Somali pirates seize oil tanker

[kimmy]

One of the world's largest supertankers, the Sirius Star, owned by Saudi Arabia's state oil company Aramco, has been seized by pirates off the Horn of Africa, and is being taken to the Somali port of Eyl.

The ship carries an international crew of 25, who are reported to be unharmed. It is also carrying 2 million barrels of oil.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/081118/worl...piracy_saudi_us

These waters are patrolled by warships from several nations, including Canada apparently, but the pirates are becoming more and more brazen.

One tends to suspect that a heist of this magnitude will prompt certain nations to become more pro-active in their approach to the pirates...

-k

[blueblood]

That's what happens when we have navies around the world tip toeing around this issue. What would happen if warships started putting pirate ships to the bottom of the ocean?

Edited November 18, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied Opening Post

[GostHacked]

LOL.

I find it funny in an odd kinf of way, because there is a lot of US/NATO and other ships in the area the place is covered. And it would even be more so, due to the Suez Canal being in close proximity. It is a major shipping lane. You can expect more companies to take the longer safer way around Africa to Europe and North America.

Don't any ships have any kind of counter measures when it comes to pirates?? But, what a haul for a pirate.

Blueblood

That's what happens when we have navies around the world tip toeing around this issue. What would happen if warships started putting pirate ships to the bottom of the ocean?

I hope it would discourage them in the future. But, then there will be outrcy when it is done. If in international waters, as captain of the vessel, if I have the change/ability to use deadly force, I would. Strafe that boat with .50 cal fire.

[guyser]

Don't any ships have any kind of counter measures when it comes to pirates?? But, what a haul for a pirate.

Blueblood

I hope it would discourage them in the future. But, then there will be outrcy when it is done. If in international waters, as captain of the vessel, if I have the change/ability to use deadly force, I would. Strafe that boat with .50 cal fire.

It is my understanding that Maritime Law prohibits most weapons on board.

[M.Dancer]

It is my understanding that Maritime Law prohibits most weapons on board.

I think not on the High Seas....

I knew a fellow who had a yacht that he sailed in the Caribbean. He had always on board a couple of pistols and a large bore parabellum shotgun (all reg'd) in case of pirates.

I think we first have to examine the problem; the socio economic background, look at education and culture, understand what are the factor that drive people to piracy...then kill every last one of them and their families too.

[Argus]

These waters are patrolled by warships from several nations, including Canada apparently, but the pirates are becoming more and more brazen.

One tends to suspect that a heist of this magnitude will prompt certain nations to become more pro-active in their approach to the pirates...

It's a problem very easily solved except there is no political will to do so. There are 14 ships currently resting in pirate hands off the Somali town of Eyl, all waiting ransom by their owners. What's needed is for someone to land a regiment of combat troops there and kill everyone in sight. But who cares, really, except the owners? So long as the crews continue to be well-treated, and we don't hear any gory tails of rape and murder, the world powers don't really care all that much.

As for the ship owners - they ought to go crying to their national governments for help. You know, Liberia, Andora, Belize, Tonga, and Panama. Because none of these ships are flying UK, US or Canadian flags so they can avoid paying taxes. That includes Paul Martin's ships, btw.

[Sir Bandelot]

As for the ship owners - they ought to go crying to their national governments for help. You know, Liberia, Andora, Belize, Tonga, and Panama. Because none of these ships are flying UK, US or Canadian flags so they can avoid paying taxes. That includes Paul Martin's ships, btw.

Right... lets blame Paul Martin for the pirates

[MisterForensic]

So my guess is that the pirates are ...

1) threatening to kill the crew

2) threatening to sink the ship releasing all of the oil.

The horse has left the barn, ladies and gents. This was a big fat plum on a low-hanging branch. Once again terrorists find our loopholes. Imagine: there was not a single security presence on board. There was no helicopter gunship. There was no automatic weapopn lookout prowling the gunn'ls. There were just a bunch of navvies thinking about supper. Once again, a bunch of friggin shareholders trying to shave a one hundredth of a cent off their share value...

Look at the value of this prize. Who in the name of hell dropped this ball? That's where the real culprit lies.

