Maersk Alabama attacked by pirates - again!

[xl_target]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091118/ap_on_re_af/piracy

NAIROBI, Kenya – Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama on Wednesday for the second time in seven months and were thwarted by private guards on board the U.S.-flagged ship who fired off guns and a high-decibel noise device.

About time.

However, Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think tank Chatham House, said the international maritime community was still "solidly against" armed guards aboard vessels at sea, but that American ships have taken a different line than the rest of the international community.
"Shipping companies are still pretty much overwhelmingly opposed to the idea of armed guards," Middleton said. "Lots of private security companies employee people who don't have maritime experience. Also, there's the idea that it's the responsibility of states and navies to provide security. I would think it's a step backward if we start privatizing security of the shipping trade."
A Massachusetts Maritime Academy professor, who is also the father of a sailor who was on the Maersk Alabama during the first pirate attack in April, said about 20 percent of the ships off East Africa are armed.

Well, Roger, I think the theories of your "think tank" just got blown out of the water. No "States" and "Navies" around when this incident happened, were there? What a bunch of sheep!

Underscoring the danger, a self-proclaimed pirate said Wednesday that the captain of a ship hijacked Monday had died of wounds suffered during the ship's hijacking. The pirate, Sa'id, who gave only one name for fear of reprisals, said the captain died Tuesday night from internal bleeding.

This is what can happen when you aren't allowed to take the responsibility of defending yourself.

[Mark]

I for one have been surprised that there hasn't been a shipping company or two that hasn't gone to a more "hands on" approach to this problem. A half dozen "security experts" per boat, with some small arms and a 20mm bofors would be only a fraction of the ransom paid for one cargo ship.

I'm not saying that karmically that is the right thing to do, but just that I am surprised that no one has done it.

[Vikram]

Why does commonsense evade people so much! While states and navies are trying to protect them, what prevents them from preparing themselves for an unpleasant eventuality? Fools.


Best-
Vikram

[eternalme]

I believe that a vessel has the applicable law of the country it belongs to and is considered operating under the naval laws of country in whose waters it is, international law doesn't stop them from defending themselves in high seas, yet if they choose to be unarmed ..... what to say.

[TwoRivers]

I think common sense in this case is very much hampered by laws, and politics, and "think tanks". Countries that tightly control, or prohibit, civilian ownership of firearms, take a dim view of ships arriving in their ports with weapons aboard. Shipping companies apparently would rather pay higher insurance premiums (passed on) than risk being sued by the family of a Somali pirate killed in an attempted highjacking. Only when the insurance companies refuse to pay, and shipping companies refuse to let ships go into port in countries that do not allow merchant ship to be armed, will we see a change. Since in this p.c. time even a criminal has a right to pursue his living at the expense of the law-abiding, preventing him to do so is a no-no. As for the so-called "think tanks", it seems that any idiot without a lick of common sense who lands in one, becomes an instant expert. If these experts shipped out as ship's crew, they'd probably change their tune.

Another thing is, that captured pirates have been released, because there is no international law to deal with them; self defense obviously not being p.c.. Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned "walking the plank"?

[eternalme]

Being armed has a diff meaning a ship being armed necessarily means a gun post on board, whereas the crew being armed means the crew has on its personal self defense item.
Both are different, if the ship is armed that is not allowed obviously but if the crew is armed that is OK for many countries as well as India,so long as they declare the arms on arrival and if they fail to leave the port within some stipulated time period the arms are to be deposited with the port authority to be collected on departure.
One must not impose laws of the land where the security is provided by the law enforcement agencies in the high seas where there is no such centralized agency except the border patrols which might be in reach or not.

As per the pirates I believe being killed is their insurance to earn some bread for the family posthumously let them have the better part of it.

[TwoRivers]

Don't think there are too many shipping lines that would permit their crews to bring their own weapons on board. And a hodgepodge of individual weapons, not centrally available, while better than an empty hand, probably wouldn't do all that much good. The ship would have to be armed, with weapons and ammo centrally available, the crew trained in the use of them, and officers on watch armed, and the bridge armed with heavier weapons. That would make the takeover attempt a bit riskier for the pirates.

[eternalme]

You mean with an armed bridge, sir that would not be classified as a commercial vessel from there on ,as per international convention, please refer to the vessel markings and regulations.

Anyways I am not sailing any sooner .

Regards

[TwoRivers]

Well, that puts us back onto square one, doesn't it?, and back at the mercy of the pirates. If a merchant ship can't carry small arms for self defense, per international convention, they're just s..t out of luck. Maybe they should have adequate cash and an RDO (ransom disbursement officer) on board, to amiably settle the affair at the scene?

Regards