Ships lack alert systems?

Well, according to this, they don't have good ones:

Many ships are vulnerable to pirate attacks as they do not have high-tech communications equipment to promptly relay distress signals to the relevant authorities.

Armed Forces chief Laksamana Tan Sri Mohd Anwar Mohd Nor said this hindered the authorities’ fight against piracy in Malaysian waters.

He urged shipping companies to install such equipment so that pirates could be intercepted immediately.

“If they disregard this matter, then piracy will continue to be a thorny issue for them.

Yep.

Pirates Free Thai Hostages

As reported (although the headline refers to the freeing of "fishermen")here:

Pirates from the renegade Indonesian province of Aceh have released the Thai captain and crew of an oil tanker, over a fortnight after they were captured in the Malaysian waters.

Pol. Lt. Col. Somkiert Jiwdan from the Satun marine police force, said that he had received reports that the men, captured at the beginning of the month, had been freed.

The captain and two members had been taken by the pirates from the BPP 14 oil tanker in the Malacca Straits, an area notorious for pirating.

Initial report of their kidnapping here.

Senator Durbin Wins a Dodo

Senator Dick Durbin, for placing US troops in greater danger by his thoughtless political-motivated hate-speech yappery and for all the reasons set forth at Michelle Malkin, has earned an EagleSpeak Dodo award.



The Senator's "explanation" of his idiocy has become one of the "most emailed" stories from the al Jazeera website. It is doubtful that it was being emailed to Sen. Durbin's Illinois constitutents.



The Senator should read up on providing "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Update: A previous awardee, Senator Voinovich, has been shedding tears at the thought of a UN with John Bolton as the US ambassador. I suggest that if there's anything worth getting that worked up over, it might be over the damage to this country's image being currently wrought by some of his fellow senators, such as Senator Durbin. Senator Sessions gets it:

What is happening that's so wrong and so upsetting to me is that we've got senators and congressmen and other people suggesting that we have wholesale violation of human rights at these prisoners, and it's not so. Two hundred of these 500 prisoners have cases pending in federal court, they've had multiple hearings to determine whether or not they should be kept there, they're being treated humanely, and it's wrong for us to send the message around the world from our own members of Congress that they are being abused on a regular basis. It just makes it tougher for our soldiers who are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people in Iraq and around the world and to convince the people there that we're trying to do right. (source)

Update2: Emails to my Senators:

Dear Senator _______:

Please take some action of behalf of the people of North Carolina to either censure Sen. Durbin of Illinois or engage in some other appropriate measure to try to correct the damage being done by his speech comparing the treatment of the detainees in US hands to that of "Nazis," the Soviet gulag or Pol Pot's regime.

I am greatly concerned that the ramifications of Sen Durbin's speech include adding to the hostile environment faced by all service members. As a retired Navy reserve officer who served in three wars and in several overseas assignments, I can tell you that my experience is that these allegations will be repeated back to Americans serving abroad and will be used as justification for terrorist actions that may be taken against our service people serving abroad.

While all Americans are entitled to free speech, it has long been recognized that certain members of our society have certain responsibilities that place limits on their rights to free expression.
Thus, military officers are forbidden to express "contemptuous words" against members of Congress under Art 88 of the UCMJ in order to preserve good order and discipline.

Surely Senators have or should recognize a similar duty to refrain from making comments that will certainly result in increased risk to the brave men and women who have chosen to serve their country in the military services. That Senator Durbin's comments and his "non apology" explanation have become one of the "most emailed" stories from al Jazeera's website ( and I hazard a guess that the emails are not going to his Illinois constituents) points out that Sen. Durbin's words are having an effect far beyond Illinois or the rest of the US.

Further, it's not that I don't appreciate his concern that the US treat its prisoners properly. It is that I think his manner of expressing that concern is completely out of line and very dangerous and damaging to this country.

Thank you.

Update3: Iowahawk discovers a pattern.

Update4: The Wall Street Journal's Brett Stephens gets the "gulag" treatment I am concerned our troops receiving from a German "diplomat" as recounted here.

Indonesian Navy questioning 65 foreigners on ship that strayed into Indonesian waters

Harmless trial of a boat or something else? The mystery is here:

Indonesian navy officers on Thursday were questioning 65 foreigners on board a Singapore-flagged ship that allegedly strayed into Indonesian waters, a navy spokesman said.

