Three headshots. Three dead pirates. One rescued Captain. Good or bad?

I say go Navy Seals! If they hadn’t been out there in the water breaking tons of laws & taking people captive, they’d have never got their asses shot! They got what they deserved.

Best. Tags. Ever.

Those pirates, as much as I love the idea of pirates, are a bunch of shitheads. Somalian Pirates have been responsible for enough deaths, I’m not particularly upset over it.

The Navy Seals are trained to carry out missions just like the one they perfomed in this very situation. They did their job and they did it admirably. There were pirates that took a ship by force and taking it back could and would require deadly force by rescuing forces and it would certainly be justified when facing off against violent and dangerous adversaries. The Seals were in the right and I don’t see how what they did would negatively impact the world’s view on the United States. Having excellent brothers-in-arms like that make me even prouder to be a military member than I already am.

The pirates took risks and lost.

I am proud to say my nephew is enlisted Navy and is on the USS Boxer
where Capt. Phillips is now.

@asmonet Thanks!

I agree. It’s a proud day to be in the Navy!

My admiration and utmost respect goes out to these brave men.

Very professional, beautifully executed. Ex – Coastie says “Can I get a hoorah?”

On a side note: I prefer non-lethal, but the pirates had enough time to surrender/leave

“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”

Why are three Somalian lives worth less than one American life? The pirates were willing to negotiate, and this situation could have been solved using non-lethal force, even if force was necessary.

@Dog That’s great. I’m sure you ARE proud.

@Blue, I don’t see how the world could do anything but admire us for taking the situation by the horns.

Good.
“Was the use of deadly force justified?” Yes
“How do you predict this affect the US image around the world?” I think it will have a positive affect.

HEAAAAAAD SHOTTTT

I’m totally okay with this result. Awed by the skill of the rescuers. Piracy at sea has a long and terrible history, and it seems that only in the last few decades has the world been reluctant to go after pirates with all necessary force.

Now, can we start blockading the pirate ports and intercepting pirates before they intercept civilians? And can we figure out what we can do to help Somalia put itself back together so that piracy isn’t the only or best career option there?

I am generally a pacifist, but I think this Somali pirate situation has gone on long enough and someone had to stand up to them. I think killing them was justfied in order to liberate the captain, and the negotiations and ransom money that has been paid by other shipowners have just empowered the pirates more. I, too, can’t imagine this harming us in the world’s eyes but in any case, I think it was the right thing to do.

@Ivan

I’d now start to elaborate on how a sovereign nation should not negotiate….. blablabla. But I smell flame bait…

Anyways, so why should their lives be worth less….hm….. because they were the aggressor maybe???

I’m glad the commander in chief acted quickly and decisively in giving the order.

If three dead pirates makes even a single pirate reconsider attacking innocent merchant marines and civilians, then I think it was worth it.

I also think that America often has the image of a blowhard or a buffoon, talking the talk but tripping on our own shoelaces when it comes to walking the walk. This should remind folks that while America is often clumsy, it does have the ability to do a job right the first time.

Go Navy!

It lasted longer than it should have. The pirates thought they could get away with it because they have so many times before. Good or bad? Bad for the pirates.

@Darwin You said a mouthfull there! That is right on.

@Darwin
Right on.

@Ivan The pirates took it upon themselves to do the actions that put them in the position where they died. They were criminals. They were willing to negotiate. So what? They were involved in an illegal action. In that situation, the captains life is worth more in my opinion.

gosh they are pirates for Christ sake, of course the rescue of captain Phillips was absolutely necesary i don’t really care if they have had to gun down more than 3 pirates, hopufully this will send a lesson, no more hijacks… I still don’t understand they just don’t blow them instead of keep paying ransoms… well done…

@uberbatman
There’s nothing like a US Infantry sniper to separate a pirate from his hostage.

@Ivan, it has nothing with their nationality. It has to do with the fact that they were pirates, holding someone hostage for what? They wanted something that wasn’t theirs to take in the first place. They were holding a person hostage – were they doing this for noble causes? No. If it had been 3 American pirates and 1 Somalian, and it was the same exact outcome, I’d feel the same.

They had choices, they took this risk – they held someone hostage. Last time I checked, that wasn’t exactly a friendly way of doing things.

GO NAVY!

Also, the captain is certainly a hero for insisting he be the hostage and not his crew. It could have turned out a lot worse if the entire crew were being held.

I can only wonder if the responses would be the same if the captive was a Somalian rather than an American, or if vigilantes had killed them rather than the US military.

“If it had been 3 American pirates and 1 Somalian, and it was the same exact outcome, I’d feel the same.”

