18 ms·
Calling all pirates: This US lawmaker wants you to seize Russian vessels
- duxup 5y agoFor those who don’t know a US House representative can / do introduce bills that are just grandstanding / don’t become law. This is a fun thought experiment none the less.
- newaccount2021 5y ago
- hef19898 5y agoSo, this guy is basically advocating that the US, unilaterally, can ognore the Paris declaration of 1856? Well, the US never signed it (what a surprise...) in the first place. I really hoped the Ukraine war showed how respecting international law and treaties goes a long way in forming coalitions and stabilizing politics.
- hdivider 5y agoAgreed -- and I should point out I don't personally support this piracy idea at all. Just 1) entertaining, 2) intellectually interesting to see how old school, Blackbeard-style piracy with letters of marque is actually still a possibility.
- hef19898 5y agoYeah, intellectually it is interesting. I just fear that this will, ultimately, backfire. Privateering works better against an abundance of targets. Russian oligarchs and Russian Naval assets are lower in number than, say, Western shipping. So nothing would block Russia from issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal against, e.g., shipping going to the EU and the US. Which would tie down a load of naval assets, and could hurt the West more than Letters of Marque would hurt Russia, once their assets are seized there's nothing else to be seized. But hey, Pirates, harr! EDIT: Now that I think of it, any prospective privateer is facing a couple of challenges (privateering is business after all): If you operate under an US Letter of Marque you have a limited number of prizes. Those prizes are comparatively easy to capture, legitimacy isn't your immediate concern and selling the prizes is a solved problem. If you operate for the Russians, potential prizes are plenty. Legitimacy is a major concern, so. As is selling those prizes for money. Capturing a container ship is easy (just ask the Somalis), piloting it to a friendly port as well, crews are really small nowadays. Selling 10k TEU is a different story so, especially if the party issuing your Letter of Marque is short on hard currency. And has a limited number of deep sea ports. Those ports are, lucky for any potential privateer, close to the largest ports of origin in the Pacific. One just has to be careful to not piss of the Chinese. resorting to Letters of marque could turn the Pacific into a, almost, hot war zone resembling the Caribbean during the golden age of piracy. Unlikely scenario, but stranger things have happened. It would make a great military fiction novel so!
- rbanffy 5y agoIt may be able to reverse global warming, if the Pastafarians are right.
- prepend 5y ago> So nothing would block Russia from issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal against e.g., shipping going to the EU and the US Nothing except the US Navy patrolling shipping lanes, as they already do. If Russian had a global navy they might have a stronger position. But as it is now, pirates will never encounter a Russian ship. They will likely encounter a US ship, especially if they try to disrupt that tanker full of Cheetos (or whatever).
- hef19898 5y agoAh, despite all the patrolling Somali pirates had a quite successful run. Now scale that up at least ten fold. And the US Navy would then be the privateers' problem, not the problem of the Russian Navy, which could stick to the Russian coast where it can operate under aerial protection. If anything, the Russians could benefit most from a full-blown privateering program.
- prepend 5y agoI think you may be confusing the existence of Somali pirates to mean the US Navy doesn’t depress pirates. There would be many more than that without the Navy. Privacy still exists [0] with more in the Straits of Malacca than off Somalia. This piracy is much less due to the actions of the US Navy. I’m not sure why you think it would increase 10x if Russia endorsed privateering. I think Russia’s position is moot since their fleet would never stop this in the first place. So their privateering position doesn’t seem to matter. While there’s lots more US (and US-bound) ships, I don’t think Russia’s navy is preventing any piracy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_21st_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy_in_the_21st_century
- cafard 5y agoWill backfire? I think that there remain enough grownups in the Congress that this guy's idea will never get a vote on the floor of the House.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoSovereign states can always 'unilaterally' decide to do whatever they want. It all boils down to strength, really: the US can get away with much more than anyone else (Ukraine 2022 is not so different from Iraq 2003, and yet...) because they are much stronger than anyone else. In this case, the main limitation is that the US and Russia don't want a direct war so will refrain from direct attacks. Even this guy is not suggesting the Navy should do it. But if Russia was much smaller (and without nukes) I think the US could actually be OK with sending the Navy to seize any Russian vessel they could find.
