The browbeating of Somalia continues
Offline No doubt most here have already heard; yesterday three Somalian 'pirates' were killed after a confrontation with the United States navy after refusing to release an American captain they held captive. Now, in fairness, the SEAL snipers only acted after the captain was (allegedly) endangered by his captors and, prior to the escalation to violence, the Americans had tried 'playing nice' by using negotiators to attempt to get the pirates to surrender.
Nevertheless, I remain disgusted at how the industrialized world still treats Somalia.
The 'pirates' have only become such after being stripped of their prior livlihoods as fisherman by illegal, intrusive fishing operations from other countries (many times even having their nets slashed or boats capsized) and/or the equally illegal dumping of toxic waste along Somalia's shoreline. With revenue from fishing steeply declining as a result, the fisherman turned to regional warlords (one of the core problems of the country, which the G8 nations refuses to deal with due to the profits they reap from running guns to them) and were armed for piracy operations. This trade has now become arguably one of the most lucrative in Somalia (next to gun running), further exacerbating the problems in that region by effectively exterminating what was left of the fishing industry.
Needless to say, this is not a problem that is terribly likely to be solved by sending-in warships to blow dingies out of the water.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Ok has somalia agreed to that piece of legislation? If not then it doesn't apply to them. The same way you agree to the laws of your country by being a citizen and staying there. It is not illegal and it is also not legal as there is no rule of law there regarding somalia. They may be crimanals in the eyes of the UN but with them not having agreed to it (to my knowledge) it cannot apply to them.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
this is just a case of it is legal in US eyes because they are part of a club, but somalia is not part of that club so it doesn't have to stick to that clubs rules. Since most the world is in that club it is viewed as legal. When technically what the pirates are doing is not illegal. If a country delares it has the right to protect its ships, it is legal in that countries eyes to do so, so ya i will agree that what they are doing isn't illegal but I don't think I have said it was. I might of, bad memory
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
That is not how it works. The rules apply to them whether they want the rules to or not. They ARE criminals. Piracy is a criminal act. The fact that the Somalians haven't agreed to these rules doesn't matter. The rules still apply. Refusing to agree to follow accepted maritime behavior does not exempt a nation from acting appropriately.'
We don't need their permission to make piracy a crime. By our standards they are criminals. And their opinion does not matter. So they are criminals.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
If Somalian's attacked another somalian ship the rule still applies if it is done in international waters, the fact that they attack other nations vessels that have signed these treaties/laws and are regarded as international laws when in international waters, sorry but yes they are criminals. As well there is a rule of law, again if you bothered to read it, it does not matter which nation the pirates are from, it is considered a criminal act in international waters, now if it was in somalian waters then it would be up to Somalia to enforce the law. Just because a country does not accept international laws does not mean they can just go into international waters and do as they please, for that matter no one can just break international laws and think they can get away with it. The somalian pirates are criminals.
[Edit]: Somailia signed and ratified the agreement with the United Nations on July 24, 1989, so yes to all they are criminals even in somalia.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm
Legislatively? No, it doesn't.
Remember that 'criminal' is, rather specifically, someone who has breeched a law. Now, yes, sure - they have definitely breeched your laws; but, again, this isn't planet America. Your laws (obviously) do not apply to citizens within their own sovereign territory (like, say, Somalia).
Well, sure. By your standards they are criminals. But your standards don't matter in the legal sense, now do they? What counts as law in Somalia is what matters (if you want to talk about whether or not te Somali pirates are criminals, anyway) - and given that there are no laws in Somalia, well...
*Hits head against desk*
And this has nothing to do with whether what's being done is legal or not.
Well, no, but your fishermen *were* going over there and capsizing Somalian fishing boats and slashing their nets, helping to cause this mess in the first place (just like your brass was over selling guns to Somali warlords which would later arm said pirates).
Needless to say, you are not somehow 'the good guys'.
Jesus. Motherslapping. CHRIST.
The government that ratified that agreement? IT. NO. LONGER. FUCKING. EXISTS. It is gone. It collapsed in the early 90s ('91, I believe?). All of it's agreements are null and void, because it is no longer in place.
For fuck's sakes... I give up. I guess this is just too impossible to comprehend.