@Ivan
Please…you take hostages and that’s the risk…live by the sword die, by the sword.

@uberbatman

1) I didn’t realize that the word “I” in that sentence meant “everyone.”

2) I wasn’t asking how people think they would react in that hypothetical situation, I was wondering how they would actually react after the fact.

@SeventhSense

I am not defending the pirates. As I said, this problem could have been solved with no lives being lost. Why is the situation where 3 people die preferable to the situation where no one dies?

@Ivan – For the last two years, I’ve paid attention to these stories and there is a lot of growing concern about pirates and the growing violence. Their brazen acts have caught the eye of the world and are often reported about on the news in America.

When this incident was happening, there was a french ship (private citizens) that had a situation, as well. Pirates were killed there, as well. There was also a small child on board that vessel. The pirates hold no regard as to the citizenship of the people they attack, hold hostage or even kill.

This has become such an issues that they even call it “pirate season” now. The activity is expected to rise through the summer and finally subside in late fall. Evidently, weather and water conditions make it easier and more conducive to pirate (terrorist) activities.

I’m not sure what your defense is for them, do you feel that they are justified in their actions? Ultimately, no, I’m not thrilled that it results in people dying; however, they picked their lifestyle, it’s a risk they accept when they accept a life of crime and pirate activities.

@Ivan How long should the negotiations have lasted?
The longer a situation like that lasts, the more desperate the hostage takers become. It was a bad ending, but the captain lived and that certainly may not have been the case if it had drug out longer.

100% justified.

@Ivan. You wrote that “this problem could have been solved with no lives being lost.”

How could you possibly know that? It is only speculation on your part and short of being there, none of us can say for certain that it could have ended without deadly force. The Navy Seals are very, very highly trained and I’m sure that if an occasion presented itself where they didn’t have to use deadly force, they would have done so.

@cak

As I said, I am not defending the pirates in any way. They just did nothing to justify having their lives taken away. Especially when it could have been avoided.

@chyna

I understand that it was a dangerous situation. If the soldiers decided the only option was force, they should have made an effort to spare everyone’s lives. Either they did, and failed, or they didn’t. Either way, there’s no reason to praise that.

@Bluefreedom

I see no situation in which the only possible solution is to kill someone. There is always a non-lethal solution, we just aren’t always clever enough to come up with it. That doesn’t mean I’m clever enough to come up with it, but it’s out there.

@Ivan. I’ve been in a law enforcement career for 21 years. There is NOT always a non-lethal solution to every incident and to think that there is is totally unrealistic. You can be as clever as you want and formulate all kinds of creative ideas where you think you contain incidents without deadly force but there is no way to make it happen each and every time.

@Ivan – But these were not reasonable people. They were not people that dealt with a sense of basic human rights. I don’t see how, after 100 hours of holding him hostage (after initially gaining control), you feel that they were civilized people that were sound enough to negotiate. I just don’t see it the same way. I don’t think longer would have been better and I do firmly believe that the longer the negotiations would have taken, the less likely we would have seen the resolve where the hostage was not harmed. I believe he would have been seriously injured, or murdered.

Is it possible that there’s more to this story? I don’t claim to know definitively, but I’ve read here and there that this pirate story is a cover for other military activity, and I’ve read that since their government fell apart we and/or other western powers have been dumping off their coast and spoiling their fishing grounds. But until that’s confirmed—Hooray for killing more black people!!!

@Bluefreedom

I never said it was realistic

@cak

I never said that more negotiations were absolutely the way to go. If you want to barge into the ship and shoot them all with tranquilizers or taze them or hit them with baseball bats, whatever, just don’t kill them.

oh jesus fuck, not this again….

@uberbatman. Exactly. I think I’ve made my points crystal clear. I don’t know if I have the energy or the words to express my thoughts any better than I already have.

I am sorry that you all are so frustrated by the idea that I disagree with you.

@Bluefreedom Your points are clear and concise and well spoken. Ivan wanted a fairy tale ending and it just isn’t going to happen in this kind of situation. Not being mean to Ivan, just don’t see how you can sneak aboard a boat and taze people. They aren’t just going to stand there and let that happen.

@Ivan. I’m sorry that you don’t have the requisite law enforcement and/or military training, like I do, that helps me to understand the actions of the Navy Seals and how it was justified. There is nothing that you can do or say to frustrate me. At all. Thanks for the give and take.

@chyna. Thank you very much for the kind words.

I’m just gonna walk away. I have my point of view and I’m sticking with I think. I think they did what they had to do. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s over. Can’t we be happy that there is a man that is now free, he wasn’t harmed, that will be able to return to his family. I don’t think this was a situation where they had a lot of other options. I think it was dangerous and was protracted and needed to come to a decisive end.