- hef19898 5y agoPrivateers, under a proper Letter of Marque, are considered to be legitimate mercenaries. No much difference if it is Privateer Babossa of Commodore Norrington who's doing the seizing at sea, as long as the former is operating a letter of marque. Both parties are, basically, part of the same Navy. The other option would be outright piracy. EDIT: Sure, sovereign states can unilaterally decide whatever they want. in case they are not North Korea they risk to break multiple treaties so. As Russia showed us, one miscalculation in such a sovereign decision bears the risk of turning said country into an isolated country, just like North Korea.
- mytailorisrich 5y agoCountries can withdraw from treaties first so as not to formally break them, or just indeed break them. The point is that the consequences depend on who you are. Russia is up against the US/West so consequences are severe and, again, we can contrast this against the consequences for the US of invading Iraq, which were none.
- pydry 5y agoThe real restriction is probably not really legitimacy but that that Russia would retaliate in kind.
- zozbot234 5y agoUkraine is not a state sponsor of terrorism like Hussein's Iraq was. I'd call this a very significant difference.
- refurb 5y agoThis is a bit of a hilarious take. I mean we have international laws and treaties already. Nazi Germany was found guilty of “Starting a war of aggression” (but the USSR wasn’t, funny that). The truth is international laws and treaties are worthless for the most part. The only thing enforcing them are states - states that have complete sovereignty over whether or not to enforce them. For the most part international laws and treaties are just cover for powerful nations doing what they want.
- hef19898 5y agoWell, the USSR was called out for the various wars with Finland and Poland, up to the point the Western Allies promised help before retreating to "my enemies enemy..." with Stalin. SO when exactly did the USSR start an invasion without being called out? And don't count invasions during WW2 against the Axis, those don't count once a war started.
- refurb 5y agoI mean Germany was found guilty during the Nuremberg trials in part for its invasion of Poland - the one where the USSR secretly agreed to it and murder thousands of Polish Officers. Yet the USSR was not one of the defendants at the trial but rather one of the judges.
- hef19898 5y agoAt the time so, USSR was called out for it, the Allies were not that hot on the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, were they? Lucky for them they ended up on the right side (and winning side) of history.
- vmception 5y agoIt is constitutional to enter into treaties that to undermine other parts of the constitution. So the US avoids that. 1856 was a gamble but now it absolutely has the leverage to avoid that.
- phendrenad2 5y agoI doubt anyone in congress has any idea what international laws are, and they're too petulant and grandstanding to care anyway. That's why we have a commander in chief, I guess.
- zelon88 5y ago> I really hoped the Ukraine war showed how respecting international law and treaties goes a long way in forming coalitions and stabilizing politics. Isn't it? The world is united. There is one country flagrantly violating international law, and that's russia. They are paying for it. All other countries are in agreement that this must end. The coalition is forming. And it will eventually succeed in taming Russian aggression. I just hope that this time we demilitarize russia like we did with Germany and Japan. The world has had enough with russia swinging a broken bottle around and adding very little value to anything.
- saiya-jin 5y agoFunny as the idea in modern world is, I think we should focus on more relevant goals. Disable Microsoft products ie via license servers (that renders any state apparatus dysfunctional due to heavy reliance on Office), block porn, google and apple app stores. Block all gaming consoles. Ideally with clear explanation why. Things like that. Its one thing to be born in North Korea-esque dictatorship and not knowing any better, but having many benefits of modern life removed is percieved much more negatively.
- newsclues 5y agoBlocking porn and video games would cause teenage boys to revolt.
- DocTomoe 5y agoBecause it is somehow morally acceptable to puppeteer some teenage boys as quasi-child soldiers to reach ones goals? We should be very careful on our strategy here. Alienating a whole new generation of Russians cannot lead to good results in the future. We should have learned that from 20 years in Afghanistan.
- WinstonSmith84 5y agoAnd this comment has been downvoted. This is quite telling ...
- rbanffy 5y agoI believe it takes a suggestion made in jest way too seriously.
