But we killed millions in Iraq right? U lefties use facts and evidence to fit ur world view so well. U wave away inconvenient arguments such as Darfur, when they can't be applied to naive thinking. Japan and Holland rely on US power to ensure the free flow of trade. Are u blind.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #14 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:12:21 PM »

Countries like Japan have not, until now..needed a real Navy. They have come to realize that they can't rely on the US completely. They are worried that an admin like Obama, might take the loss of a Carrier as a sign to pack up and leave, so they're developing a hedge against Chinese expansion.

a_joker10 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:15:14 PM »

Quote from: Deicide on April 13, 2009, 12:43:09 PM

They breed them because we constantly meddle (unnecessarily) in their affairs, at the behest of the UN, or for other reasons. If we stopped meddling in their activities would cool down as well. Most practically it is a waste of taxpayer money and if you have to spend then do it domestically or even better save.

Without control of major shipping lanes the worlds economy will grind to a halt.

The British understood this. They are not involved in any of these places anymore and now there are major piracy concerns at most of the important bottle necks.
The most important holdings in Britain were Gibraltar, Malta, Egypt(suez Canal). Yemen, Somalia, Signapore and the UAE.
Of course America has largerly not been interventionist, until recently and were part of encouraging Britain in giving up these former bases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire#Inter-war_period

In 1956 Nasser unilaterally nationalised the Suez Canal. The response of the new British Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, was to collude with France to engineer an Israeli attack on Egypt that would give Britain and France an excuse to intervene militarily and retake the canal.[141] Eden infuriated his US counterpart, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, by his lack of consultation, and Eisenhower refused to back the invasion.[142] Another of Eisenhower's concerns was the possibility of a wider war with the Soviet Union after Nikita Khrushchev threatened to intervene on the Egyptian side. Eisenhower applied financial leverage by threatening to sell US reserves of the British pound and thereby precipitate a collapse of the British currency.[143] Though the invasion force was militarily successful in its objective of recapturing the Suez Canal,[144] UN intervention and US pressure forced Britain into a very humiliating withdrawal of its forces, and Eden resigned.[145]

The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage, demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[146][147][148] The events at Suez wounded British national pride, leading one MP to describe it as "Britain's Waterloo"[149] and another to suggest that the country had become an "American satellite".[150] Margaret Thatcher later described the mindset she believed had befallen the British political establishment as "Suez syndrome",[151] from which Britain did not recover until the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982.
These coast lines will need a perminent military presence and if America and Britain won't do it. China will.

Deicide · « **Reply #16 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:21:26 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on April 13, 2009, 01:09:23 PM

But we killed millions in Iraq right? U lefties use facts and evidence to fit ur world view so well. U wave away inconvenient arguments such as Darfur, when they can't be applied to naive thinking. Japan and Holland rely on US power to ensure the free flow of trade. Are u blind.

Why do you insist I am on the left. Whilst I am no paleo-conservative would you say that Pat Buchanan is on the left for being against wasteful foreign interventionism? You paint a broad brush to suit your agenda but calling people who are clearly NOT on the left, left because they don't agree with the neo-liberalist agenda and don't think it is a good idea to maintain a foreign empire that we can't reallya afford , is just plain silly.

True 'leftists' love foreign interventionism, albeit for different reasons, mostly for 'humanitarian' reasons. The truth HH6, is that you are FAR MORE left than I am, as based on what you have contributed you are the epitome of a Neo-Liberal.

headhuntersix · « **Reply #17 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:28:38 PM »

Dude..ur smoking crack. I'm for making sure the US survives..if thats doing nothing great, if it means frog stomping I'm fine with that as well. I am not into rebuilding, thats where we get into trouble.

Deicide · « **Reply #18 on:** April 13, 2009, 01:44:21 PM »

Quote from: headhuntersix on April 13, 2009, 01:28:38 PM

Dude..ur smoking crack. I'm for making sure the US survives..if thats doing nothing great, if it means frog stomping I'm fine with that as well. I am not into rebuilding, thats where we get into trouble.

It's hard to argue for destroying stuff and then NOT rebuilding. I advocate neither. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

Dos Equis · « **Reply #19 on:** April 14, 2009, 03:16:48 PM »

Somali Pirate in Custody, Could Face Life Sentence
Sunday, April 12, 2009 3:18 PM

WASHINGTON -- A Somali pirate captured during a hostage standoff in the Indian Ocean was in military custody Sunday and could face life in a U.S. prison.

"He's in military custody right now," FBI spokesman John Miller said. "That will change as this becomes more of a criminal issue than a military issue."

Both piracy and hostage-taking carry life sentences under U.S. law.

Three pirates were killed Sunday in a military operation that rescued Capt. Richard Phillips, who had been held hostage aboard a lifeboat for days.

Both Miller and Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said no decisions have been made regarding charges against the lone surviving pirate.

"The Justice Department will be reviewing the evidence and other issues to determine whether to seek prosecution in the United States," Boyd said.

Phillips was taken hostage after his cargo ship was attacked by pirates. The crew thwarted the hijacking but the pirates fled with Phillips into a lifeboat.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this past week that the U.S. hasn't seen a case of piracy against an American ship in hundreds of years. U.S. prosecutors do have jurisdiction to bring charges when a crime is committed against a U.S. citizen or on a U.S. ship.

http://www.newsmax.com/international/us_piracy_legal/2009/04/12/202228.html