"We going through all the information, including from immigration and intelligence sources, and will need two or three days to complete the probe," said First Admiral Maliti Yusuf.

The 20-meter (65-foot) vessel, Bordon Aladin, was caught on Wednesday at anchor off Nipah Island in the Malacca Strait about 70 kilometers (45 miles) south of Singapore.

The passengers and crew are from France, Norway, Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, the Philippines and Singapore. They have told authorities they were testing the boat, which was newly built.

65 people on a 65 foot boat? Hmm.

Update: Here's a photo of a 65' boat (seems to have seen better days). The US Navy has a 65-foot patrol boat that carries a crew of 4.



Update2: The owner of the boat has been identified as "Singapore's Keppel Corp."

Keppel Offshore & Marine (Keppel O&M) combines the expertise and experience of Keppel FELS and Keppel Shipyard (formerly Keppel Hitachi Zosen), making it the largest rig-building and marine group in the region.

With its strong design and engineering capabilities, Keppel is a total solutions provider and partner to customers, participating in their design and planning of a wide range of rigs and vessels.

Keppel is the world leader in the building of harsh environment jack-up rigs, having built most of the world's jack-ups on order in the last decade. It designs, builds and repairs the complete range of mobile offshore drilling units, floating production systems, production topsides and specialised vessels such as deepwater semi-submersibles, tension leg platforms and other highly sophisticated offshore vessels.

In the marine business, Keppel is the undisputed leader in the conversion of Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessels and Floating Storage and Offloading (FSO) vessels, and has the expertise in the whole spectrum of repair, conversion and building of a diverse range and capacity of vessels.

Keppel is poised to strengthen its global leadership through its strategic global network of 16 yards and more than 10 support operations, excellent track record of on time and on budget deliveries, advanced proprietary designs, and its compliance with stringent safety standards.(source)

But they better learn to keep their boats under control.

update3: Keppel as offshore support vessel builder Shipyard: and a sample boat (60 meters long)

Remembering Harry Truman

Look out, Vast Right Wing Conspiracy! Stygius is encouraging some "plain speaking" for the "progressives" here and, shades of HST, suggests "saying what you mean and meaning what you say." For example:

So instead of rooting around finding ways to reconcile progressive values with national security-speak, first embrace a couple of core premises:

1. There are a group of fanatic killers who want to kill as many Americans as they can; and,
2. Dead terrorists can't kill Americans.

Internalize these premises. Believe in them. I have little doubt that progressivism can coexist with them; it's just a question of getting over bad universalizations about human goodness and political cause-and-effect that make one uncomfortable with the notion of killing bad guys...is killing sufficient to solving the world's problems or making America secure? Hell no; which is when all those other bullet points and Top 10 lists come in to the picture. But it's necessary, and a damn fine place to start in communicating where you're coming from. In the end, the objective is annihilating the enemy; one way is by annihilating their existence, the other is by annihilating the relevance -- or salience -- of their religio-political agenda. These are not mutually exclusive.

And, you know, he may just be on to something...

Update: In an older post I noted some Democrats for whom I had some respect...but those were simpler times, I suppose...

15 June ONI World Wide Threat to Shipping

Go here and click on the date. Highlights:

1. Following the 31 May attack on a tanker near Basra oil terminal, Coalition forces will increase anti-piracy patrols in the N. Persian Gulf. According to a 14 Jun press item the U. K.'s Maritime Trade Operations (MTO)office advised commercial vessels to be alert to coalition forces and to comply with their directions (UKMTO). (Somewhat ironic in light of this)

2. STRAIT OF MALACCA: An unidentified tanker was hijacked 13 June
at 2100 UTC while underway off Langkawi Island. Ten armed pirates boarded from a speedboat. One crew member managed to escape in the pirates' boat, landed at Langkawi and notified police. Police dispatched a police boat
which found the tanker off Pulau Lebar. The pirates subsequently surrendered and were taken to Langkawi for investigation (IMB). (See the latest reprts of a possible "inside job" in the attempted hijacking of the tanker Nepline Delima here and here)

Read the whole ONI report because it shows how active a field this is...

Pirates (?) at Iraq's Basra Oil Terminal

Some armed men were seen on board a tanker anchored near Iraq's Basra oil terminal as reported (albeit breathlessly) here:

Exports from Basra provide nearly all of Iraq's income.

"The alert was sounded when watchmen found three men carrying long knives, a rifle and a machine gun on board the vessel. The pirates fled in a speed boat and no causalties have been reported," GAC said.

