Punished for being Patriots?  

Why not? The US and its allies have their pick on where to dump their harmful wastes and conduct their illegal activities in order to make profit! "Developed nations" are making profit at the expense of Somalis and other developing nations. So why can the Somalis not also make profit? It is a cause and effect situation, pal!

Somalia is not a developing nation, it's a hole. If there are issues with countries illegally dumping there, they should take that up through the United Nations. I don't see cruise ships dumping waste so why have they been victims of piracy? Do you really think piracy would end if nobody was dumping toxic waste in Somalia (and that's assuming they are to begin with)?

Funny, it's been all over the news since this started that these thugs hold ships for ransom...money...cash...moolah. Many ships are even insured for this. It's an ugly business but it's nothing more than that to them.

Taskr, Somalia is not a "hole" like you say. Somalia is a beautiful country/nation in the continent of Africa. The fact that Somalia does not have a stable government should not be a reason for other piracy and bullying nations to attempt to coerce the nation into submission. And you do not see ships dumping or polluting because such lawless entities often conduct their covert activities in the dark or in disguise!

True, Spalladino, the Somalis are now seizing vessels for money. But the Somalis originally attacked ships because of the illegal activities the ships were conducting in their high seas territory that were resulting in the degradation of their resources; acts that International laws demand be stopped. And the fact that the US (a major exporter of toxic wastes in Africa) and some European nations would not respect the wishes of the Somali people did not help in the matter -

What is often said about disputes with those who would not pay attention? Hit them where it hurts! And we all know that the only time some people will pay attention is when they are being sued for money (or in the case of the Somalis, being asked for money)! Seizing vessels in violations of Marine Laws is not something that is unique to Somalis. In the US and other nations, vessels are seized and impounded all the time for illegal fishing, dumping and pollution. And as earlier said, because developed nations are profitting at the expense of these coastal developing nations by dumping their toxic wastes that they would not treat and bury in their own lands and fishing illegally, I think it is fair that the Somalis are also profitting from the disrespect of their rights and wishes! May be if the developed nations' thugs would start respecting these people in their territories then we may indeed have a valid complaint about Somali "pirates"!

Worldwide seizure of vessels involved in illegal activities - http://www.americanchroni...

Spalladino, you and I do not know what these folks in fact do when they go by these coastal nations, especially the Somali coast. I have lived in Africa and know that Africans in Africa are a very friendly and welcoming people. I believe that even the actions of these Somali "pirates" are in reaction to disrespect from these visiting vessels. Those Somalis would not attack and seize those vessels if they did not have just cause to do so! Check-out the following sample report:

Crew blames captain for attack - http://www.cbsnews.com/st...

The Metallion, you failed to complete your readings of International marine laws: The Protective and Precautionary principles give coastal nations the power to stop violations whose activities also threaten a nation's ecosystem and/or resources - meaning that if a violator(s) were known to be about 10 nautical miles from a nation's high seas territory and yet the acts of the violators were resulting in the deprivation and/or degradation of resources, then the nation being injured has the right to do what it must to stop the violators! And as already stated, Somalia has not a stable government; these Somalis on the sea are acting as watchdogs for their nations's welfare!

That law would be relevant...

...if the Somali pirates were a duly constituted naval force acting on behalf of a government
...if they confined their activities to the zone that extends 10 nautical miles from their national waters
...if they confined their activities to ships actually engaged in activities that threaten Somali ecology and resources
...if they didn't ransom those they abducted.

They fail all four tests, unless you can show that they don't venture more than 22 nautical miles form their shore, in which case they still fail on three counts.

If they were to pass all four of these tests, they wouldn't be pirates at all, but a navy committing acts of war on a whole bunch of nations, and retaliatory bombing would be underway even as we speak. I'm pretty sure Somalia doesn't want the US to construe these pirates as their naval force.

Somalia's lack of a stable government doesn't transform any bunch of people hopping into a boat into a navy, either.

