The Politically Correct Pirate War

The Associated Press is reporting (courtesy of William Katz) that the surviving Somali pirate is being brought to New York, where he will be charged and likely be indicted. According to the story by the AP: “WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) — The captured Somali pirate who held a merchant ship captain hostage will be brought to New York to face trial, a U.S. official said Thursday. The suspect, identified as Abduhl Wal-i-Musi, was taken aboard a U.S. Navy ship shortly before Navy SEAL snipers killed the three remaining pirates holding Capt. Richard Phillips hostage on a lifeboat launched from his cargo vessel, the Maersk Alabama. The official said it was not immediately clear when Wal-i-Musi will be brought to New York. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to disclose information about an ongoing investigation.” So, justice will be served, but will the U.S.’s version of justice serve to stop the pirates? When Edward Teach (or Thatch) aka Blackbeard was killed in battle by Lt. Robert Maynard at Ocracoke Island in 1718, his head was cut off and hung from the bow of HMS Ranger-a warning to other pirates that the Royal Navy was not going to play their little game of maritime hide-and-seek. There were several reasons piracy largely disappeared during the 19th century. 1.The end of the sailing age and the coming of the iron clads made it very difficult for pirates to operate; they could not maintain engine-powered ships in without access to friendly ports, something that the old sailing vessels did not require. A windjammer was no match for an ironclad steam ship. 2.Terra Incognito disappeared as maps became more accurate, making it harder for pirates to find quarter. 3.There was a general movement in the West-particularly in Britain-to combat piracy wherever and whenever found. Granted, the Royal Navy was fighting piracy long before the 19th century, but the Europeans sanctioned it more often than not. Certainly, letters of Marque were issued to “privateers” who were nothing more than licensed pirates given orders to prey on the ships of enemies of the host state. In short, they were quite similar to Hezbollah or the other state-sanctioned terrorists of today. In fact, privateering continued through the 19th century, and the last letter of Marque was issued by none other than the United States government to an AIRSHIP of all things-the Resolute-during the Second World War! But the key elements here should be obvious; piracy was feasible because the pirates had some sort of sanctuary, could reprovision fairly easily, and had a modicum of freedom of movement. Once those abilities were adequately circumscribed, the pirates were finished-provided there was adequate political will to exterminate them. Modern piracy should be impossible; we have satellite reconnaissance, high speed gunships, aircraft of all types, long range ballistic weapons and rockets, radar, sonar, laser-guided weapons, GPS systems, etc. Piracy flourishes where it is protected by the local authorities, be they Islamic Jihadist governments, local warlords, or just greedy SOBs out to make a buck and with the capital to protect the cut throats. They tend to prey on ships that are in dangerous waters, often ships intended to help the people of their host country. (The Maersk Alabama was trying to bring food to a starving Somali population, much like the U.N. food deliveries was seized by Somali Warlords during the 1990s “Black Hawk Down” incident.) The point is, piracy is far too dangerous a profession where there is adequate political will to deal with the pirates-and their hosts. It`s current rise worldwide stems from multiculturalism and moral relativism; the West has been unwilling to deal harshly with thugs lest we be guilty of the “sin” of judgementalism. Who are we to judge pirates, terrorists, Jihadists, Marxists? We must understand what drove them to these actions! The concept that America-or Europe-is ultimately to blame because of colonialism or some other past sin of Christendom is at the heart of this return of piracy and it`s kissing cousin terrorism. These are not new. They have returned because we now tolerate them. White guilt, the self-loathing of well-to-do white liberals steeped in a liberal educational culture that blames America first and foremost, has paralyzed our collective ability to act decisively. We should be following the lead of Robert Maynard, displaying the pirate`s heads for other young would-be pirates. They should know the potential pitfalls of their newly chosen profession, after all! That has been the problem with the War on Terror (oops, I forgot; our Foreign Contingency Operation) as well; why haven`t we been executing the thugs? Collecting information is fine and dandy, but there has remained a promise