The Dread Pirate Bin Laden
More on the subject of fear:
Dean Esmay, a fan of “The Princess Bride,” points out that the Dread Pirate Roberts of that movie was an actual historical figure.
Pirates have become almost comical these days, good for a laugh in a children’s movie, not to mention a classic costume for Halloween. That’s about it.
But in their day they were much-feared, and rightly so. This piece (also reached through a post linked by Dean) offers a discussion of the history of piracy and of laws against it, and suggests applying the concept to terrorists.
Pirates were once state-sponsored, hidden agents for nations to wage war against each other. Then piracy degenerated still further, into free-form nihilism:
…[latter-day pirates] struck indiscriminately in ferocious revenge against the societies that they felt had condemned them. Often these disenchanted sailors cast their piratical careers in revolutionary terms. The 18th-century English legal scholar William Blackstone defined a pirate as someone who has “reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature by declaring war against all mankind,”…Perhaps the most telling statement of the pirates’ motives comes from a pirate named Black Sam Bellamy. To a captured merchant captain, he boasted, “I am a free prince, and have as much authority to make war on the whole world as he who has a 100 sail of ships and an army of 100,000 men in the field.”
The laws against piracy rest on:
…the concept of universal jurisdiction. The crime of piracy is considered a breach of jus cogens, a conventional peremptory international norm from which states may not derogate. Those committing thefts on the high seas, inhibiting trade, and endangering maritime communication are considered by sovereign states to be hostis humani generis (enemies of humanity).
In the mid-19th century, the nations of Europe had finally stopped using piracy to further their own ends and got together to help weaken its hold on the world. A similar unity among the world’s nations right now against the current enemies of humanity might relegate terrorists of the future to characters in children’s movies, and to colorful costumes at Halloween. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to happen: terrorists still serve the interests of many countries, who use them as convenient surrogates and hidden agents.
Let me be the first to say it –
Arrrr!
Let me be the first to say it –
Arrrr!
Okay, I broke your Haloscan thingy. That above was NOT what I entered.
A clear comparison — interesting.
FINALLY! I’ve been noting for sometime the similarities between today’s international Islamic terrorists, especially the state-sponsored and supported kind, and the historic use of privateers by Great Powers and their degeneration into piracy. Unfortunately, not enough nations are fundamentally fed up with the idea yet. For an even scarier thought, it took several hundred years for the European Great Powers to give up on privateers and stamp out piracy.
Pirate, or privateer?
neo-neocon writes: “terrorists still serve the interests of many countries, who use them as convenient surrogates and hidden agents.”
Yes, exactly. Look at how the USA used the mujaheedin terrorists in Afghanistan as a convenient surrogate to fight against the Russians; and how the USA used the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua as convenient surrogates to fight against the Sandinistas.
* * *
http://eaglespeak.blogspot.com/
This guy is a retired Navy Captain and has some interesting posts and takes on piracy, as well as general things about the high seas.
The advantage of privateers and mercenaries, more politely called private security forces these days, is their inherent efficiency from lack of political and large-agency constraints. These small forces are not top heavy and burdened with forms and regulations and entrenched administrators wanting to guard their turf. Mercenaries are more mature and experienced than most traditional military forces and are highly paid to boot. All that matters with such forces is getting the job done and circumstances of their personal lives seldom reflects on their job,goals and their group. They don’t hold press conferences and most significantly in the WOT, they are not bound by the shackles recently applied by our Supreme Court. Imagine extending the considerations of the Geneva Conventions to al qaidah fighters. Ha!
Host countries contract with them and if so inclined, said ’employees’ could send pictures of hot irons being applied to the balls of an enemy to Justice Roberts and there ain’t a f**k*** thing he could do about it except to mutter under his breath that war should be civilized and conducted according to humane Laws. In fact, the Hamdan ruling only reinforces the need for more mercenaries, excuse me, private security contractors – the boys that don’t give a rat’s ass about what Mom&Pop back home think and how they vote.