@chyna

But they did just stand there and let themselves get shot? I don’t understand how not killing people is a fairy tale.

@Bluefreedom

Killing people is not justified.

@cak

“Can’t we be happy that there is a man that is now free”

I would rather have one man held captive than three men dead.

Um, Everyone knows it’s not over, right?
There are lots of other hostages in other places, and the other Somali pirates say the hostages are gonna pay for what we did.
However, I’m still glad we smoked ‘em.

@Ivan theres a bit of a difference in the range of a bullet and a tazer.
Just sayin

@Ivan – Wow. Just wow. Would you have felt better had someone knitted them all sweaters and sent letters of apologies for interrupting their little pirating situation? C’mon! These are not people that really care for a great outcome for the hostages. They just wanted to get away so they could do it again. They are thieves, they will murder and they will torture. They don’t give two shits about the human life that they hold hostage. It’s a bargaining chip. That is all. Nothing else, it holds no other value for them and believe me, if it loses value before negotiations are finished, they have no need for the human – do you actually think they will send him safely on his way?

@filmfann – it is very scary that they have very declared open season on other hostages. And yes, I’m sure we have not heard the last of this – and unfortunately, unless strong action is taken to cut them off, we will see further human loss.

@uberbatman

I understand. It was just an example; there are plenty of non-lethal weapons.

@cak

I never said that we should treat them nicely, I just said that we souldn’t kill them. I don’t understand why that is difficult to accept. What is wrong with completing the same operation without killing them?

I think the real question is how do these hijackings affect the world’s image of Somalia.

@Ivan stop grasping.

@uberbatman

Grasping at what? Out of the infinite number of possible solutions to this problem, you don’t think that there was at least one that would have resulted in everyone living?

@Ivan – Who’s to say this isn’t the first time these particular pirates attacked and captured a ship and/or crew members? Who’s to say these particular pirates haven’t killed before? Who’s to say that if they hadn’t been killed they would have gone on to attack and kill other innocent people?

And, as others have said, you weren’t there so you don’t know if any other outcome is possible.

It is against international maritime law to storm aboard a vessel not your own, injure, kidnap or kill the crew, and plunder the cargo. The pirates know that, but they are doing it anyway.

But then you are probably totally and completely against the death penalty in every single possible instance where it might apply.

@Darwin

I am completely aware that the pirates did a horrible thing and were, most likely, horrible people. I just don’t believe in killing people. I guess you all believe that people should be killed. That’s fine. I just disagree. I just don’t think it’s fair to receive hostility simply because I suggest that the military (gasp) made a mistake and should have carried out a different course of action.

Tell me if this makes sense. Logically, there are an infinite number of solutions to any problem, this one included. Half of them, by default, result in someone getting killed, and the other half do not. Therefore, there are an equal number of solutions that do and do not result in deaths. Therefore, all else being equal, there is no statistical reason why a solution resulting in death should occur any more often than one resulting in no death. The next step is where we seem to disagree. Given that there is no inherent reason to choose a solution that results in death over one that does not, I believe it is rational to choose one that does not result in death, as it allows the most people to live. Now, out of the infinite number of solutions, only a portion of them are feasible within the context of the situation, and far fewer are actually thought of by the people involved. However, they are all still out there, whether we know of their existence or not. Now, for the military to rationally decide that the only feasible course of action was to take lives, that literally means that they had to systematically rule out an infinite number of possible solutions, one by one, before they could conclude that none of them were realistic. So, unless we have supernatural beings in our military who have the mental capacity to contemplate an infinite number of things, we can logically conclude that they acted irrationally.

i dont even want to begin with how illogical that second paragraph was…..

@uberbatman

Discuss, discuss, discuss. Please.

@Ivan – You. Weren’t. There. The SEALS were. They did their job.

I believe it is rational to choose the solution that will save the greatest number of innocent people, regardless of the outcome for the bad guys.

I have lived in places where innocent folks were kidnapped off the streets and held sometimes for years, or sometimes killed with bullets or machetes. I had a friend whose father was held for two whole years in vile conditions. The only way his family got him back was that government troops (not the American government) went in and shot the kidnappers. Often when the government troops did something like this, they killed the hostages, too.

I know from previous experience that you will continue on forever with obfuscation and irrationality, thinking what you say sounds good, so like cak, I shall stick to my guns and leave this “discussion.”

TTFN

@Darwin

Again, I am sorry that you are all so frustrated with the idea that I disagree with you. If you wish to simply fall back on what you already believe without considering alternatives (“sticking to your guns”) and refuse to participate in discussion with people who disagree with you, then fine. It’s unfortunate, but fine. I will still respond to your comments if you decide to continue.