YOU GUYS R SO RITE. FUCK THOSE S'MALLIANS.
BURN 'EM UP N LET GOD SORT M OUT, AMIRITE!!!??
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
the fact is they do not have a functional government anymore, so there is no rule of law so that document oesn't apply. Lets say america has a regime change they turn into a communist nation, that old government is gone and so are all the agreements they made. they may chose to keep them yes. lets say you sign a document and you have a mind swop and your mind doesn't exist anymore instead there is a new mind in your body does that document still apply to your body? far out I know but its the closest thing i could think of to simulate a regime change for your own body.
Now about the rest yes in american eyes they are crimanals. Let me explain it this way, America is in a club, somalia is not in that club, does somalia have to stick to that clubs rules even if it effects thats clubs members? no but they can expect revenge from that club. Im not saying america doesn't have the right to shoot them to protect its ships, what I am saying is from a neutral perspective somalia prirates are technically not crimanals, but in the eyes of the world yes they probanly are.
Unless there is a legal document somalia signed for the current non existant government agreeing to the UN thing, techincally the law is not binding on somali citizens. So they cannot be crimanals. But yes they can be treated as crimanals because of the UN treaty
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Okay, help me out here. Are you saying that if a nation itself does not have a law against some example of controversial/ criminal behavior (eg, ethnic persecution, forced prostitution, slavery, genocide, piracy ) then they are free from outside interference because they do not recognize dissenting viewpoints ?
For example, was the dictator Pol Pot breaking Cambodian Law by perpetuating his genocide against his own people ? Probably not since Pol Pot as dictator was the law. Well then by all means, don't interfere because all those millions of innocent people were tortured and executed according to and in compliance with Cambodian law. Crimes against humanity ? Human rights violations ? Ha ha, sorry, but those are not recognized legal concepts here in Cambodia.
If this is actually the way the various laws around the world should play out ( regarding piracy, et al ) then human rights groups such as Amnesty International should simply shut down their operation, wave a white flag and let the various world governments get on with their "business".
My points stand unrefuted. Laws are meaningless unless agreed to by all. These were not, hence they are not laws. At the least, they are not legal laws. Anyone enforcing them is just as automatically a criminal as the pirates are.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm just probing here, but it's highly probable that Columbian drug lord, Pablo Escobar did not formally consent to recognise any drug laws regarding his so-called "illicit" drug trade ( he became a billionaire, btw ) and so in spite of this he continued with his business pursuits until he was finally shot and killed on an apartment rooftop by Columbian law enforcement.
Perhaps Pablo simply saw his drug organization as a sort of metaphorical "Somolia" and as such never agreed to recognize nor abide by the laws of Columbia ( or the international community ) which arbitrarily awarded him criminal status.
If refusing to comply with a law because it is simply unrecognized ( national law, international law, etc ) grants the alleged "offender" immunity, then the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials were a sham forced upon the national socialist government of Germany by the Allied nations whose laws didn't apply in Germany in the first place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials
Yes what is a crimanal act in one place isn't a crimanal act in another. But no they are not free from outside interferance because the other country does view it as a crimanal act and may chose to interfer because of that because they are affected and deem them crimanals in thier eyes.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You agree to the laws of the country by being a citizen and by chosing to remain in that country, you have the freedom to do so. Where as it cannot apply on a country level as you have no where else to go. you cannot leave the world. Btw I agree with vastet here, im just making the point that somalia pirates aren't crimanals.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
All laws worldwide are henceforth disallowed as illegal since none have been agreed to by all. Enforcement of any law shall be considered a crime punishable by whatever means the accused shall choose.
All prisons are ordered to release all prisoners immediately.
Edit: fixed errors caused by power outages and Internet crashes
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
In a way it just boils down to a war of definitions.
Similar to "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
Well yes in a way i guess, not that any of this matters as I think we all agree that geting a functional governement in somalia is the solution.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Uhm... yeah... because, you know, that's so what he was saying.
If country A doesn't have a law against X, X is not illegal in that country. If country B has a law against X, it's illegal within country B, but not in country A. If country B has an agreement with country C to have a law against X, X is illegal in country B and C, but it is still not illegal in country A. Is that really so hard to understand?