- latexr 5y ago> Because it is somehow morally acceptable to puppeteer some teenage boys as quasi-child soldiers to reach ones goals? That’s not what the comment you’re replying to said, but the way you phrased it makes it seem like it was. I’d wager the comment was made in jest, but even it wasn’t it expressed a though without commenting on its morality or expressing agreement. You can claim “doing X would lead to Y” and vehemently oppose either or both. Consider an alternative: “I don’t find it morally acceptable to puppeteer some teenage boys as quasi-child soldiers to reach ones goals”. You’d have shared your opinion just the same without confronting the other person for an argument they didn’t make (which in turn is earning you downvotes and burying your otherwise valid point).
- hluska 5y agoI have absolutely no experience pirating (or even sailing) boats (or with Russian oligarchs), but trying to pirate a Russian oligarch’s yacht seems like a very bad idea.
- chinathrow 5y agoI agree, we should leave this to the insiders. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/ukrainian-sailor-arrested-for-trying-to-sink-oligarchs-superyacht https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/28/ukrainian-sail...
- gonzo41 5y agoI feel like it's a job uniquely suited to young Americans with military experience and a love of the open ocean.
- prepend 5y agoI feel like it’s going to be a Netflix movie with Ben Affleck and/or Charlie Hunnam.
- belorn 5y agoIt is a rather peculiar suggestion, as it is important to note that letters of marque is basically only a thing in international waters. Inside harbors and territorial water the coast guard and military has a lot of freedom, and its a fairly recurring event that boats are sometimes denied permission to leave. Boats can also be denied to use specific water ways, in similar ways that roads can be disabled for general use. Naturally, boats that are stuck because they are not given permission to leave territorial water is still property of their owners, in a similar way that frozen assets of sanctioned individuals are only frozen. Law of the Sea Treaty, which was signed fairly recent, have United States claiming control of 200 nautical miles from the coastline. In theory they should be able to force any ship to go into harbor and stay there.
- WinstonSmith84 5y agoYes. For the matter, many EU countries used extensively this right to deny boats leaving their harbour 2 years ago (because Covid). Specifically Portugal, Spain and France (among others) have been infamous.
- throw0101a 5y ago> Law of the Sea Treaty, which was signed fairly recent, have United States claiming control of 200 nautical miles from the coastline. The US did not ratify UNCLOS: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_N... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_t... They may generally follow it out of good manners, but it is not binding on them.
- belorn 5y agoMy point is that they can choose to exercise territorial control for ships that extends fairly far away from the coastline If the government of the United states want to freeze those assets, and they are located anyway near the US, they can just send out coast guards/military escorts and force them into harbor. No need to arm private citizens with letters of marque.
- fredgrott 5y agoPeople forget that the US did this in several instances in our past. Some of them were in fact during our Colony days. Like it or not Russia during Putin's rise in the 1990s and the rise of criminal elements in the Russian government declared a war on the West. This time Putin just is saying loudly out-loud via military actions.
- zozbot234 5y agoLetters of marque and reprisal were also proposed as a non-military way of policing terrorist groups, back in the early 2000s. They're an interesting idea, I'm not sure why those proposals failed to gain adoption.
- hef19898 5y agoBecause all major sea powers, excluding the US, signed the Paris treaty of 1856, making privateering, basically, illegal. Since then harassing your enemies shipping in international waters, or those of your enemy, fell to the respective navies.
- zozbot234 5y agoThese provisions are part of the customary laws of war. As such, they were never intended to apply to unlawful combatants such as terrorist groups.
- PedroBatista 5y agoFunny how these "strong men" only come out of the woodwork with their "brilliant ideas" when the other guy turns out to be weak ( in their minds ). I don't know if these geniuses believe this bandwagon will not have any consequences for everyone. My guess is they operate like the entire World is their Twitter timeline and just fire-up a tweet or two while on the toilet.. It's easy to be tough when you are ignorant and have 2 oceans as a buffer.
- yoloyoloyoloa 5y agoBiden does not even know the difference between Iran and Ukraine. Be careful who you take orders from.