Once again, the poor and the desperate show up the rich and the penny pinching....

It's gonna get ugly. More ugly than it ever had to be. No surpise.

Can anybody be surpised that the world's economy is in the hands of idiots?

Sell ladies and gents. Go to cash. The world economy is in the hands of morons.

[guyser]

So my guess is that the pirates are ...

1) threatening to kill the crew

2) threatening to sink the ship releasing all of the oil.

1-not usually from what I read.

2-hasnt happened yet, not that they might like to, but only in a strait or other strategic spot. What good would it do to blow up an oil tanker in the middle of the ocean?

Imagine: there was not a single security presence on board. There was no helicopter gunship. There was no automatic weapopn lookout prowling the gunn'ls. There were just a bunch of navvies thinking about supper. Once again, a bunch of friggin shareholders trying to shave a one hundredth of a cent off their share value...

Imagine, the owners of the ships following maritime law. One can hope for a change in law, and I suspect it will occur, but until then, they cant have weapons on board.

[MisterForensic]

1-not usually from what I read.

2-hasnt happened yet, not that they might like to, but only in a strait or other strategic spot. What good would it do to blow up an oil tanker in the middle of the ocean?

Imagine, the owners of the ships following maritime law. One can hope for a change in law, and I suspect it will occur, but until then, they cant have weapons on board.

This is this their biggest prize. These are people who think they are fighting for their culture. Do you really think they will let our conventions govern their actions? What good would it do? What have they got to lose? If there is a suicide bomber/martys hall of fame somewhere, where do you think these guys with their big ass tanker might fit in?

It's 9/11 redux. A big fat cow ready for the slaughter.

We are a big dumb fat assed society like Hollywood used to make fun of in the movies. The lean cow is devouring the fat cow.

We have forgotten who we are, where we came from. and what we stood for, and these people are eating our lunch.

Edited November 18, 2008 by MisterForensic

[guyser]

This is this their biggest prize. These are people who think they are fighting for their culture. Do you really think they will let our conventions govern their actions? What good would it do? What have they got to lose? If there is a suicide bomber/martys hall of fame somewhere, where do you think these guys with their big ass tanker might fit in?

Criminals in this country do not let our laws govern their actions, so the pirates are the same.

That hall of fame better be big.

We are a big dumb fat assed society like Hollywood used to make fun of in the movies. The lean cow is devouring the fat cow.

We have forgotten who we are, where we came from. and what we stood for, and these people are eating our lunch.

I dont get your Hollywood analogy , however we know who we are and what we stand for. I suspect in the very near future the shipowners will be standing up....on deck....and raining a hail of bullets into these little boats.

And not reporting a damn thing about it.

So Skipper, any pirates today?

Nope not one to be seen anywhere. (whispered voice: not alive anyways)

[GostHacked]

It is my understanding that Maritime Law prohibits most weapons on board.

What do you classify as a weapon? And with the rise of reported incidents, I suspect more defensive weapons to be put on civilian ships. Some civilian ships have been sporting defensive weapons since 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4418748.stm From 2005

The crew of the Seabourn Spirit quickly changed course and headed out into open water to evade the attackers in small boats who had raked the vessel with rockets and automatic weapons fire.

They also deployed a military-grade sonic weapon.

The long range acoustic device, or LRAD, is a high-tech loudhailer capable of causing permanent damage to hearing from a distance of more than 300 metres (984ft).

[MisterForensic]

Criminals in this country do not let our laws govern their actions, so the pirates are the same.

And whose laws might we be talking about? Are we talkin' International Maritime Law? What the hell. Good old Queen Bess is gonna be givin' a fit. Get out the Red coats.

Too bad we do not have a truly international court and a truly international police force. But why do we need this when we have Dick Cheney? By the way. Does anybody really know who this guy is?

I'm watching the series MadMen. Hamm's charcter shows up at the home of his wife's family and her Dad says, "How can you trust this man. He has no people." He had suffered a stroke. From the mouthes of babes...

So who are Dick Cheney's People?

How did we get into this mess? Who have we let squander our hard won savings?