“You. Weren’t. There.”

This completely ignores what I just said. It is impossible that one can rule out every single possibility that would not result in deaths.

“I believe it is rational to choose the solution that will save the greatest number of innocent people, regardless of the outcome for the bad guys.”

I believe that the lives of the “bad guys” is just as valuable as anyone else’s. Please don’t misinterpret that as defending pirates or terrorists. No one deserves to die. Committing crimes does not change that.

“Often when the government troops did something like this, they killed the hostages, too.”

Yes, there probably is a precedent for this sort of thing. That doesn’t make it any better.

@Ivan
It’s never pleasant when anyone has to die.

@Ivan
The thing is these people showed blatant disregard for innocent human lives for nothing other than their own material gain. Furthermore they were negotiated with for 3 days. They showed blatant disregard for human lives by taking people for their own profit, and they continued to escalate that disregard by not releasing them but using them as collateral. The level of stress would indicate that these people were in danger of death at any moment. If they were not prepared to die to serve the material gain of a few thieves then they certainly deserved our concern. At one point a decision has to be made who will be eliminated or allowed to die. This type of scenario can not be allowed to continue or it undermines the very fabric of a lawful society. Hence three dead crooks.

@Ivan The #1 job of the US armed forces is to protect US citizens. These are lawless savage pirates pirates who had kidnapped US citizens.

These pirates brought upon themselves a violent death the moment they decided to be pirates. I’m not happy that 3 men died but the US did everything they were supposed to do.

Pirates are not charming suave Johnny Depp types. They are murderous thugs and thieves. If one was holding ypur wife hostage, I bet you’d have the Seals shoot to kill too.

I hate violence with a passion but that day, the US acted swiftly, surgically and well within their own rights.

@Ivan What would we do with the pirates if we hadn’t killed them? Would we let them go knowing they’d do it again or put them in prison and cost us more money? Sure, that’s not a reason to kill them, but if you partake in evilness then you know the risks and you might die. This is a consequence of their piracy.

Has it ever occurred to you, Ivan that maybe, the proof is in the lurve? And you should stop when you’re ahead in threads? It’s a basic lesson.

@Ivan
OK since uber brought up the logic, it deserves a consideration.
First the premises
1. Infinite number of solutions- no it’s actually quite finite
2. equal number of solutions that do and do not result in deaths- highly improbable if you could even graph this
3.Given that there is no inherent reason to choose a solution that results in death over one that does not-not given and sometimes is the most expedient with least loss of lives and resources
Conclusions I believe it is rational to choose one that does not result in death, as it allows the most people to live
So, unless we have supernatural beings in our military who have the mental capacity to contemplate an infinite number of things, we can logically conclude that they acted irrationally.
These can only be fallacies based on the prior faulty premises

And basically even based upon the faulty premise of an infinite number of solutions, how can anyone expect a person to contemplate an infinite amount of solutions before choosing one! The hostages and their captors would be dead of old age.

Four American men walk into an American bank with guns and take hostages.
Four days later after numerous attempts to peacefully negotiate, swat rescues the hostages, three of the men end up dead and the fourth is in custody.

When this happens in America to Americans there is never a debate as to the use of deadly force to rescue innocent hostages with guns to their heads.

This is the same exact situation but on an international level.

I stand by our Navy and applaud the results. If it was someone I loved with a gun to their head I would shoot the pirates myself and never lose a moments sleep.

I think my last quip proved my point. Lurve for Fluther!

@Ivan

Well, dear Ivan, in order to be frustrated about your non-agreement, your agreement would have to have any value or meaning first.

So, putting it politely, nope, I’m very very definitely not frustrated.

Lurve for the great question in giving us all a mental workout. :)

Ivan: Get with the program. The pirates were wrong and they died. Too damn bad.
Go Navy!

i’m just trying to figure out how anyone sides with lawless criminals and possibly, murderers. especially when there’re over 300 people who’ve been captured by pirates and have NOT been returned to their loved ones.

oh right, you’d have to be crazy to think that.

Negotiating and complying with the pirates has proven to escalate the attacks. It is obviously not a solution. I don’t think attacking them and their communities on land is a solution either. The pirate attacks cannot go unanswered, but in the end the only solution is a political one.

Yes, Somalia is a collapsed country and international business has taken advantage of the lawless situation, where they have vacuumed the sea of fish whilst other dumped large amounts of toxic waste in the same waters, which break up and pollute everything from the coastline to the seabed. These are just some of the many problems for the families who try to make it every day.