Yes, this is something I have been pushing for… And looked at… Fully Constitutional, honorable and a great way for Congress to exercise ITS warpower against Commerce. It is the asymmetrical warpower that the US holds to Warrant Privateers to go after the Commerce of Our Enemies and give Reprisals to those that are less than Nations.
The long link listing and excuse me for it, the first is a fictional look and then things get technical:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/pork-is-for-terrorists.html
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/congressional-role-in-warfare.html
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/my-open-letter-to-congress.html
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-i-go-on-about-some-things-and.html
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/08/answering-tigerhawk-re-what-will-it.html
High risk, high reward: Bring them in get the Bounty or the Price of Goods at Auction. Power given by the People, through the Constitution, to Congress. Still there in black and white unamended in the Letters language. Asymmetrical warfare that the non-State enemies cannot stop and cannot counter. We the People agree to take on the mere bullies of the World and leave the Nations to the Military.
Both in Afganistan and Nicaragua USSR also used proxies, so these were proxy wars between USSR and US. Sandinists were soviet creatures from the beginning, just as Communist Party of Afganistan who “invited” soviet troops to “help” them.
Also should be noted, that it was not so much international agreement that exterminated pirates in 19 centuary, but the rise of British Empire, who without hesitation used gunboat diplomacy on any country which give aid and comfort to these enemies of humanity.
Actually piracy (not the software kind) is a real problem today. Most people ignore it or don’t know about it because the news organizations don’t report it.
I don’t have links in front of me, but the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime Bureau runs a piracy information clearing center, because it is such a problem for international shipping. There are also a handful of private security companies that deal specifically with countering the threat of pirates.
Today they don’t sack towns, they are using small fast boats to overtake and board ships at sea. The UN had an entire aid ship taken and the crew held hostage for 6 or 9 months.
People die, so it isn’t the best source of humor today.
Neo, in your brilliant historical parallel between terrorism and piracy you have regretfully omitted the most important point: this “international agreement” was concocted by Brits, dictated by Brits, imposed by Brits and enforced by Brits. Any transgressor would have been dealing with Her Majesty’s Navy. No wonder, that nobody dare to. All this becomes possible only because Queen Victoria lived in unipolar world, and Queen Elisabeth – in bipolar. So she encouraged privater (or pirate) Sir Francis Drake to loot Spanish forts and galleons. The moral is: in bipolar or multi-polar world terrorism and proxy wars are inevitable, in unipolar they become unnecessary and eradicable.
Terrorists are like pirates, enemies of humanity. Yet pirates were usually clearly pirates, black flag and all.
Terrorists are more like enemy spies, pretending to be civilians.
I would support shooting them, except I know many true civilians are mistaken for terrorits (when usually they are the not-fully innocent civilian supporters.)
sergey: It’s not surprising to me that the end of the age when pirates ruled the waves came because Britannia ruled the waves. There’s almost always someone in charge of these things, be it Pax Romana or Pax Britannica. Fortunately, the UN wasn’t around back then, or it probably wouldn’t have had such a good resolution.
Zendo Deb: You are correct that there are still some pirates doing their business, although the scale of the thing is much smaller than it used to be and they don’t really bother the great powers. So pirates as a rule are relegated in most people’s minds to being something like leprechans–extinct and quaint–even though, in reality, pirates do still exist.
Remember when hijackings were referred to as “air piracy,” as well?
Justin makes one of the key liberal mistakes: any failing on America’s part somehow justifies any wrongdoing by our enemies. That is logically absurd.
Okay, Justin, I’ll even grant that the examples you cite were, as you claim, equivalent to terrorists.
So what?
What, exactly does that prove? That we shouldn’t fight against terrorists now? That we _deserve_ to be murdered by modern terrorists?
Is that what you believe? Then save us your blather, hop a plane to Iran, and wander around waving a caricature of Muhammad. You’ll get the murder you evidently think you deserve.
Oh, you don’t think _you_ deserve murder? Then why do _other_ Americans deserve murder because of real or imaginary sins of the past? You want some _other_ innocents to expiate this sin by dying at the hands of Muslim fanatics? Makes you kind of a chickenmartyr, doesn’t it?
