Captain once held by pirates urges military protection, armed crews

[jody]

Captain once held by pirates urges military protection, armed crews (LA Times)

Capt. Richard Phillips, skipper of the Maersk Alabama, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was the "responsibility of the U.S. government" to protect any ship flying an American flag, through military escorts or onboard squads of highly trained security forces.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

But the recommendations from Phillips, widely regarded as a hero for selflessly trading his freedom in exchange for that of his 20-person crew, are likely to pressure the U.S. military to consider steps he outlined in the hearing. At the same time, military officials have said that world navies could not protect every ship, and they have recommended that vessel operators adopt more aggressive defenses.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Phillips called piracy a "crime of opportunity," and said pirates were shifting their tactics as quickly as shipping companies made changes to foil them.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

"Historically we have deputized citizens to engage in law enforcement activities, going way back to the posses," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the committee chairman.

Why should government be required to protect a corporation when SCOTUS has said in DeShaney and in Gonzales that government is not obligated to protect an individual?

When did a government based on a Constitution that begins “We the People of the United States” and mentions “people” several times and never mentions corporations become “We the Corporations of the Corporate State”?

When will Kerry call for deputized citizens to protect citizens in areas like Chicago, Detroit, et al overwhelmed with violent crime?

[paulsby]

1. bad analogy

"Why should government be required to protect a corporation when SCOTUS has said in DeShaney and in Gonzales that government is not obligated to protect an individual?"

he is calling for patrols to collectively protect these interests, just as patrols can protect collections of individuals.

the ruling said that the cops are not required (unless a special relationship has been established) to protect any individual.

this would not violate that.

if the govt. failed to protect A company, they are not liable.

it does not therefore follow that they cannot step up protection when a problem is seen to an individual or corp.
we do it all the time, in both cases

when we had a string of robberies in an area, i worked a surveillance detail to help protect those businesses.

that is not what the case law referred to.

what it said was that the govt. cannot be faulted for protecting any one individual (or corporation) because we are not personal security. govt. (cops) protect society and do their best to help individual victims, but there is no special relationship/duty

[jody]

3. How is it a bad analogy? Each individual should demand "squads of highly trained security forces",

that is a precise application of what the captain proposed.

IMO government is not obligated in any way to protect a corporation and certainly not before it protects each individual.

[paulsby]

18. it is different because

what the decision said is that the govt. is not legally responsible for providing protection to an individual.

it does not mean that the govt. cannot target resources to protect individuals or corporations. it merely means they can't be held criminally or civilly liable for NOT doing so.

do you grok the difference?

let me give you an example. we had a string of armed robberies targeting service stations in an area that i work.

what did we (the cops aka as the govt.) DO?

we targeted resources. we sent about 10 detectives to that area to spend time sitting in their cars and surveilling those businesses in an attempt to catch bad guys.

that does not run contrary to the scotus ruling. yet it is analogous to what is being proposed here: using govt. to target specific criminals that are going after specific businesses.

that is why you misunderstand. the decision said they can't be held liable for not doing X. it did not say they cannot or should not do X.

[jody]

19. You do know that SCOTUS says govt. is not obligated to protect an individual, don't you? Why then do

you argue that govt. has an obligation to protect a corporation?

First protect We the People, individuals each, from violent crime and if there is any tax money left over, perhaps We the People through our elected representatives could consider using some of our tax dollars to protect corporations.

You do know that you are responsible for your personal self-defense so why don't you agree that a corporation is responsible for its self-defense?

[paulsby]

20. keerist. try some reading comprehension

the decision said that govt. is not legally responsible (iow they can't be sued or prosecuted) for NOT doing it.

it does not, for the second time, follow that they don't routinely do this, for individuals and corporations.

i'm a cop. we respond to complaints and "problem areas".

when local banks see an upsurge in robberies, we set up surveillance, etc.

when a local house is repeatedly targeted, we do the same with them.

given sufficient staffing, etc.

i gave another example where we protected corporations, and by extension - the people who work for them - by setting up surveillance on local service stations that had suffered a string of robberies.

the court decision does NOT (for the 2nd time) say govt. can't or shouldn't respond to criminal activity by stepping up efforts to help protect individuals or corporations. frequently, we do that. what it said is that we cannot be held criminally or civilly responsible for NOT doing so, UNLESS a "special relationship" exists.