It seems as the pirates think of themselves as some kind of Robin Hood-characters. To their community and their families i’m sure they are. I feel for the families of the pirates, who deserves to have their husbands, sons and fathers with them.

Still. If a person picks up a gun, one must realize that there is an intent to use it. Conditional or not.

The moment two people raise weapons against each other, they are both defending themselves – whoever drew first – and the value of their lives are then not much more than the price of the gun and the bullets fired. If you rise a weapon against anyone – for any reason – you have to be ready to die for it, cause you have stated that you will kill for it.

We all deserve to live, and we all deserve to die. So do these people. They rolled the dice and lost.

This kind of violence will not make piracy go away, and more actions like this is likely to make the pirates more brutal.

From Poser’s link: (emphasis mine)

“After days of tense negotiations, the U.S. Navy rescued an American sea captain in seconds Sunday, with snipers shooting three Somali pirates who officials feared were about to kill him.”

“The commanding officer of the U.S. guided missile destroyer Bainbridge had received approval from President Obama to attempt a rescue of Capt. Richard Phillips by force if his life appeared to be in imminent danger after five days of captivity off the coast of Somalia.”

After reading that, I don’t see how anyone could think this decision was made lightly. The captain’s life appeared to be in imminent danger. They did the right thing.

Stupid pirates deserved to die, they are worse than any terrorist on land. I don’t think what they do is justifiable in any way besides that they can do it, and there’s not much to stop them from hijacking innocent boats. This event ought to put some limits.

None of you have to explain to me how evil the pirates were. I am not defending them. You all seem to be using the pirates’ actions as justification. If a living Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam were on that ship, they still should have been shot. It isn’t about whether or not they did enough to “deserve” being shot. No one deserves to be shot.

@miasmom

So we killed them out of convenience?

@asmonet

Yes, I had forgotten that the “winner” of an argument was the person with the most popular support. Thank you for proving my point on this thread

@SeventhSense

There logically has to be an infinite number of solutions. As I stated, not all of them are feasible, but there are infinitely many. For instance, even in the situation where we choose to shoot them. We could have shot them once, twice, three times, an infinite number of times, etc. Now, if we narrow them down to either killing vs. not killing, exactly half have to lie on each side. Therefore, there is no statistical reason why a killing solution should occur more often than a nonlethal one. You used an argument abut convenience, too. I don’t think that inconvenience is a reason to kill someone.

@eponymoushipster

No one is defending the pirates.

actions have consequences. They knew the risk before they ever boarded a vessel with an American flag.

Too bad they didn’t get #4. Wonder if they can still make him walk the plank.

In my above comment: “They still should not have been shot”

@IchtheosaurusRex – From what I understand, Pirate #4 is in captivity.

@Darwin, so I heard. He was on board one of the Navy ships negotiating when the turkey shoot went down. I wonder what they’re going to do with him.

@mammal yeap, americans and their guns. i heard they boarded a french ship and they threw cheese and berets at them.

In case anyone ever hears the term intellectual elitist and wonders why some people consider that A Bad Thing, I give you the example of @Ivan – whose self-described logic is so ridiculously theoretical, it cannot make sense in any place or time.

And here’s some background in support of @kevbo‘s quip.

@SeventhSense

“how can anyone expect a person to contemplate an infinite amount of solutions before choosing one! The hostages and their captors would be dead of old age.”

Exactly. This is why it is not logical to say that killing them was the only option or that non-lethal measures were not possible. For them to rule out every possible non-lethal solution, they would need to rule out an infinite number of ideas.

@Ivan:
You said: Tell me if this makes sense.
I say, it does not.

Logically, there are an infinite number of solutions to any problem, this one included.
This is untrue, unless you want to consider things outside the realm of realistic possibility. To have a truly infinite number of solutions, you’d have to be able to include things like the SEALS growing wings and the guns of the pirates miraculously turning into smelt. If you want to include these things, then yes—any given problem has an infinite number of solutions because you’ve ignored all rules of logic. Otherwise, you have to obey the rules we use to define logic. Accordingly, the solution set for 2+2 is not infinite, but a set that includes only 1 response: 4. However, if you plan on ignoring all rules of logic then you should not start your statement with the word “logically”.

Half of them, by default, result in someone getting killed, and the other half do not.
This is also untrue. In any given scenario, you have to look at all the factors, if you are interested in examining every possibility. Sometimes there is a 75% chance of someone getting shot, sometimes 90%. We, in fact, have an entire branch of study devoted to this kind of thing. Half of them do not result in everyone getting away alive simply because it is not as simple as kill or no-kill. Every time you introduce a new part to the scenario, you change the probabilities. While it is possible that half of the solutions would involve no one getting shot, it is not probable given the circumstances—most notably that this is not a coin flip and whenever you get more complicated, the chances of something being so evenly 50/50 decrease dramatically. Life just isn’t a game.