And if you don’t believe any of this, then quit repeating these idiotic leftist boilerplate talking points. We’ve heard them all before, we’re not impressed or convinced, and it doesn’t make us think you’re clever.
If the American-supported “terrorism” you deplore was wrong, then the modern Iranian-supported terrorism is no less wrong, and we need to fight it.
Very well said, Trimegistus – thanks.
Unfortunately, just now there is none in charge. So Pax Americana seems most desirable innovation.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned Jefferson’s illegal war on “pirates.” It violated every paragraph of the UN charter.
It seems to me that the Bush Doctrine touches on some of this: Any power found giving harbor to pirates, that is, terrorists, will itself face military action. A parallel to the Brittanic edict?
Yet I wonder if certain major countries in seeking a multi-polar world would not see terrorist activities as an opportunity to create favorable new power arrangements.
One minus American hegemony, for instance.
Not actively sponsoring Arab terrorism, that is, but…
Iran is one of the “not”-majors openly in this game. I am suspicious of France (neo’s next post, which I have not read).
Actually piracy (not the software kind) is a real problem today. Most people ignore it or don’t know about it because the news organizations don’t report it.
I don’t have links in front of me, but the International Chamber of Commerce’s International Maritime Bureau runs a piracy information clearing center, because it is such a problem for international shipping. There are also a handful of private security companies that deal specifically with countering the threat of pirates.
In waters not controlled by the US Navy, piracy is pretty easy. They even hijack some oil tankers around Somalia and the Phillipines.
People don’t give a damn because the United States Navy protects the Western Civilization, and that means Western People don’t care what happens overseas more or less if it doesn’t affect them at home. Piracy was a terror precisely because they could come on shore, invade and sack a town, then sail off.
Executions of pirates and spies were very useful and efficient. I base executions of terrorists precisely on the historical context. What worked before, will work. Unless you think you can innovate and the fly because human has surpassed the need for solutions that have worked in the past.
Most of the fighters in Afghanistan was the Northern Alliance. Al Qaeda came because… they wanted to fight. Like Al Qaeda came to Iraq, cause they wanted to fight. AL Qaeda and terrorists like to fight. Whether it be Soviets and their school children or Americans and Marines.
For more information on piracy, check out this post I did awhile ago.
International Piracy
Zendo Deb
Even though I live in the US, by being Filipino, I’m painfully aware of the fact that piracy – the classic, high-seas style albeit with rubber outboard-engined boats and AK assault rifles instead of swords – is still nearly commonplace in the Asian pacific area. The Malaccan Straight has been the center of many acts of piracy, mostly for petty cash and electronics off the crews of tankers and other commercial cargo ships, and to be honest, while that’s a very real problem, it’s really no more than common robbery you’d find in big cities. However, the possibility of real danger to nations exists; in the book Dangerous Waters, the author notes of one time a tanker was captured by robbers and set aflame. No, this wasn’t a practice run at bombing a harbor – the story seems clear (at least to me) that the setting aflame of the tanker was an attempt to quell the crew’s uprising against the pirates after they shot the captain’s baby girl (literally a baby, only a few months old). But the point is the ease at which the fires were started (hemp ropes near vents were set on fire, which set off the gasses in the vents themselves. It’s a wonder the tanker didn’t actually blow sky high). And that’s the imporant point: This incident, accidental as it was, showed how easy it *would* be to capture a vessel, set off a series of fires on board, and steer it into a harbor to explode. Forget nuclear bombs; that material is still not that easy to come by, relatively, and expertise is still needed to work that sort of device. Exploding a crude oil tanker by comparison is much easier, as all it requires is the ability to steer and set fires or explosives.
So piracy and terrorism can dovetail in more than just rhetoric, if someone somewhere puts two and two together and tries to replicate the event I noted above.
And: Zendo Deb’s right. Piracy is indeed still with us today.
People love it when they see the US decrease in power and influence. Boy, will they be surprised at what happens next if they get their wish.