The agent said merchant ships should be extremely cautious in and around the deepwater terminals and anchorages. "In light of this latest incident, robust anti-piracy procedures should be adopted," it said.

Security worries have plagued Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in the spring of 2003.
Only this week U.S.-led coalition naval forces increased patrols in and around Iraq's Basra oil terminals after two high-profile security scares.

The U.S.'s Navy's Fifth Fleet, which co-ordinates maritime security in the Gulf, was not immediately available for comment on the latest incident.

Last week the navy told Reuters coalition forces were only direclty responsible for security at the oil terminals and not at the approaches or anchorages.

Piracy watchdog, the International Maritime Bureau (IMB), said the incident once again raised serious questions over security.

"It's pretty worrying because of everything that is happening in Iraq. We are monitoring the situation closely," Jayant Abhyankar, deputy director of the IMB told Reuters. (emphasis added)

Looks like the "pirates" seem to have found a security seam- ship self protection - which is the same problem all around the world.

Update: (semi-related story) As reported here:

Iraqi Marines Prepare to Take Over Oil Platform Security,,,n Iraqi Marine working with U.S. security forces said he and his fellow Iraqis look forward to taking full responsibility for the security of ABOT and KAAOT.

“It’s my duty to defend [the oil terminal]. It belongs to my country. It belongs to my people. Our economy is based on it. I take pride in doing so,” said the Iraqi Marine.

ABOT and KAAOT are significant sources of revenue for the Iraqi people – revenue that is important to the rebuilding of Iraq.

Interesting development: Tanker hijacking may be inside job

The Star Online (Malaysia) reports Tanker hijacking may be inside job

Police suspect the hijacking of the Malaysian-owned tanker MT Nepline Delima off Langkawi early Tuesday morning may be an inside job.

They have arrested two crewmembers believed to be involved in the hijacking of the vessel which was carrying 6,280 tonnes of diesel worth about RM12mil.

Kedah police chief Deputy Comm Datuk Mohamed Supian Amat said one of the crew member, an Indonesian, was remanded for 12 days along with the 10 pirates from the Aceh province.

It is learnt that the other crew member would be remanded today.

“We believe this is an inside job. This hijacking was well planned,” he said.

See my earlier post on the ship seizure here.

Not the first "suspicious" ship taking in the area recently, see here.

Oh, and did you notice from my earlier post on the Nepline Delima that apparently this is the third time the ship has had "pirate trouble?" Hmm.

Update: But wait there's more -

Police believe that the 10 pirates who attempted to hijack the oil tanker, Nepline Delima, in Langkawi waters on Tuesday have connections with an international syndicate.

Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Musa Hassan said Thursday that this was because they had to sell their ill-gotten gains to others.

He also did not discount the possibility that more crewmen of the vessel would be arrested on suspicion of providing insider help.

Speaking to reporters at the Langkawi International Airport here after being briefed on the incident and investigation, he said police were investigating the possibility that the pirates, believed to be Indonesians, were also involved in an earlier hijacking of a commercial ship in the Melaka Strait...

...Asked whether the pirates had links with separatist groups in Indonesia, he said the matter was being investigated.source)

And:

The New Straits Times, citing police sources, said one of the suspects was a senior officer on the tanker who had allegedly messaged the pirates using his mobile phone minutes before the attack.(source)

US, Indonesia urged to boost joint maritime security work

Pretty easy to suggest, hard to implement: US, Indonesia urged to boost maritime security work

he study sponsored by the U.S.-Indonesia Society urged Washington to allocate $30 million over five years to help the Indonesian navy beef up communications, intelligence and operations in the region, through which much of the world's trade moves.
"The U.S. should make maritime security a priority issue in our relations with Indonesia," said study author Bronson Percival, a terrorism expert at the Center for Naval Analysis.
Describing the waters surrounding Indonesia as the "most dangerous in the world", he said the piracy-plagued Strait of Malacca, which is bordered by Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, was particularly vulnerable to attack by light boats or mines.
"Pirates in the Strait of Malacca have proved how easy it would be for maritime terrorists to operate there," Percival said in a presentation in Washington of his report "Indonesia and the United States: Shared Interests in Maritime Security."

Yep. They have.

One man's pirate is another man's...

Were the pirates of old really the awful ogres portrayed in legend? Did Pirates of Yore Get a Bad Rap? has one answer.