Therefore, there are an equal number of solutions that do and do not result in deaths. Therefore, all else being equal, there is no statistical reason why a solution resulting in death should occur any more often than one resulting in no death.
As I disagreed with the previous premises, I see no reason to tackle this one.

So, unless we have supernatural beings in our military who have the mental capacity to contemplate an infinite number of things, we can logically conclude that they acted irrationally.
By this rationale, no action can ever be rational. Ergo, you would never be happy regardless of the solution because the SEALs would have acted irrationally anyway. Everyone could have survived and you might still be here decrying the situation due to irrationality.

@Ivan, you’re assuming an infinite amount of time where innocent life hangs in the balance. Time is a crucial, often deciding factor, that you must account for in your game theory.

@robmandu I understand completely. There are nonlethal solutions that would have taken no more time than the lethal one.

@EmpressPixie

Thank you for taking the time to do what no one else was willing to do. I sincerely appreciate it. Sadly, I have a meeting to attend right now, so will have to address your points later tonight.

@Ivan, I don’t know what theoretical world it is where a trank gun can be used to instantaneously disable a hostile like a head shot with a bullet can… but I submit you should take that into consideration.

Assuming the captain had guns pointed at him at the time of interdiction and that his life was in imminent danger, there are very few, nay one, option available that would remove those three threats simultaneously.

@robmandu you’re forgetting the saving power of unicorns. Unicorns could have saved this captain’s life, as well as the life of the pirates.

all options have not been considered until unicorns have been ruled out.

Narwhals, @eponymoushipster. The unicorns of the sea.

@robmandu a unicorn on the back of a narwhale. the navy seals of the animal kingdom.

Lets not forget also that God let this happen, so it’s a part of the plan. All is good.

@Ivan I’m not saying that those are reasons to kill them, I was just asking what would happen to them if they weren’t killed.

I don’t feel bad that they died, they chose taking a hostage and died as a result. I feel bad when innocent people die, not people who do harm to others purposefully.

“American Macho gun toting violence,”

They started it.

The Americans were not the only ones with guns- nor were they the first to take up arms.

First person shoot-em-up? Ah, to have been there.

When America can abide by international law, specifically with regards to the UN Mandate, for example with regards to Mogadishu in the 90’s and Iraq more recently, then can all you red blooded patriots start banging on with your law and order, you just love an excuse to shoot something, just try and behave a little less like spoilt stereotypes and a bit more like human Beings. Does that compute?

[mod says] Personal attacks are not permitted on Fluther. They have, and will continue to be, removed.

@mammal Wow. I’m impressed with the animosity with which you accuse me of…what, exactly? Illiteracy? Or worse—conservativeness!?

I would like to point out that one of the main charters of the US Navy is to keep the sea lanes open for commerce.

International law doesn’t preclude defending one’s citizens.

so this is how wars are started

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-somalia-pirates_salopek1oct10,0,6155016.story
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gVV_gQDsp1m8v7nPcumVc5McYV-Q
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13518390.400-toxic-waste-adds-to-somalias-woes-.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article418665.ece
http://www.benadir-watch.com/2005%20News/0318_Munye_dumping_waste.pdf

So, yes, piracy is wrong, taking hostages is wrong, and it appears that Somali leaders are complicit in selling their own country down the river, but how about some perspective. The media is getting us fired up and rallied around the world’s most powerful navy taking out some mosquitos from a country that most likely the western world helped wreck a long time ago. Mission accomplished.

Don’t see how the last one was a personal attack, more like a ponderment re: a mental state. Ohwell.

http://www.sfbayview.com/2009/you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates/

@kevbo , what Somali leaders? If the country had a functioning government, none of this would be happening.

Warlords and their former president. I should have said de facto leaders.

My point was to concede that it’s not just western powers and that some Somalis are contributing to the destruction as well.

Yes yes Ivan, you are special you rebel without a cause you!

:)

If anything, the captain, his friends, and his family are certainly pleased with the outcome.

Everybody dies. Some people die sooner than they should because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some people, however, increase the odds of early death by doing things that are risky and that are illegal.

If certain members of the “International community” choose to see this rescue as an example of American bullying, so be it. However, I bet they wouldn’t mind if American bullets saved one of their own loved ones. Sometimes when one feels inadequate it helps to see others as being mean or unfair, even when they aren’t.

Wow, clearly I missed a lot.

@asmonet. Not really, everyone against Ivan!