of potential escape, as a fellow like Barack Obama may come into office and unilaterally release them (oops again; it already is happening!) There are no CONSEQUENCES for terrorism-or piracy. Cicero defined piracy (and Praedones, or land based pirates-like terrorists) as Enemies of Humanity (Hostis Humani Generis) and thus subject to universal jurisdiction. Enemies of Humanity have renounced kinship with civilization, their hand against all as in a state of raw nature. Thus, as in the state of nature, they are subject to whatever fate may befall them, much as a rabid animal is subject to being killed by any who may come across them. But we`ve become to “civilized” for that; now we want to give them the rights of citizens. One thing is certain; offering pirates the protections of U.S. courts is a recipe for future attacks. Even if these guys go to a U.S. prison, what will there fate entail? Air conditioning, three square meals a day, cable television, a soft bunk, and likely hero status among the hooligans who inhabit America`s penal system, along with the right to multiple appeals. How do we identify the pirates, when they come from Somalia? How do we know they were read their rights? How do we prove that they weren`t forced onto the pirate ships against their will? The courts will assume their innocence, and a prosecutor will have to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. O.J. Simpson couldn`t be convicted in a court of law; how will we convict teenage pirates? What will constitute a “jury of their peers?” Will we have to get a bunch of Somali pirates to sit on the jury? Weakness invites attack, and history is littered with examples. The U.S. fought its first war with the Barbary Pirates-and their Islamic hosts in Tripoli-because the newly independent nation simply could not afford to pay the tribute that the cowards in Europe were shelling out in their Dhimmi status. Making non-Muslims pay tribute is as old as Islam itself, a recognition of the right of the Muslim to rule the entire world for Allah. By submitting to their demands, the Europeans opened the gates to increasing blackmail. America fell prey to this for a while, attempting diplomacy by signing treaties with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripolitania-the four pirate states. By 1801 the fledgling-and nearly bankrupt-United States had paid $2 million to the Barbary States-only one fifth of what they demanded. Thomas Jefferson decided that the time had come to fight, and America put a stop to the demands of the Islamic bandits by blockading Tripoli. Alas, we have lost that spirit, and now want to treat piracy in the same way we treat embezzlement or shoplifting. We have become far to “civilized” in the West to deal with this as is necessary. What is needed is the old Medieval concept of Trial by Ordeal-with other would-be pirates getting a front row seat. That would dissuade many of the impoverished kids who think this is the ticket to the good life in Somalia and elsewhere. Ultimately, our ambivalence in the War on Terror is bearing the rotten fruits of piracy, and that should come as no surprise. Barack Obama has his familial roots in the Kenyan Islamic community, and doubtless the very fact that a Man name Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States has brought a surge of aggression, because as a good Moslem (as these Somalis and other Islamic Pirates doubtlessly see him) BHO is one of their own, and will not aggressively prosecute this “Enemy of Mankind” status to the full extent. I strongly suspect they see him as one of their own. He may not be one of their own, but he is a good Liberal capital L, and the Left has never met a thug they didn`t consider a victim of our oppressive capitalistic cultural chauvinism. Ultimately a man like Barry Soetero Hussein Obama believes that these pirates (or any brute) attacks us because they are disenfranchised, poor, oppressed. They are to be pitied in the mindset of the Left, and our living a life of wealth, security, and freedom is the cause of their belligerence. The answer to a liberal is to “spread the wealth” and apologize for our success. An apology is of no value if not backed by actions, which means we are duty bound to give them what they cannot create for themselves. It`s a marvelous excuse for international redistribution of wealth via a fundamental restructuring of the world`s economy. So, OF COURSE we are going to let these monsters wheedle our judicial system, hiring some of the smarmy defense attorneys to get them off or obtain light sentences, and our enemies will laugh their collective heads off. As long as Liberals are in charge, as long as they haunt the American mind and civil institutions, piracy will be a problem. After all, what are liberals but intellectual and economic pirates themselves?