At a time when the British Empire restricted trade in the colonies, pirates were a source of cheap goods and tidy profits for merchants and others who sold them supplies. But pirates were also heroes in the eyes of many sailors, indentured servants and others who saw them as rebels against tyrannical merchant captains, plantation owners and government officials.

"This particular phase of piracy was more of a maritime revolt than simple crime," notes Kenneth Kinkor, research director of Expedition Whydah, the Provincetown, Mass., group excavating Bellamy's wreck. "There was a level of democracy and tolerance aboard pirate vessels that was very difficult to find anywhere in the Western world at that time."

Yeah, well, I suppose most modern day pirates are also just trying to feed their families...

By engaging in criminal and often lethal activities.

As in

Two Indonesian sailors, freed after more than two months of captivity, were turned over Wednesday to an Indonesian lawmaker, while the Philippine military said efforts were under way to rescue a third hostage.

The three tugboat crewmen were kidnapped by suspected Muslim guerrillas in March. Two were rescued on Sunday on southern Jolo island after a firefight between troops and al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf extremists.

Erickson Hutagaol, 23, and Yamin Labuso, 28, told reporters at the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters in Zamboanga city that their captors kept them constantly on the move and they feared for their lives. (source)

Interesting Take on the Iraqi Sunni Strategy

At Strategy Page here.

Bomb your way back into power, otherwisw known as "terrorism."

11 Arrested on Terror Charges in Spain - al Qaeda Suicide Bomber Recruiters

11 Arrested on Terror Charges in Spain

Spanish police arrested 11 men Wednesday on charges of belonging to a Syrian-based group that recruits suicide bombers to attack U.S. troops in Iraq, officials said Wednesday in revealing a new facet of Spain's role as an al-Qaida staging ground.

Five other people were detained a day earlier in connection with last year's train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people and wounded more than 1,500, authorities said.

More than 500 heavily armed police staged pre-dawn raids in a half dozen cities to grab the 11 alleged members of a recruiting network that has ties to Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi's terror group al-Qaida in Iraq, the Interior Ministry said.

(Hat tip: Counterterrorism Blog)

Hmm. "Syrian-based". Hmm.

Muslim American Society News: Officials Defend Guantanamo Detentions

At the Muslim American Society website, balanced coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee's 3 hour hearing into the Gitmo detainees.

Least surprising headline of the day: Iran 'misled UN on nuclear work'

BBC says Iran 'misled UN on nuclear work'.

As Gomer used to say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Not.

On Boycotts

Hugh Hewitt here has a series of posts relating to an article written about some Christians engaging in a boycott of products featured in "gay-themed" programming and an associate dean's "accusation of 'religious fascism.'"

I have always assumed in a free society that any person or group of persons was free to buy or not buy products based on any reason or reasons they can come up with. I have also always assumed that members of our society were free to join with others to attempt to influence the behavior of corporations through group boycotts or other tactics ( I seem to recall sitting through shareholder meetings in which a shareholder - I think he was a minister, in fact, would raise issues concerning the company's affirmative action plan).

In fact, I seem to recall various announced boycotts of say, grapes or companies doing business with South Africa (in its apartheid days). Some of these boycotts were even justified on religious grounds.

More recently, I have seen the World Wide Council of Churches call for economic boycotting of Israel (at least I assume that's what is being referred to here:

This week the World Council of Churches (WCC) joined an ever expanding movement across the Christian World and condemned the “illegal” Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza while highlighting plans to apply “economic pressure” on Israel.

I have not, ever heard the term "religious fascism" applied to any of these boycott efforts. Nor have I seen any condemnation from the "left" of such efforts as constituting religious interference with political or economic matters.

So the left cannot be opposed to religious involvement in matters of conscience per se. What they mostly seem to be opposed to is "conservative" religious forces adopting the tactics of the left and applying them successfully to what the conservatives view as matters of conscience.

Pacific forces moves?

Honolulu Advertiser on A Pacific forces reshuffle. Putting some flexibility into the mix. Interesting read.

(hat tip: Marmot Hole via Simon World)

Maritime Security in the Arabian/Persian Gulf

Per the Times of Oman:

While talking about the security situation in this region, a top US naval chief in the Gulf yesterday said most countries in this region are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and terrorism-related activities.

Vice-Admiral David C. Nichols Jr, commander, US Naval Forces Central Command, Commander, 5th Fleet, said this while speaking to media at the InterContinental Hotel about the maritime security operations (MSO) coming under the US Naval Central Command area of responsibility. The 5th Fleet of the US Navy is based in Bahrain.

MSO sets the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment as well as complements the counter-terrorism and security efforts of regional nations.

The main objectives of the MSO is to deny international terrorists the use of maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel, weapons, drugs or other material; protecting oil installations and preventing terrorists from entering the land.

Detainees and the Geneva Convention

Oh goodie. Professor Anthony Clark Arend of Georgetown University has started a blog on International Law, the purpose of which is to support the Institute for International Law and Politics at GTown

The Institute has three primary goals: 1) to support and enhance teaching and research at Georgetown in the area of international law: 2) to inform the public policy debate about the nature, role and importance of international law in foreign and domestic politics: 3) to promote a better understanding of international law within the disciplines of political science and international relations.
Exploring International Law seeks to promote these goals by posting commentary and analysis at this intersection of international law and international politics. Through these posts, we hope to encourage debate on questions of international law and the role of international law in foreign policy. We also hope to provide a useful tool for students, scholars, and others seeking to learn more about international law and international politics.

Okay. Let's look at a posting here that raises questions about the treatment of detainees in Cuba (and presumably elsewhere)

The White House position was pretty clearly articulated in 2003:

Today President Bush affirms our enduring commitment to the important principles of the Geneva Convention. Consistent with American values and the principles of the Geneva Convention, the United States has treated and will continue to treat all Taliban and al Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo Bay humanely and consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

They will continue to receive three appropriate meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers, and the opportunity [to] worship. The International Community of the Red Cross can visit each detainee privately.

In addition, President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists.

Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Convention. Although the United States does not recognize the Taliban as a legitimate Afghani government, the President determined that the Taliban members are covered under the treaty because Afghanistan is a party to the Convention.

Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The Taliban have not effectively distinguished themselves from the civilian population of Afghanistan. Moreover, they have not conducted their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Instead, they have knowingly adopted and provided support to the unlawful terrorist objectives of the al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is an international terrorist group and cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention. Its members, therefore, are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to POW status under the treaty.

The war on terrorism is a war not envisaged when the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. In this war, global terrorists transcend national boundaries and internationally target the innocent. The President has maintained the United States' commitment to the principles of the Geneva Convention, while recognizing that the Convention simply does not cover every situation in which people may be captured or detained by military forces, as we see in Afghanistan today.

He arrived at a just, principled and practical solution to a difficult issue. The President did so because, as Americans, the way we treat people is a reflection of America's values. The military operates under a code of conduct that upholds these values, based on the dignity of every individual.

To me it is pretty clear that despite the fact that the Taliban detainees are not eligible for Geneva Convention treatment, the US will abide by its terms anyway, even toward the al Qaeda terrorists. "They will continue to receive three appropriate meals a day, excellent medical care, clothing, shelter, showers, and the opportunity [to] worship. The International Community of the Red Cross can visit each detainee privately."

Professor Arend, however, is confused:

"But what then does it really mean to say they are being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? Because they are not being given the full guarantees under the Convention, what law does apply to them?"

Well, Dr. Arend, perhaps the answer is that no law applies to them, except such rules as we choose to make out of the goodness of our hearts. In fact, they are not POWs, they are "outlaws" as this essay by Ruth Wedgwood, professor of law at Yale Law School states in its title. Professor Wedgewood elaborated in another essay:

The Geneva convention never purported to govern every form of warfare. The rules do not, for example, cover internal civil wars. Most assuredly, they were not negotiated to govern wars against piratical groups that operate internationally.

The convention's premise is that both parties to the conflict will obey the fundamental rules for lawful belligerency: that any fighting force must refrain from terrorising innocent civilians and avoid masking soldiers in civilian dress, lest an adversary target innocent civilians in response.

The test is put in four parts. Lawful combatants must have a responsible commander (to ensure accountability for violations); wear a fixed distinctive sign visible at a distance; carry their arms openly; and fight in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

These requirements apply as much to regular armies as to militia forces. It is thus fallacious to suppose that the Taliban should be allowed any exemption...

There will undoubtedly be some review of the combatants sent to Camp X-ray, to guard against human errors in their initial identification. But the critical task of fitting an older legal regime to a new mode of terrorist war is a responsibility that belongs to presidents and their advisers. (source)

Others, like Mackubin Thomas Owens, a professor at the Naval War College share this view:

The real reason the detainees are not entitled to POW status is to be found in a distinction first made by the Romans and subsequently incorporated into international law by way of medieval European jurisprudence. As the eminent military historian, Sir Michael Howard, wrote in the October 2, 2001 edition of the Times of London, the Romans distinguished between bellum, war against legitimus hostis, a legitimate enemy, and guerra, war against latrunculi — pirates, robbers, brigands, and outlaws — "the common enemies of mankind."

The former, bellum, became the standard for interstate conflict, and it is here that the Geneva Conventions were meant to apply. They do not apply to the latter, guerra — indeed, punishment for latrunculi traditionally has been summary execution.

While not employing the term, many legal experts agree that al Qaeda fighters are latrunculi — hardly distinguishable by their actions from pirates and the like. As Robert Kogod Goldman, an American University law professor who has worked with human-rights groups told the Washington Times, "I think under any standard, the captured al Qaeda fighters simply do not meet the minimum standards set out to be considered prisoners of war."

At a recent conference in Europe, Marc Cogen, a professor of international law at Ghent University argued that "no 'terrorist organization' thus far has been deemed a combatant under the laws of armed conflict." Thus al Qaeda members "can be punished for all hostile acts, including the killing of soldiers, because they have no right to participate directly in hostilities."

The status of the Taliban is more problematic. Despite the fact that the United States did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan, critics argue that the Taliban's effective control of Afghanistan, its military structure and functioning government rendered it a de facto state, the troops of which should be accorded POW status. They point out that a legal ruling required the United States to accord Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega POW status despite the fact that it did not recognize his government.

But a state that harbors latrunculi would seem to forfeit its own status as a legitimate state. The close association of al Qaeda and the Taliban, especially at the higher levels, vindicates the legal position of the United States in treating both al Qaeda and Taliban fighters as detainees rather than POWs.

And as detainees, they have no rights under the Geneva Convention. In fact, in my view, they're pretty lucky that "summary execution" wasn't applied.

As for the other two "rules of international law" that Dr. Arend cites, good luck in making a case and in enforcing anything that might result. They look pretty toothless to me. But then again, I could be wrong. Just encouraging debate, you might say.

Update: Another lawyer admitted to the Texas Bar has a compelling viewpoint:

The detainees at Gitmo are there because they were captured while engaging in war against the United States. Disdaining uniforms, disdaining all the rules and conventions of "civilized" warfare, they were bearing arms for the purpose of trying to kill American and coalition soldiers. We have ample "reason to keep" those individuals for the remainder of their natural lives or until the Global War on Terror has achieved enough success that they can be released without reason to believe that they'll return to their terrorism.

Maybe it's not good "international law" but it sure does make sense.

Update:2: I'm not sure if Professor Arend's blog allows it, but one way to stir debate would be to allow comments on his posts.

Update3: A lengthy but interesting law review article Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed conflict

Indonesian Pirates Sentenced for Sea Robbery in Malaysian waters

As reported by Channelnewsasia.com:

Seven Indonesian pirates were sentenced to six years' jail and several lashes of the cane in Malaysia, reports said on Tuesday.

The seven, arrested earlier this year, were found guilty of attempted robbery, possession of dangerous weapons and entering the country illegally, the New Straits Times said.

A court in the southern state of Johor sentenced two of the group to 76 months' jail and eight strokes of the cane.

Five others were also given lengthy jail terms and seven strokes while one of the pirates was spared the lashing because he is aged over 50.

Spared because he is over 50? He's old enough to know better...

Caning? Perfect.

Food for thought

Mickey Kaus has nice piece on the persistent problem of "hunger in America" here.

[Aren't liberals smart to talk in shorthand about "hunger," instead of about junk food and bad nutrition?--ed. I say no. Like talking about "kids," talking about "hunger" scores well in polls but avoids the complicated reality of poverty. Antipoverty activists defended the welfare system for decades by talking about "kids" and ignoring the problem of subsidizing single-motherhood. What all that "kids" talk got them was welfare reform and a GOP Congress. I think focusing deceptively on "hunger" is a similarly misguided strategy, even on liberals' own terms (i.e., the truth would encourage more government antipoverty expenditures).

No one can be seriously opposed to helping the truly needy in this country, but when the definition of needy is adjusted to meet another agenda, well, it is unfair to all involved. The truly needy may get neglected because the "not so needy" stand in their way...

Remind me again - what's the exit strategy for the "war on poverty?" Billions and billions...