@Cardinal actually, Ivan against everyone. order is everything.

Cheers.

I’m not against Ivan at all. I disagree with him – but I understand where he’s coming from and I respect his opinion – and also admire the great question

I would not deign to negotiate with terrorist, wich is what theese pirates are…

@Ivan
At a loss for words I will quote the other law enforcement

The Police

Don’t think me unkind
Words are hard to find
They’re only cheques I’ve left unsigned
From the banks of chaos in my mind
And when their eloquence escapes me
Their logic ties me up and rapes me

De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
De do do do de da da da
Is all I want to say to you
De do do do de da da da
They’re meaningless and all that’s true

Wow, a lot of comments have been removed. Oh well, anyways…

@EmpressPixie

“This is untrue, unless you want to consider things outside the realm of realistic possibility.”

Yes, I do. I stated later that only a small portion of the infinite number of solutions are realistic within the context of the situation. My only point in saying this was to show that it is impossible to rule out every non-lethal solution. If you actually wanted to find a non-lethal solution, you could. I was just trying to demonstrate that the Navy did not in fact seek a non-lethal solution.

“if you plan on ignoring all rules of logic then you should not start your statement with the word “logically”.”

That was unnecessary.

“This is also untrue. In any given scenario, you have to look at all the factors, if you are interested in examining every possibility. Sometimes there is a 75% chance of someone getting shot, sometimes 90%.”

Perhaps there are an odd number of solutions when we only consider realistic solutions, but I was just making the simple point that if you make any one criteria that is either true or false, half of all solutions will fit into each side. In half the solutions, someone gets shot; in the other half, no one does. In half the solutions, one of the SEALS does a back flip onto a pirate’s head, and in the other half he does not, etc. This isn’t a major point, I was just trying to show that, all else being equal, a lethal solution shouldn’t occur more often than a non-lethal one. Regardless, even if only 1% of all solutions are non-lethal, we should still be aiming for that 1%.

“By this rationale, no action can ever be rational. Ergo, you would never be happy regardless of the solution because the SEALs would have acted irrationally anyway.”

Not really. By my rationale, one would have to consider an infinitely number of possibilities to arrive at the best solution, which would be impossible. So the conclusion that can be drawn is that we can never find the perfect solution. But I bet you already believed that. My only point here was to contest the notion that killing them was the only option, as if we had ruled out all possible non-lethal solutions. I say that it is largely impossible to rule out all non-lethal solutions, and thus the NAVY settled for a lethal solution when they did not have to.

@eponymoushipster

Please, don’t pretend like this is some sort of argument that I “started.”

^

@uberbatman If you are unable to actually address my points, please do not feel it necessary to get your cheap swipes in.

@Ivan there is no real reason to address anything you say with any seriousness. Once someone calls you out on your bullshit you say ohhh no i wasnt saying this i was actually saying….. ive seen you do it countless times now. Stop living in your little dream world. If there was a nonlethal alternative, it would have been taken, there wasnt so the SEALS did what needed to be done.

@uberbatman

I’ll ignore the petty comments and focus on the actual point

“If there was a nonlethal alternative, it would have been taken, there wasnt so the SEALS did what needed to be done.”

How could you possibly know this? My point in all of this was to show that this is, in fact, not the case. Do you have any rationale for concluding that it is possible to rule out all non-lethal solutions?

Seriously guys, we need to jump off this thread to stop giving Ivan a soap box to stand on. It’s just giving attention to him saying the same thing over and over. I’m off.

I’m sorry you all feel like I’m an attention-seeking menace simply because I like to discuss issues and happen to disagree with you. If you don’t want me saying the same thing over and over again, perhaps you should stop making comments that imply you did not understand it the first time I said it. I am trying to make myself as clear as possible so that everyone at least understands my argument. I’m not asking that everyone agree with me obviously, but I have made an attempt to at least understand the argument of everyone in this thread. I only expect the same in return.

@Ivan you “happen” to disagree with everything, and most everyone.

<wishes fluther had an ignore feature>

@eponymoushipster

Is that some sort of problem?

@uberbatman

Why? So you could ignore people who disagree with you and press you to actually defend your beliefs? How exactly is this not proving my point?

@Ivan yes, because if you do it all the time, it gives the appearance of being an asshole for being an asshole’s sake. ~which i’m sure is not your purpose.

that or you’re just the most contrary person ever. which must make you a gem at the local ice cream social.

