DeMediacratic Nation: Al Qaeda, Hamas, Those in Support

Disclaimer:

Skip over my introduction if you wish, by all means, BUT do not pass up the post being introduced. It can be considered lengthy, however, it is by far a very thought provoking and usable definition according to US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 regarding piracy and how this can and should be applied to those at war with this nation. This is a must read

Who in their right mind would ever consider terrorists, pirates? In the course of conversation perhaps, but truly and by what most consider a pirate to be or look like.

“Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy.”

One of the debates in the Edwardian “bumper sticker war” is the outrage over those held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is without doubt a serious question as to what it is we do with these people; if only because they are “enemy combatants” of the kind we haven’t really dealt with before in a war of the same lack of experience; a war, which will not end any time soon. So what to do with those captured and detained until the end of hostilities when those hostilities have every indication of consisting of decades time?

We know the arguments, the very basics of which are; treat them almost as though they have committed a civil crime and try them in the criminal court system with all the protections that entails or keep them locked up, gain intelligence and deal with them via military tribunal, treating them through the military community’s means.

“Enemy combatant,” “unlawful enemy combatant,” or other such nomenclature not yet thought considered?

A Jacksonian has done much research to date and finds that there is little or no need to classify or reclassify as each detained, involved, in support of whether individual, group or nation are by definition involved in piratical activity or pirates themselves.

Sound ridiculous, have your doubts or does it peak your interest? Regardless, read what has been posted to date before one considers snickering in amusement thinking they know better.

From A Jacksonian at Dumb Looks Still Free: “Why do we refuse to call terrorism for what it is?”

“I have looked at the Federal Piracy Laws in two posts: When Terrorists are Pirates, and A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters.

This piece now works off of the more finalized views of the second piece, but do understand the background given in the first as necessary to this.

Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy. Consider the very broad part of the US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 on this:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.
This is the very broad view of keeping the traffic lanes on the seaways open from illegitimate and unlawful attacks, seizures and other activities that put the commerce of the seas and navigation of the seaways at peril. Those that endanger such, even if they endanger NO US owned or operated vessels, are Pirates. That is more simple brigandage upon the high seas, but also delineates that Nations at War are respected in their ability to hamper shipping against their enemies that directly supports those enemies, as that is a lawfully declared purpose of Sovereign Nations. Putting war material on a passenger liner, however, is a violation of that as it comingles civilian and military affairs in wartime and is, thusly, considered to be shipping in support of the war effort of one Nation.

Beyond that, however, this is a very broad purposeful law that does NOT put forth that non-State organizations cannot be considered Pirates. In point of fact that is why the law is addressed in such a broad way: to include anyone who commits laws against Nations on the High Seas to put shipping at peril. And as Civil Law may not hold here, it is the Admiralty part of the US Armed Forces that are to apply these Laws.

Sounds ancient, doesn't it?

Consider this news report from 15 JUL 2006 by ABC News, confirmed by multiple sources:...”