Your argument simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

The Metallion, remember that without a stable government those Somalis have elected themselves as a naval force and thus become watchdog for their nation. And as already said, the International Protective and Precautionary principles give coastal nations the right to prevent violators whose actions are degrading world marine resources and threaten their national resources. Under UN Conventions, an action that threatens does not have to occur within a nation's jurisdiction for a nation to react in self-defense. If hazards from action performed at a distance were resulting in the degradation of a nation's resoureces, then the injured nation is justified in taking action against violators.

Simply declaring oneself a naval force doesn't make one a naval force instead of a pirate, any more than the folks here in the US who declare themselves the Republic of Texas become a legitimate government instead of a bunch of thugs and con men. Your argument doesn't pass the first test I listed.

To pass the second and third tests I listed, if and only if these pirates passed the first test you would have to show that each and every ship they attacked was engaged in an action that threatened Somalia's resources. I challenge you to name the actions that you believe justified each attack, but I know you will not because these attacks aren't about defending Somalia they're about ransoming hostages for money.

To pass the fourth test I listed, if and only if these pirates passed the first three tests, they would have to have not abducted and ransomed the ships they attacked. No matter how you dance around the first three tests, you can't get around that.

The simple fact is that these are pirates, not navies. The International Protective and Precautionary principles simply do not apply to them. They are pirates, no matter how you try to excuse them. The fact that your rebuttal only addresses two of four the points I raised is quite telling.

TheMetallion, those Somalis are vigilantes! Those Somalis are not pirates! As already said, developed nations, most noticeably the US, are known for using coastal developing nations as dumpsites for toxic wastes that they would not bury in their own nations. Somalia for quite some time now has been under a somewhat civilian rule. I believe that those Somalis are on sea are vigilantes who have elected and declared themselves the naval force in order to defend and protect their nation, their national and world resources from the depredation and the degredation by high seas pirates. There are records of US and some developed nations abuse of coastal developing nations via high seas activities.

The International requirement for seizing suspected vessels is that the ship of those making seizure be "clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and authorized to that effect." You will note that the US propped government of Somalia (which the Somalis do not agree with) was passive about the activities of these Somalis on the sea; thus giving consent implicitly.

TheMeallion, I believe that your problem lies with your inability to accept that those you assume should be subservient to you are not! The International Protective and Precautionary principles took into consideration the fact that some activities that negatively impact the environment cannot be conclusively proven or fully anticipated. The Precautionary Priciple in fact discourages actions with any possibility of endangering or significantly harming the environment. Even the US Marine Mammal Act (16 USC section 1361 (1) and (3); US Fishery Conservation and Management Act (USC 16 section 1801); US Endangered Species ACt (35 USC section 1531) are all based on the Precautionary Principle -

The Precautionary Principle places the burden of proof of those committing disputed acts to show that their acts are not causing significant harm to the environment or to a nation alleging it is being harm. So, if our foreign vessels around the Somali coast say they are not causing significant harm to Somalia or world resources as alleged by Somalis, then let them show proof!

Vigilantes? I can go with that. Vigilantes by definition operate illegally. Thank you for finally admitting that they are not a naval force acting under legal authority. That makes them pirates, even if we accept arguendo that they are vigilantes, a case you have yet to make.

Vigilantes are not "on government service" by definition. They are not authorized by definition. The legal requirement you cite is an affirmative obligation that they do not fulfill, there is no such thing as implicit consent regarding authorizing someone to act as a naval force.

You can incorrectly impute to me whatever motives you wish, the fact is that this is not a naval force, it is not acting under government authority, and you have not documented a single case in which they acted to defend Somalia against any form of attack. To make the case that these are not pirates, even if you were to accept vigilantism as legal, you have to show that each and every attack is in self defense. You do not make that case because you cannot make that case.