Lets say Islam actually takes over the whole word except USA. Every country in the world except USA is thus muslim countries, and they have all agreed to abide by Sharia law. USA, on the other hand, has not. Is it then okay for the other countries to go into USA and enforce Sharia law?
You have no problem with that, right, because you don't think a law has to be agreed upon first? Just so long as most countries have agreed to X, X can be enforced in all countries? Or is USA the only country that can do that?
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
Lets get something straight here, we are not talking about somalian laws, we are talking about international laws, and how they are applied in international waters. Once in international waters it does not matter if a people from somalia do not consider piracy a criminal act, no one cares what they think once they commit the act. The fact remains that there are laws in regards to piracy in international waters, there actually is a court for this as well. Wither or not somalia has a functioning government or not again does not apply here, it only applies if the act is commited inside somalian territories, since most of these acts are not commiitted inside somalian territory but in international waters, they are criminals. Period, this isn't up for discussion once it occurs in international waters.
In regards to international law and those that signed or didn't signed or not part of the UN, they still must abide by international laws when in international waters, as they are still laws which can be enforced by the UN and countries that have signed the treaty, the fact that somalia doesn't have a functioning governemtn does not mean that it's citizens don't have to abide by international laws when they are in the high seas, in reality it is still a law that other countries can enforce if those pirates are caught in international waters (some of these have been recently), and can be tried in international courts, as well the somalian representative in the UN (yes they still have a representative there) as with the rest of the UN have given other countries the right to pursue pirates into Somalian territory, only in the pursuit and capture of pirates.
What your equating basically is that say a somalian can go anywhere he wants and doesn't have to abide by the laws, local or intenational really because his country doesn't have a functioning governemnt or doesn't recognize other countries laws, that is absurd really. Just because I don't recognize US law does not mean I can just start kidnapping their citizens, or as others have pointed out, just because drug lords don't want to abide by drug laws because they don't want to recognize them does not give them the freedom to break it, even in international waters, and they can be enfoced by other counties and by the internation courts. The problem to solve the Somalian problem is of course getting a functioning government up and getting the economy back online, which would require the help of other african nations as well as other international nations.
Post WWII Germany is quite a bit different than pirates. Germany tried to conquer the world, and failed, paying the price for that failure. These pirates are just trying to make a living in a nation that was destroyed around them through no fault of their own.
To add to the above refutation of this, being a citizen of a nation means you agree to follow the laws of said nation. Hence they are laws.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
He took it too far and my sarcastic comments were intended to bring out that point.
There are no laws in societies whether civilized or not that are agreed to by all. Some will agree some will not and will blatantly ignore them.
Those that ignore laws are usually called criminals.
If the laws are heinous and repressive to a great many people in a society they are either changed by legal means. ignored, or the government is eventually overthrown.
See Latincanuck's comments about International Law, he says it well.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Last time I checked, there is no international government, so the only way for a law to be applicable on international water would be if everyone agreed to it. If everyone has not, a law can't be applied. USA does not have a greater claim on international water than anyone else, and that stays true even if most agree with them.
See above. No international government = no international laws except by mutual agreement. No agreement = no law.
What gives them the right to do that? They do not own the international waters themselves, so they can't decide what the law is there. What if the muslim countries all agreed that only muslims could enter international waters and signed a treaty on it? Could they enforce that indiscriminently upon those who have signed that or not?
No, I'm not. I'm saying there is no governmental rule in international waters, so there can be no international laws without an agreement first. If the Somalian government haven't made an agreement, then the law does not work. Since the Somalian government doesn't exist anymore, there is no such agreement, and thus no such law for them. That's tough titties for the rest of you, yes.
That does not mean they can do whatever they want in other places where there is a governmental rule. Of course not - that would indeed be absurd.
Edit: I feel I should clear that last part up a little bit. International waters belong to every country, since there is no international government. So each country have to agree to a law before everyone has to follow it. If USA and France decides not to engage in piracy in international waters, then that's binding for the USA and France, but they can't enforce it on, say, Germany.
However, say, France is the sole owner of France, so the French government decides the laws that apply in France. They don't need anyone else's agreement, because they don't share their territory with anyone else.