[guyser]

What do you classify as a weapon? And with the rise of reported incidents, I suspect more defensive weapons to be put on civilian ships. Some civilian ships have been sporting defensive weapons since 2005.

Merchant ships arent supposed to have weapons. Cruise ships are different. Dont really know the rules other than that.

[GostHacked]

Merchant ships arent supposed to have weapons. Cruise ships are different. Dont really know the rules other than that.

Why would cruise ships be different? Would not your same Marine Law that does not exist, apply to all but police/coast guard/military vessels?

[M.Dancer]

I'm pretty sure there is no law preventing merchant ships to be armed to defend themselves.

Despite a rise in modern piracy it is very unusual for modern merchant ships to be armed, save for maybe a number of small arms and the use of the ship's fire hoses to repel boarders. One exception to this are the ships of PNTL [4] used to transport spent nuclear fuel and reprocessed uranium on behalf of BNFL. Transporting enough fissile material between them to produce 50 to 60 nuclear weapons these ships, beginning with the Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, became armed in 1999 to avoid the cost of a Royal Navy escort, .[5] Travelling together in convoy during these ships intermittent voyages they have an onboard escort of armed police from the UKAEAC and its successors [6] and are equipped with two to three automatic cannon of 30mm calibre.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantmen#21st_century

The main reason I suspect is liability. These ships are huge and I don't think a handful of amatuers could guard and protect an entire ship from boarders. If a crewman was killed I'm sure the family could sue the owners.

On the otherhand, put a few platoons of marines on board every ship and feed the captured pirates to the sharks while a sustained bombardment of the pirate bases might be effective.

[guyser]

Why would cruise ships be different? Would not your same Marine Law that does not exist, apply to all but police/coast guard/military vessels?

I dont know why cruise ships are different. But I am pretty sure they are.

Are you saying the Marine Law does not exist? Do you know more and can educate us on this?

In looking into this, I cannot find where it states that no weapons are allowed. I did find where it may have come from.

It seems that guns , at sea on a merchant ship, are not a problem, but should that boat dock the boat owners can be charged with , smuggling if guns are hidden and not on the manifest, violating local gun laws, and if so much as a bullet is found on board, the ship can be siezed.

So if anyone knows more, let us know.

It doesnt make sense that all these boats are unarmed unless the law exists prhibiting the weapons, or that any port sailed into has laws against any guns being brought in. Remember that any ship tied up is considered "in" the country.

For example, a ship sails up from Florida and the crew have guns. They are in violation of Canada's laws once they pass a certain point inside our terratorial waters.

[guyser]

I'm pretty sure there is no law preventing merchant ships to be armed to defend themselves.

[The main reason I suspect is liability. These ships are huge and I don't think a handful of amatuers could guard and protect an entire ship from boarders. If a crewman was killed I'm sure the family could sue the owners.

We were posting at the same time. I couldnt find anything to back me up, although I do know I had read about it.

Anyhow, from what I could find, it is the act of docking which restricts since many nations have restrictive gun laws.

It makes sense since three hours practice, a case or two of grenades, a ouple of RPG's and the threat is subdued.

[blueblood]

I'm pretty sure there is no law preventing merchant ships to be armed to defend themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_merchantmen#21st_century

The main reason I suspect is liability. These ships are huge and I don't think a handful of amatuers could guard and protect an entire ship from boarders. If a crewman was killed I'm sure the family could sue the owners.

On the otherhand, put a few platoons of marines on board every ship and feed the captured pirates to the sharks while a sustained bombardment of the pirate bases might be effective.

Or docking the USS Missouri off the coast of Eyl and conducting battery drills...

[blueblood]

I dont know why cruise ships are different. But I am pretty sure they are.

Are you saying the Marine Law does not exist? Do you know more and can educate us on this?

In looking into this, I cannot find where it states that no weapons are allowed. I did find where it may have come from.

It seems that guns , at sea on a merchant ship, are not a problem, but should that boat dock the boat owners can be charged with , smuggling if guns are hidden and not on the manifest, violating local gun laws, and if so much as a bullet is found on board, the ship can be siezed.

So if anyone knows more, let us know.

