Surviving Pirate

[Jermyn Davidson]

Does the pirate that came to the American Government to negotiate the release of her hostage deserve any of this for punishment?


http://unusualhistoricals.blogspot.c...hment-and.html




Why or why not?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Sam

I could see where it would not be considered an act of war if he did not act in an official capacity representing his government.

He committed a crime against a U.S. citizen.
Why could we not seize him and try him for some crime?

Who in Iran do we seize and try for the unlawful detaining of the American there?


So the precedent we are setting is anywhere an American is harmed, we will bypass that country's sovereignty, get the criminal offenders and try them in our own country where they will be SURE to get a fair and impartial trial.


Does that make sense to anyone?

Where is America's jurisdiction in this?
What country is that ship property of? Do they have any rights to prosecution?

[edjen01]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:

1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and

2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.



But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?

This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid.

regarding #1....who cares if he was "captured" or fell out of a bar drunk...got is got. the fact that he IS a pirate is reason enough.

about #2....thats the point. if every pirate knew this is what would happen if we caught them...me thinks they would leave our boats and crews alone....there are plenty of French & English ships to capture.

arrrrrr matey!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The 9/11 conspirators were folks who were in America legally and did their crimes against Americans on American soil.

They were not citizens though. My questions is or was, did we have a right to go into Afghanistan to seek those that organized it or should have have just HOPED the Taliban will do it for us? Why should we turn this criminal over to the Somali government...which War Lord do we turn him over to?

Shouldn't he stand trial in Somalia because he is a Somali citizen?

For crimes against Somalies? Yes. For Crimes against Americans? No

The crimes were not committed on American soil-- is the ship even American property?

So? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor should we have hoped someone in Japan would prosecute their crimes? No. We did it ourselves.

The fact that Somalia has no government is a moot issue.

no it is not. You said turn them over to Somalia....for what? a party? Justice? Who enacts justice if there is no government?

I don't think my tax dollars should be going to give this guy representation in our legal system.

Then vote for a conservative with guts who would have done a Tribunal in international waters and made the guy walk the plank

How many thousands will be wasted on this guy? For what purpose?

Justice. The alternative is to let him go to attack another ship and possibly kill other citizens on another day

Could he possibly get a fair trial in the first place?

Is that what you are concerned about? I sense a lack of genuineness. First your complaint was your tax dollars and now you are worried about him getting a fair trial? Do you think he will even get a trial in Somalia? If steps on the wrong toes there he would not even get a trial. They'd just off him.

But if a trial is what he should get, where and who is gonna do it there in Somalia? Who will prosecute it? A somalian?

In fact, why would there even be a need for a trial?

he broke International laws against an American citizen

The only reason he was "captured" is that he was trying to negotiate the release of the hijacked American.

he was captured because he was the lucky punk that did not get his brains blown out

He's already guilty

So what do we do? let him go free for being guilty of commiting a crime NOT on American soil?

It would have been better for the young buck to have been killed than to have brought him back here.

For who? Him? For you? Again it's hard to figure out what you are trying to accomplish? Are you concerned for him? For your self and your tax dollars? For justice to be done? Are you just bored and will argue any point no matter how absurd it is?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Ferd

For the record, I firmly believe this killer/thug will get off scott free. and I think that is why he is here.

Obama will make a show about "Amerian Justice" and how fair he is and then send him back to his momma so he can resume his activities on the high seas.


here is a nice quote that drives home that point.

Ron Kuby, a New York-based civil rights lawyer, said he has been in discussions about forming a legal team to represent the Somalian.

"I think in this particular case, there's a grave question as to whether America was in violation of principles of truce in warfare on the high seas," said Kuby.

"This man seemed to come onto the Bainbridge under a flag of truce to negotiate. He was then captured. There is a question whether he is lawfully in American custody and serious questions as to whether he can be prosecuted because of his age."

He will lament how impoverished they all are and plead us to understand and why it is so important to redistribute wealth. He will ask congress to spend 1 Trillion dollars on uniforms and berets and put them in Obama's Civil army and send them out to preach his gospel and pay them for it out of our pockets.

I sympathize with these guys, but that does not justify what they did. IF we let them go they will be emboldened

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Ferd,

The fact that he wasn't really "captured" but was actually in the process of negotiating the hostage's release further complicates this.

He shouldn't be tried here in America.


And the idea that President Obama may be related to this and every other African simply because he is African is not plausible, has nothing to do with the issue-- and why would it even be brought up? (not that you said this Ferd, but it's on my mind too.)

I stand by my initial statement that it would have been better for him to have been killed than to be brought here for trial.


But since he is here and will be standing trial as an adult, can he POSSIBLY get a fair trial here?