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
You agree to the laws of a country by entering it they can't go anywhere and do anything. Just look at the examples about muslims a couple posts up that should explain why they can't apply, just because most agree on somthing that doesn't mean that all have to obey, (relations between countries are not democratic) unless they have agreed to obey.
P.s. just read above he does a far better job
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Please, being a citizen of a nation only means that you are a citizen of a nation. Nothing more.
Besides, on a daily basis various citizens of every nation on the planet disagree with the laws that they are subjected to. That's why opposition parties constantly pop up within national governments around the globe.
In some countries this "disagreement" can evolve into opposing factions that eventually progress to full blown civil war. The key word is disagreement.
No offense Vastet but you oversimplify to an extreme.
Regardless if people disagree with the laws they have still have agreed to them. Why do you think they form opisition parties? they follow the legal/agreed on method way to change the things they agree to. In the cases of civil war that is when they no longer recognise the authority of the government. Besides when you become a citizen of a country you were not born it do you not agree to follow there laws? the same applies to being born into a country by remaining a citizen you agree to the laws. yes you have no choice for a few years (witch in all pratical purposes doesn't matter) but you are free to leave.
P.S.
let me explain better. By staying you are saying I agree to follow the law. the same way if you remain in a no smoking club you chose to follow that law by remaining a member. you are free to leave if you do not like that law. Also you may run for leadership to change it, but while remaining in the club you agree to follow that law while it is in effect
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
"but you are free to leave"
Interesting sentiment Tapey, but you should tell that to the Irish Republican Army, or the Palestinians, or the Chechens or any other political/military faction whose entire premise is based upon remaining in and defending their homeland. Again, IMHO an example of oversimplification.
At any rate, I'm not expecting to persuade you or Vastet to my point of view as much as I am expressing my own opinion. If nothing else this thread should stand as irrefutable proof to myopic theists that there is no such thing as an atheist worldview. We atheists disagree with each other about every conceivable topic. Uniformity of opinion among atheists is a myth. Peace!
Civil disobedience?
Agreed. If nothing else this thread clearly shows what a uniform worldview we as atheists do not have.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Quite the contrary. Being a citizen comes with responsibilities, one of which being to follow the law.
And that's how laws get changed.
And once the war is over, the victorious side will lay down new laws that will be followed by the populace. In the interim, no laws are applicable unless agreed upon by both sides. Or all sides, if more than two.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Customary international Laws are to be followed, even if a country (such as the US) does not agree with all the treaties and laws within the accepted in UNCLOS. As well there is an international Tribunal for the Law of Sea which was established on Nov 16, 1994 and established an international framework for law over "all ocean space, its uses and resources". This is an intergovernmental organization, again, just because you don't believe or the pirates don't believe there is a law in the high seas doesn't mean there isn't and it doesn't mean that the maritime Security Regimes or if necessary by the countries the have signed on to the treaty cannot enforce international laws of the sea. Just like you said if they don't agree to the laws, then they should not enter international waters, they can stay in somalian waters as there is no governement to enforce the laws. However in international waters there is and it can be and most likely be enforced when the lives of people are threatened, or piracy is commited, smuggling, drug trafficing etc, etc, etc.
Why there is this belief that if a country doesn't agree to international laws it doesn't have to follow them is again absurd, Genocide, Human rights violations, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of agression these are also international law and no country can reasonably break them (ok yes they do occur and yes some people get away with it as we all know the law is not perfect but again this is about the law itself not it's success rate so far.....kinda dismal now that I start to think of it) however no country, representing authority, military or group or individual can break these laws without the threat of the law being enforced, even if his country declares that they do not believe or agree with internataionl laws. The same applies in the high seas, there are laws in place regarding travel, conduct and what is considered an illegal or illicit activity in international waters, that if they are broken (piracy happens to be one of them) then it is expected that they will be enforced.
I will admit you have a reasonable case but with a close look I find it flawed. I bet you didn't expect there be a case to be made that the somalian pirates are not crimanals
Just not something you think about. Btw all those examples fall under no longer recognise the authority of the government or never did. So they do not feel the need to go through the agreed apon channels. So im not seeing the problem with it. They are violently breaking thier agreement, im not saying wether it is right or wrong. Yes they are free to leave, they chose not to well cool, fighting for what they believe in, doesn't affect the fact they made an agreement. They just chose to break it.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Also agreed.