[jody]

21. If you are not comprehension-challenged H.R. 17 says:

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘{C}ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

The cited article says "Capt. Richard Phillips, skipper of the Maersk Alabama, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was the 'responsibility of the U.S. government' to protect any ship flying an American flag, through military escorts or onboard squads of highly trained security forces."

The conclusion is quite obvious, GOVERNMENT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PROTECT AN INDIVIDUAL OR A CORPORATION AND PHILLIPS IS WRONG.

[paulsby]

22. and you still miss the point

phillips is not speaking as a lawyer.

he is saying it is the govt.'s responsibility.

this is no different than (for example) a politician saying "we have the responsibility to protect children from drug pushers and sexual predators in their neighborhoods"

and nobody would disagree.

what the decision said, this LEGAL decision is that the govt. cannot be sued nor can charges be pressed for any failure to do so.

you STILL can't grok the distinction.

[jody]

23. Mea culpa, I hope you eventually overcome your challenge. Have a nice day.

:hi:

[HereSince1628]

2. Well, Blackwater has been looking for new contracts...

I suppose that blasting boats to bits is well within their portfolio.

[jody]

4. Makes sense as long as corporations pay for them just as many private citizens pay for private

patrols that check their property.

[gratuitous]

5. No

We can't afford to police the oceans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. And what's the ratio? One battleship per merchant ship? One per flotilla of 20 or more? How would the fastest merchant ship feel about slowing itself down to the speed of the slowest ship in the flotilla so that they can stay together for protection? Or how would the faster ships feel about waiting in an assembly area until there were sufficient numbers of ships to justify armed protection?

Oh, and who's going to pay for all this naval presence?

[jody]

6. "And the only jobs left were in the U.S. Foreign Legion, defending the worldwide assets of

those who had taken the people's jobs and stolen the people's government."

From an OP in DU's Labor forum, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x19609

[gratuitous]

8. I gotta go read that post!

Damn, I like the way that sounds. I'll shamelessly file off the serial numbers and call the sentiment my own.

[DURHAM D]

7. Come on Jody - its tradition.

As I recall we had the U.S. Marines in the Banana Republics for years protecting the interests of the United Fruit Company.

We spent millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to protect our banana supply and suppliers. :sarcasm:

Now that I think about it - I guess we are still doing it.

[jody]

9. You probably have read "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler, twice awarded MOH.

"War Is A Racket"

[DURHAM D]

13. Nope - studied UFC back in the 70s while in graduate school. n/t

[tularetom]

10. Crews of merchant ships in the 1700's were trained in use of small arms

hand to hand combat and use of cannons.

There is no reason that crews of this era could not be similarly trained without resorting to use of the military or private security mercenaries.


I also agree that citizens particularly minority citizens should be armed and deputized in such high crime areas as Chicago Detroit or Birmingham AL.

[jody]

11. Using crews for defense of a ship applies to corporations U.S. law that says self-defense is a

personal responsibility.

[tularetom]

12. So if a corporation trains its employees to defend its ships

Seems to me it is in compliance with US laws that provide for self defense.

Customers of the corporation will pay for the cost of providing this defense. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it.

[jody]

14. That's my opinion and I wish congress would consider it before they spend taxpayer dollars to defend

corporations.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

15. Hell No!

Publicly traded company can budget their own security.
I swear I'm going to stop paying taxes if this continues.

Also, notice every time one of these ships are in the news they claim their cargo is "humanitarian aid." Yeah right.

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/snapshot/snapshot.asp?ric=MAERSKB.CO

[LostInAnomie]

16. Let the corporations hire blackwater, or some other mercenary group.

The military should not be at the behest of corporations.

[jody]

17. Agree, why should a corporation have a right that is denied to an individual? n/t