He wasn't a hostage negotiator. He is a pirate. He hijacked a ship, committed attempted assault or mayham or murder and kidnapped a citizen of the US.

I think it would be better for us if he were killed than brought here. If he is found guilty he will be getting free room and board

Can he get a fair trial here? Why not? Obama our king will make sure he does

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

not an issue.

If this guy had been a citizen of Bangladesh, in this situation, he'd still be in NY on his way to trial, imo.

Besides, he's not being tried in an international court or by a military tribunal. He is being tried in our legal system-- given rights that prescribed only for AMERICAN citizens.

Doesn't that get anyone else's goat around here?

HE'S NOT AN AMERICAN AN NOT GUARANTEED DUE PROCESS!!!


You and I are paying for his court proceedings-- and for what?

so why is just letting go a better alternative?

BTW we still pay for the international court. I find it ironic you are decrying his getting rights only an american should get, then decrying that he can't possibly get a fair trial here.....huh?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

For the person who said he should be hanged, I'd almost agree with you if it wasn't for two considerations:

1) This pirate wasn't "captured"-- he was negotiating the release of the American hostage; and

2) Hanging him would be unnecessarily inflammatory-- making him walk the plank or putting him before a firing squad would be just as effective.



But then, by trying in OUR legal system, what would be the appropriate punishment for this guy, once he is found guilty, by that COMPLETELY IMPARTIAL AMERICAN JURY somewhere in New York City?

This whole event is morphing into something very, very stupid.

Are you saying he did not partake of the hijack and kidnapping?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They were not citizens though. My questions is or was, did we have a right to go into Afghanistan to seek those that organized it or should have have just HOPED the Taliban will do it for us? Why should we turn this criminal over to the Somali government...which War Lord do we turn him over to?

His trial should not occur in America. He is a Somali citizen, there is a government there (though shaky) let them try and punish him, imo.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For crimes against Somalies? Yes. For Crimes against Americans? No

For the sake of those concerned about getting him a "fair" trial by brining him back to America, my question is given the nature of his crimes, how can he get a fair trial by an impartial AMERICAN jury?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So? When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor should we have hoped someone in Japan would prosecute their crimes? No. We did it ourselves.

Act of War. I wonder why uncontrolled piracy could not be an act of war? This would make this case a lot less stickier.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

no it is not. You said turn them over to Somalia....for what? a party? Justice? Who enacts justice if there is no government?

There is a form of government.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Then vote for a conservative with guts who would have done a Tribunal in international waters and made the guy walk the plank!

Tribunal would have been the most fair and aggressive way to handle this-- short of killing him.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Justice. The alternative is to let him go to attack another ship and possibly kill other citizens on another day!

Do you really think it will be just for this guy, once he is convicted, for him to be sentenced to a life that may actually be better for him in many ways?

Then if we go through with the trial and then let him go, we've done NOTHING but waste time and money.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Is that what you are concerned about? I sense a lack of genuineness. First your complaint was your tax dollars and now you are worried about him getting a fair trial? Do you think he will even get a trial in Somalia? If steps on the wrong toes there he would not even get a trial. They'd just off him.

One of the issues folks who are concerned for this guy is the fact that he can't get a fair trial here in America-- a point I agree with.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But if a trial is what he should get, where and who is gonna do it there in Somalia? Who will prosecute it? A somalian?

If this guy was an American, you'd better believe America would be jockeying to get him back here for trial. Were those Blackwater civillian tried in Iraqi courts for their crimes against iraqis? With your logic, they should have.

You and I both know that was NEVER an option for those AMERICAN citizens.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

he broke International laws against an American citizen

The best solution would be to try him in an International Court since the crime happened on international waters.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

he was captured because he was the lucky punk that did not get his brains blown out

So what do we do? let him go free for being guilty of commiting a crime NOT on American soil?

He was captured under the banner of truce-- if he had a white flag, he would have waived it and he WOULD NOT have been detained.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For who? Him? For you? Again it's hard to figure out what you are trying to accomplish? Are you concerned for him? For your self and your tax dollars? For justice to be done? Are you just bored and will argue any point no matter how absurd it is?

Just trying to bring out all of the complexities of ths case for public discussion.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by edjen01

regarding #1....who cares if he was "captured" or fell out of a bar drunk...got is got. the fact that he IS a pirate is reason enough.

about #2....thats the point. if every pirate knew this is what would happen if we caught them...me thinks they would leave our boats and crews alone....there are plenty of French & English ships to capture.

arrrrrr matey!!!

I disagree with point one.

Because he was negotiating, he should not have been detained, imo.

Since he was detained, it needs to be brought up in his trial (probably at the penalty phase) the fact that it was his intent to negotiate the release of the American hostage.