It is not funny how we often choose to see things just the way we would like to see them? TheMetallion, the word "vigilante" originates form the latin word "vigilare," which means to watch or to be a watch man or watch woman. I already told you that Somalia is currently more under civilian rule; thus making any informed and politically inclined Somali an official of the nation of Somalia -

It is no secret that the criminal behanviors of developed nations' high seas drifters around the Somali coast has been made known by the Somalis to the US and the UN, but without appropriate redress. You will note that even the ratified Basel Convention was not in place until Africans (in defense of the Continent of Africa) came up with the Bamako Convention. As already mentioned, International laws give coastal nations the power to defend their nation and national resources. I believe the Somalis just got fed up with having toxic wastes being constantly washed up on their shores and are using International laws to handle matters. Did you note I mentioned that the US, a major exporter of toxic wastes, would not sign the ratified Basel Convention? Now, why do you think this is so?

I live in Texas and under common law, I can make a citizen's arrest if safely so, though I am not a law enforcement officer and not deputized by the governor of the State. If US law recognizes such actions, then what makes you assume that Somalis or others in their nations whose rights are being violated cannot do the same? Has it occurred to you that these drifter vessels do not have to go near the Somali coast, seeing the Somalis now consider all foreign vessels as suspects of the toxic wastes they keep finding on their shores?

Let me take this opportunity to say to you Somalis and to all people of coastal nations/countries: International laws give you not only the power but the obligation to prevent violators from the degradation and the depredation of your national and world resources; and you do not have to provide any scientific evidence! Thus, if you suspect anyone of the violation of International laws and of polluting your environment, you also have my support to do anything within your power to protect and defend your nation. Now, if you are a skilled sea person and can safely use your ship or boat or canoe to defend, discourage and chase away violators from around your high seas jurisdictions, then do so by all means! And if you can even use your home-made grenade or gun or spear or machete or a stone to chase away violators, then do so by all means! And you, land-locked nations/countries, you are free to interpret the above to include whatsoever you wish in your self-defense efforts!

Nets, I think that people are reading your postings! I was wondering why it took unto Friday 4/30/2010 (about 2 weeks after the explosion) for some people (including Bobby Jindal of Lousiana and the president Obama) to begin to understand that the BP oil spill is indeed a health, economic and an environmental hazard, especially to marine mammals! Did you notice that as of Friday April 30, 2010, everyone all of a sudden began talking about the hazards and economic loss to fishers? (Lauhgs) Nets, metallion may be an informant and was merely out looking for useful inof!

Yap, I think that metallion was in fact out looking for useful info! Your comments gave him some useful info that he conveyed to some people and then the info finally reached governors and our president, who all responded by finally examining national and international marine laws! These officials, paid thousands of dollars and yet are unable to reason, need to send Netsbridge some money!

Nets, they ought to pay you for directing them towards national and international laws! And what a sad situation for those fishers whose livelihood depend upon the sea! I guess that now some of us may finally see and understand why the Somalis and some folks of coastal nations are often very hostile towards sea drifters and those polluting their environment and degrading world resources!

@Nets: You're the one who called them vigilantes. The term has a meaning and a history, and it is the one I described.

Your right to make a citizen's arrest in the State of Texas does not arise from common law, but from Article 14.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. You should be aware that your right to make a citizens arrest extends only to offenses committed in your presence or view, and only to offenses that are either felonies or "against the public peace." You do not have the right to move outside of Texas' jurisdiction to make a citizen's arrest, nor do you have the right to ransom those whom you arrest, nor do you have the right to use more force than is strictly necessary to detain them. Moreover, you are strictly liable should you use excessive force or for false arrest in the event that the one you arrest is not convicted. You are also required to identify the specific act for which you are making that arrest. "Suspecting" someone of committing an act is not sufficient cause for a citizen's arrest.

All my previous arguments stand. Again, you do not make your case because you cannot.

Nets, thanks for the best answer! Hope this discussion is an eye opener for all!