- smoyer 5y agoAmerican oligarchs should have plenty of resources to expand their coffers through this program. I don't recognize this publication or author but you have to admit their honesty when they lead with a horribly photoshopped image and caption it with "Vladimir Putin swimming on a hunting trip superimposed in front of a stock yacht"
- latexr 5y ago> you have to admit their honesty when they lead with a horribly photoshopped image and caption it with Admitting an obviously fake image is fake doesn’t mean they are honest in the text.
- smoyer 5y agoVery true and I realize I wasn't clear enough above - my comment was strictly about the image.
- jwithington 5y agoThere's really no reason to do this because it's essentially a declaration of war against Russia. If you're willing to go to war with Russia, just send the Coast Guard to seize vessels.
- xdennis 5y agoItaly has already seized Russian ships. I don't see them being invaded by Russia. https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-seizes-yacht-owned-by-russian-oligarch-mordashov-source-2022-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/world/italy-seizes-yacht-owned-by-ru...
- toyg 5y agoThat's not a "Russian ship", that's a personal yacht owned by a Russian who has been explicitly sanctioned. The boat was sailing under flag of the Virgin Islands (tax haven, who would have thought!). Sequestering all generic ships sailing under Russian flag would be a different, and much more serious, action.
- patja 5y agoIt feels like the Italians are trying to make up for / save face regarding the luxury goods sanctions carveout after experiencing widespread criticism.
- prepend 5y agoAs Sid Meier’s Civilization game taught me, privateering is explicitly not a declaration of war. It’s been used many times as a Cold War style tactic. Now, Russia might declare ware and cite this as a reason, but it’s not. It’s more like state sponsored terrorism. Like how Iran isn’t actually declaring war on Israel with its Hezbollah sponsorship. Similarly, the US wasn’t declaring war on the USSR when it armed Afghan rebels in the 80s.
- hef19898 5y agoPrivateering stopped being a thing in the late 19th century. Being state-sanctioned, it is kind of a declaration of war, especially nowadays it would be. Confiscating assets due to sanctions is very different from privateering.
- throwaway4good 5y agoWhat if the Russian made a similar legislation - enabling Russians to seize assets of select American citizens? What would that be?
- xdennis 5y agoSeems fair if they chose to live in Russia.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y agoThe name "Sir Francis Drake" does not yet appear in this discussion. Fixing that.
- Jemm 5y agoSo privateers?
- mrtri 5y ago
- DoItToMe81 5y agoI am deeply disturbed at all of the "rule of law for thee, not for me" that the Russian sanctions have brought to the surface. It was bad enough when the UK, which has very strict laws on fighting for foreign nations and paramilitaries, said they'd ignore their own citizens going over to fight. This is a different league all together.
- cottager2 5y agoIgnoring a country’s sovereignty and attacking them is also “rules for thee and not for me.”
- gruez 5y agoYeah but we don't take the approach of "well you ignored rules, therefore we can ignore rules as well" when it comes to our justice system. Criminals broke the rules, but they still get due process.
- phendrenad2 5y agoIronically, that's the sort of thing the USSR used to say to the US. Problem with the USSR? Just point out something equally bad about the US. Through that logic, until the rest of the world was perfect, the USSR could get away with anything.
- antifa 5y agoWell, why exactly would it be fair for only the United States to get away with genocide, war crimes, human rights violations? Seems weird that only one side is allowed to be guilty.
- chosen1111 5y agoYeah ww3 is looking more likely. I guess deagle was right. This is an unrestricted submarine warfare moment
- Maursault 5y agoDoes Russia have any good boats? Can spacecraft be seized? What is the tax burden of seizing a fully-loaded Russian supertanker?
- lostmsu 5y agoI like the idea of space pirates. Good fiction topic if set in modern days or a few years from now.
- jmpman 5y agoCan’t someone just GoFundMe a nice vacation in the Maldives for some stressed out Ukrainian special forces? Maybe they want to go snorkeling?
- tpoacher 5y agoSurely if you're a pirate, selling a US ship to the Russians is worth more money than the other way round?
- vmception 5y agoPick a side Or trade both Good luck
- InsomniacL 5y agoThe attention this type of thing gets should be at least somewhat proportionate to the likelihood of it getting approved.