Capitalism Vs Socialism is another good example. Quite a few people here are staunch backers of capitalism, but then there's a few socialists too. If this topic and those aren't perfect examples that atheists don't have a common world view, I'm not sure what could be.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Again I find the problem. I applies to you because we say it does, no other reason so there. No one owns international waters so there has to be an agreement, even those organisations don't own it, so because somalia hasn't agreed to those laws and no one owns it saying they shouldn't enter it doesn't apply. If a country agrees to it it is binding if a country doesn't it is not. Because somalia hasn't agreed it cannot be binding on its citizens.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
agreed.... do i see a warm and fuzzzy atheist group hug coming up?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
But Somalia has agreed to it, back in 1989, just because not it does not have a functioning government does not mean that it does not agree with it, and it's citizens are free to break those agreements and laws in regards to international waters, Somalia has a UN representative as well. Now please show me where Somalia has not agreed to these laws? No new government has taken it's previous governments agreement/treaty with the UN regarding UNCLOS. As well no one owns those oceans your right, however there is a global agreement on conduct and laws that are agreed upon by the UN and the states signed by the UNCLOS treaty, as well as an intergovernmental organization and tribune set to deal with and how vessels, countries and individual may act, travel and interact with other vessels in international waters. Simple as that, Somalia HAS AGREED to those laws and Somalia's UN representative has not withdrawn from the agreement.
Again why is this such a huge issue? It is a criminal act. If you can some how show me otherwise other the rhetoric and philosophical debate I be glad to withdraw my argument here, but you haven't no shown by any means that they are not criminals and that Somalia has not agreed to the UNCLOS.
OK, I admit my heresy for the Sun Goddess and the fake god the Cosmic Moose and will hereafter endeavor that the Panda shall receive that which is due unto him.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Im actually tierd of posting the same old things over and over again. And since it does not matter one way or the other as people have a right to protect there ships I can't be bothered anymore so this is my last post on the subject. The fact that the government is non functional is important, you seem to be treating somalia as a first world country. yes if the government was stable and functional you would be right but it is not. A state in anarchy witch somalia is in there can be no dening that with no functional government and all, cannot agree to anything or hold agreements. They have no control over there own people and therefore cannot represent them, they are seperate from the people not of the people. It would be like me saying I represent your view on this matter. Read up on the concepts of government if you think I am wrong, I hate political science to much to further elaborate and make it clearer.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
And I tire of the same arguments as well, you seem to assume that because they have a non functioning government that their actions cannot be criminal because their government is non functional, and because they don't agree that these are crimes they cannot be charged or persecuted for their actions. This is absurd in all it's intent. With that said they could simply cause mass genocide and be considered non criminal because they lack a functioning government and they don't recognize any treaties....this is an absurd argument really. Although we both agree that without a functioning government, which is really required at this point, Somalia will not improve, plus a functioning economy is required as well (which even with a functioning government with no economy there is no incentive to stop the piracy). Hopefully this will change in the future, preferably sooner than later.
Nope that is not my position at all. I have explained it earlier, Just had to make that correction, my bad
p.s. they can be prosicuted, they are crimanals in the eyes of there victims that is enough. But im not going to get into that.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
But Kevin... What do you care about Somali pirates and their needs? They're just poor Africans. We couldn't possibly have any stake in making their lives better could we?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Sorry couldn't resist
Wait, why are we arguing about international waters and whether the pirates are doing something illegal?
Let's look at it this way:
Somalian pirates enter 'international water' attack and seize a ship of a soveriegn country and hold captive those aboard. The country from whence the ship and the people came retaliates, ending the hostage situation, reclaiming their vessel and killing the bloody pirates. Or, a country friendly to that one who's ship and people are hostage, helps by intervening on the situation to free the ship and people.
What exactly would the problem with that be? Why does there even need to be an issue of whether the Somalians are violating some treaty or whether their action is legal? It doesn't seem to matter because they've hijacked a ship and taken hostages of another nation.
So. if we can all agree that the Somalians are doing something that any other nation would have to react to, we can agree that they are doing something that, ostensibly, the rest of the world thinks is illegal, namely hijacking foreign vessels and taking hostages.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."