Pirates take American yacht...what to do?

[mike_s]

Mike, I think Lloyds of London does have an act of war clause in a lot of its commercial shipping policies. Hell, they may even have policies which cover acts of piracy. After further checking, they consider acts of piracy an act of war. So they do cover it.

Thanks for checking.....


but I'm betting his boat wasn't covered under a commercial shipping policy.


I think either way, at this point it's speculation on our parts regardless.

 

[Tao of the Dive]

Thanks for checking.....


but I'm betting his boat wasn't covered under a commercial shipping policy.


I think either way, at this point it's speculation on our parts regardless.

I just did a double check because I forgot the vessel in debate was a yacht. Most Maritime policies appear to be able to have a rider on piracy, whereas some policies seem to have the piracy clause built in depending on the vessels range, area of operation, cargo or passengers, and value.

For the record...I am NOT an insurance salesman. Just quick with google.LoL. And always glad to help.

 

[Cave Diver]

this diagrams shows how far they are expanding now over the years...

That kinda goes back to my original comment about expectation of risk. I don't condone the acts of piracy, but when people travel into known, published hot spots, whether its piracy, terrorism, civil unrest, or what ever, how much risk should others take for their actions?

 

[mike_s]

That kinda goes back to my original comment about expectation of risk. I don't condone the acts of piracy, but when people travel into known, published hot spots, whether its piracy, terrorism, civil unrest, or what ever, how much risk should others take for their actions?

a lot of "private/personal" boaters in the area opt to have their vessels shipped (on a sumbersible/refloatable ship that ships smaller vessels ) and avoids that area. then they fly and meet the vessel in a safe port.

The new media stated that the boats owner opted not to do this.


At the same time, they prob felt they were safe(r) being so far from Somalia . I guess not huh?


It's sad to say though that this attack and their deaths will likely set the precedent for others who are pondering this decision in the near future. (or it should)

 

[ScubaSteve]

That kinda goes back to my original comment about expectation of risk. I don't condone the acts of piracy, but when people travel into known, published hot spots, whether its piracy, terrorism, civil unrest, or what ever, how much risk should others take for their actions?

I still cannot accept this.....shocker eh?

The owner aqnd operator/captain of this yacht was seemingly doing nothing wrong. He was sailing outside of the Somolian boundry and therefore should expect to be hung out to dry simply because people there know no legal boundry and have no moral base to them. The captain was not doing anything to warrant attack other than sail his private vessel in international waters. Saying they "deserve what they get" (paraphrazing) because they knew there were issues is like saying that an insurance company could rightly refuse to insure you because you drove on a highway and people should know that it is dangerous to do that.

I do agree that perhaps a smart and knowledgeable captain would have chose more that 275 miles to put between them and the shore but they were off the coast of OMAN and not Somolia. I mean these Pirates have gone up to 1300+ miles offshore to get their target and are not limited to their shore. How the hell can anybody know where it is safe? AFAIAC, their government should have stepped up somehow more than letting them get shot.

 

[Cave Diver]

How the hell can anybody know where it is safe? AFAIAC, their government should have stepped up somehow more than letting them get shot.

You cant. But you can make reasonable and educated guesses. And if you choose to pursue those endeavors, fine. But I just don't think there should be an expectation for your home government to send military or other measures to bail you out.

Same thing goes for the hikers that were detained a while back after crossing a border in the mountains and Clinton negotiated for their release.

If you choose to do something risky, fine. That just means you accept the risk with no expectation of aid. If you want to minimize it, then hire a security force, or a search and rescue team, or whatever other resource is pertinent and have them on retainer.

If there was no known history of this type of activity in the area, I'd feel slightly different, but when you escalate the risks, you escalate your responsibility, IMO.

 

[mike_s]

Well it's like this....

in theory the police should be there to protect me when I drive through the "projects". But you know as well as I do that the chances of them protecting are slim.

what most folks do, is avoid driving through the projects. It works for most people. simple as that...




But I do agree that he was not in what was previously considered "dangerous waters" even though he knew of the possibility. He took the chance.... and oh well.

AFAIAC, their government should have stepped up somehow more than letting them get shot.

Still I think the US Navy was doing all it could do at the instance. Sending a seal team in to a ship with 13 to 15 pirates on it was not the best "first choice" when they actually had one of the pirates on their ship working to negotiate with them.

seeing how the pirates killed two of their own and started a fight amongst themselves while their "negotiator" was off the yacht, seems like it was doomed regardless.


After the gunfire started, the SEALS went over and most of the pirates immediately surrendered. two didn't. they met their fate.....

 

[Cave Diver]

It's sad to say though that this attack and their deaths will likely set the precedent for others who are pondering this decision in the near future. (or it should)

Yes it is sad. And it's terrible that it happened and I agree something should be done about the pirates. I just don't feel that *we* should always be the ones jumping in trying to do things. If our citizens choose to pursue risky adventures in other parts of the world, the responsibility is on them.

 

[ScubaSteve]

OK....well sort of.....but to veer away from the current situation and say that a ship were to sail 1400 miles off shore because they have never gone that far out....could they expect aid then? What is a reasonable distance to tell sailors to stay clear?

I suppose my issue really boils down to this:

If you say they should have known better and stayed away, I believe you should be able to define the conditions under which it is not acceptable.

You cant. But you can make reasonable and educated guesses. And if you choose to pursue those endeavors, fine. But I just don't think there should be an expectation for your home government to send military or other measures to bail you out.

Same thing goes for the hikers that were detained a while back after crossing a border in the mountains and Clinton negotiated for their release.

If you choose to do something risky, fine. That just means you accept the risk with no expectation of aid. If you want to minimize it, then hire a security force, or a search and rescue team, or whatever other resource is pertinent and have them on retainer.

If there was no known history of this type of activity in the area, I'd feel slightly different, but when you escalate the risks, you escalate your responsibility, IMO.

You sound like my Insurance comapny and why they will not insure me with my ScubaDiving

......If our citizens choose to pursue risky adventures in other parts of the world, the responsibility is on them.

 

[Teamcasa]

America has been dealing with these pirates for a long time. We should of figured out a better way by now.
From Wikipedia:

Jefferson reported the conversation to Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay, who submitted the Ambassador's comments and offer to Congress. Jefferson argued that paying tribute would encourage more attacks. Although John Adams agreed with Jefferson, he believed that circumstances forced the U.S. to pay tribute until an adequate navy could be built. The U.S. had just fought an exhausting war, which put the nation deep in debt. Federalist and Anti-Federalist forces argued over the needs of the country and the burden of taxation. Jefferson's own Democratic-Republicans and anti-navalists believed that the future of the country lay in westward expansion, with Atlantic trade threatening to siphon money and energy away from the new nation on useless wars in the Old World.[14] The U.S. paid Algiers the ransom, and continued to pay up to $1 million per year over the next 15 years for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. Payments in ransom and tribute to the privateering states amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.[citation needed]
Jefferson continued to argue for cessation of the tribute, with rising support from George Washington and others. With the recommissioning of the American navy in 1794 and the resulting increased firepower on the seas, it became increasingly possible for America to refuse paying tribute, although by now the long-standing habit was hard to overturn.

For me, any attack or act of piracy against a US flagged vessel would constitute an act of war. The pirates involved would be captured and if an innocent was killed, the pirates would be executed at sea, their bodies would be returned to their host nation. Any vessel that hosted or aided the pirates would be sunk. The host country would be made to pay retributions to the families of the victims and or companies affected.
I realize this maybe an extreme solution but at this point what do we have to lose? How many more innocent people need to suffer or be killed before we decide to act?