There are Somali pirates currently holding millions of dollars... or rather, hundreds of millions of dollars... in cargo ships at the moment. They are demanding $10 million in ransom. And there remains little the international community can do. If they accede to the ransom, that sets the precedent for doing so with others (or the same ones) in the future. If nothing is done, then the pirates keep the loot (including $100 million worth of Saudi oil) and are free to continue their piracy without much fear of retribution.
This is a bad situation. However, it's being further hindered by International Human Rights Law. This article lays it out better than I will... but basically protecting against piracy in the last century has severely dwindled (especially in the last 10 years) because trying pirates at NATO supported military tribunals infringes upon the pirates' rights. This is why International Human Rights Law is completely idiotic. I'm all about universal human rights, but they should not prevent criminals from being tried - either abroad or on U.S. soil. When international "laws" that are so ambiguous and willy-nillily enforced that there can hardly be called a precedent fail to allow the capture and prosecution of pirates, terrorists, etc. then the spirit of the law fails. Absolutely. This is not reasonable and it detracts from the original purpose of the "laws" themselves which further fosters an environment in which these criminals can freely operate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment