Voted -- votes are 97.7% yes (arm them).
What kind of bozo would vote no?
Should merchant ships be armed?
Yes (469 responses) 97.7%
No (11 responses) 2.3%
It's the same argument we face concerning gun-free zones, yet on a larger scale:
If guns on ships are outlawed, only pirates will have guns.
Who would actually vote no? Mothers of the pirates?:blink:
97.8% sane people 495 votes
2.2% smoking crack 11 votes
Voted, I don't understand why someone would vote no...
Fact---he has said nothing because there is nothing to say. The arming of merchant mariners is controlled by "international agreements," by the laws of the ports at which ships stop during their journey, by the wishes of the ship's owners, by the wishes of the ship's insurer, by the whether or not a crew is willing to work in those waters at all, armed or not.
The issue of arming merchant ships is complex, and should have NOTHING whatsoever to do with partisan politics, and certainly the lack of arming of merchant ships should not be laid at the feet of the current president.
Where was the former president on the issue during the 5 or 6 years of increasing piracy in the Somalia region? Was he a real great leader in preventing piracy? What did he do? Mostly nothing is the factual answer.
So why take a cheap shot at the current guy?
Should merchant ships be armed?
Yes (552 responses)
No (13 responses)
565 total responses
Someone could start a very lucrative business as the company that provides the armed security for these ships.
Armed as with hand guns and shotguns - perhaps. Armed as in 50 cal's, probably. Armed as in deck mounted heavy rifles or machine guns - definitely.
Hire Blackwater or others to do the work and leave our military out of it.
"A letter of marque is an official warrant or commission from a government authorizing the designated agent to search, seize, or destroy specified assets or personnel belonging to a foreign party which has committed some offense under the laws of nations against the assets or citizens of the issuing nation, and has usually been used to authorize private parties to raid and capture merchant shipping of an enemy nation.
The formal statement of the warrant is to authorize the agent to pass beyond the borders of the nation ("marque" or frontier), and there to search, seize, or destroy an enemy's vessel or fleet. It is considered a retaliatory measure short of a full declaration of war, and, by maintaining a rough proportionality, has been intended to justify the action to other nations, who might otherwise consider it an act of war or piracy. As with a domestic search, arrest, seizure, or death warrant, to be considered lawful it needs to have a certain degree of specificity to ensure that the agent does not exceed one's authority and the intent of the issuing authority.
In the past, a ship operating under a letter of marque and reprisal was privately owned and was called a "private man-of-war" or "privateer." The French sometimes used the term lettre de course for its letters of marque, giving rise to the term corsair.
The right to issue letters of marque were relinquished by signatories to the Declaration of Paris, which was an annex to the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War.
Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to "declare War." One question is whether the marque and reprisal clause requires the President to obtain such a letter from Congress as an authorization for limited offensive warlike operations outside the territory of the United States."
I say do it. Arming private parties to provide ships escort or to operate small, fast boats to combat pirates is a cost-effective and effective solution.
Voted : YES :congrats:
Didn't wish to be accused of being in the small percentage of the crack head, Somali parents voting no. :rofl:
Only issue, I think there are international regulations that may prohibit.