It doesnt make sense that all these boats are unarmed unless the law exists prhibiting the weapons, or that any port sailed into has laws against any guns being brought in. Remember that any ship tied up is considered "in" the country.

For example, a ship sails up from Florida and the crew have guns. They are in violation of Canada's laws once they pass a certain point inside our terratorial waters.

I think cruise ships are different because they transport people and for some reason they think guns are necessary to have on board in case of an emergency, more to do with passenger security, I think.

[Peter F]

These "Somali Pirates" who siezed the VLCC Sirius Star were not your run of the mill local-yokels. The ship was taken 425 miles South-East of Mogadishu, wich puts the incident about halfway between Mogadishu and the northern tip of Mozambique.

IE: hundreds of miles offshore.

as ICC website "VLCC hijacked by pirates" reports

"this incident is significant on two counts. Firstly, this is the largest vessel to have been hijacked. Secondly, the distance from the shore would suggest a highly organised operation- this is not mere opportunism.”

The owners, Vela International Marine Ltd., have issued a statement on thier website :

Dubai, UAE - The Vela International Marine Ltd. VLCC tanker SIRIUS STAR is now believed to be at anchor off the coast of Somalia. The fully laden oil tanker was seized earlier in the week by a group of armed pirates approximately 420 nautical miles off the coast of Somalia.

All 25 crew members on board are believed to be safe. The crew consists of 2 British, 2 Polish, 1 Croatian, 1 Saudi and 19 Philippines nationals.

"Our first and foremost priority is ensuring the safety of the crew," Salah B. Ka'aki, President & CEO of Vela International Marine Ltd. said. "We are in communication with their families and are working toward their safe and speedy return."

Vela continues to monitor the situation and coordinate with the relevant embassies. At this time, Vela is awaiting further contact from the pirates in control of the vessel.

In view of the sensitive nature of this matter and in the interest of the safety of the crew on board the vessel, Vela will make no further public comments on this incident until further notice

Vela IM ltd

As far as the rest of this thread is concerned, I have no idea whose navy was going to save them, but I'm pretty sure the Philipine slave/sailors on board weren't about to sacrifice themselves for the owners, nor am I very sure the owners were all that eager to see their Philipino crew armed...

edit to add: For more exciting tales of modern piracy see the ICC's weekly Piracy report here Weekly Piracy Report from ICC

Edited November 19, 2008 by Peter F

[White Doors]

The Indians sank a big pirate ship last night.

I don't think sinking pirate ships and killing pirates will be much of a political consideration in India

[Argus]

The Indians sank a big pirate ship last night.

I don't think sinking pirate ships and killing pirates will be much of a political consideration in India

God forbid if Canada ever takes any of them prisonerse the internet will be alive with the howls of anguish from the lefties about their civil rights and who they're to be turned over to. We'll have to bring them back to Canada and give them lawyers. Ten years later, after all their refugee claims and appeals have been dealt with - they'll all be living in public housing and be "citizens" of Canada.

[M.Dancer]

God forbid if Canada ever takes any of them prisonerse the internet will be alive with the howls of anguish from the lefties about their civil rights and who they're to be turned over to. We'll have to bring them back to Canada and give them lawyers. Ten years later, after all their refugee claims and appeals have been dealt with - they'll all be living in public housing and be "citizens" of Canada.

No need to take prisoners.

A Piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgement may be obtained; And hence it is, that if a Ship shall be on a Voyage to any Part of America, or the Plantations there, or a Discovery of the Parts; and in her Way is attacked by a Pirate, but in the attempt the Pirate is overcome, the Pirates may forthwith be executed without any Solemnity of Condemnation, by the Marine Law.8

8. G. Jacob, A New Law Dictionary, at "Pirates" (8th ed. 1762).

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/lpop/etext/jmlc/gutoff31.htm#8

[kengs333]

God forbid if Canada ever takes any of them prisonerse the internet will be alive with the howls of anguish from the lefties about their civil rights and who they're to be turned over to. We'll have to bring them back to Canada and give them lawyers. Ten years later, after all their refugee claims and appeals have been dealt with - they'll all be living in public housing and be "citizens" of Canada.

Nobody here is really interested in your family history, so...