@uberbatman i say give him the old dismissive wanking motion and stop following the thread. he’s probably got smiley faces and hearts to draw on a notebook somewhere…

@eponymoushipster

Why don’t you go review your comments towards me in this thread and see who’s being an asshole for being an asshole’s sake? Besides, what issues have I been contentious on? So far I can think of 1) Pirates should not be shot, and 2) Fluther should not go unquestioned. If that constitutes “all the time,” then yes, I suppose that’s accurate. However, I merely like to justify my beliefs at every corner. If you disagree with my beliefs, that’s fine. If you don’t, that’s fine. I’m not being contentious for any particular reason other than I feel it’s important to discuss issues thoroughly.

@eponymoushipster like this :P

@uberbatman yes, exactly like that.

@Ivan apparently you don’t remember any of the other threads you’ve been on. that’s ok. besides, i’m just being my normal charming self. just like you, i’m sure.

(see uber’s video for any further analysis)

xoxo

@eponymoushipster

Links would be awesome.

@eponymoushipster

<—fakes thick British accent

Oh golly he is a jolly, charming ol’ fella!

@Ivan You may as well give up. Seriously, why bother? If no one is going to argue and attempt to unjustify your points-of-argument, why bother arguing?

Your opinion doesn’t matter to them. They’ve already made up their collective minds.

@Ivan:
“if you plan on ignoring all rules of logic then you should not start your statement with the word “logically”.”
That was unnecessary.
Possibly. But it was also true and much of what I found frustrating about your comments.

Perhaps there are an odd number of solutions when we only consider realistic solutions, but I was just making the simple point that if you make any one criteria that is either true or false, half of all solutions will fit into each side. In half the solutions, someone gets shot; in the other half, no one does.
I was still trying to disagree with that point—I think that when looking at all possible actions in this case, you probably have a lot more scenarios where someone gets shot than scenarios where no one gets shot. But that is neither here nor there really. I can appreciate that you are looking for the non-violent solution, even at 1%.

I say that it is largely impossible to rule out all non-lethal solutions, and thus the NAVY settled for a lethal solution when they did not have to.

I think this is really the meat of your entire response. I’m willing to put forth the faith that the Navy looked at all the options they could figure out and looked at the potential success rate. Then they chose the course of action with the highest success rate and smallest amount of post-action-fallout/problems. You either are not willing to put forward this faith or you think that a non-violent solution should have been used regardless of its probability of success.

If the first, I’ve already said I disagree and see no reason to get into it more than that. If the later, I think it is a good philosophical position and one that should be vocalized to remind the Navy that, you know, they are being watched by the public, but ultimately is one that doesn’t have a lot of practical application. The time constraints of the situation make it not a viable plan.

I am, however, willing to admit that “no one is going to really care if we kill some pirates” probably played a factor in the decision making process. Which is unfortunate, but is probably also weighed against, “and the only non-lethal method we can figure out has a very high risk of injury for our SEALs and high risk of death for the captain”. In which case, it’s a tough call, but I think they made the right choice. I don’t think they looked over, said “ohhhh, headshot!” and went with it.

@boots: Untrue! I just wasn’t back yet.

@EmpressPixie

Thanks for the response

“You either are not willing to put forward this faith or you think that a non-violent solution should have been used regardless of its probability of success.”

I was addressing the former, but I largely believe the latter. I was just saying that it is highly improbably that the Navy ruled out all non-lethal solutions as impractical. Thus, they must have accepted a lethal solution when they didn’t have to, and that is where my contention with them lies.

@Ivan, your contention is based purely on conjecture as someone sitting comfortably in front of his computer thousands of miles away.

You want to contribute positively in some way? Stop the yammering and put yourself on the front line.

Unless you’ve been there and done that, it’s all just so much theoretical bullshit.

@robmandu

I guess, by that logic, the only two courses of action are either

1) Support whatever the military does, no matter what. Or,

2) Join the military, but don’t follow orders; just do what I feel best in every situation.

Not at all… at least that’s not what I intend.

You spuriously accuse the Navy of looking for the meanest solution to any problem when you say, ”...they must have accepted a lethal solution when they didn’t have to, and that is where my contention with them lies.”

My point is that it looks to me like you simply do not know. You don’t seem to have done any investigation whatsoever. You’re very obviously unaware of what the parameters are of this kind of situation. Nor do you appear to understand some of the rudimentary physics involved in many of the non-lethal alternatives you suggest.

You chose to enter into this conversation by taking a relativistically moralist stand… three lives > one life. And in so doing, made it appear that all other inputs to the situation did not matter.

But as you can see from the bombastic responses to your position, those other inputs make all the difference. The intent (trading life for money), regardless of how they got there, is the result of a decision the pirates made. And they knew when they did it how it would be viewed. The pirates are the ones who chose to make their 3 lives worth less than the 1 captain’s.

—

And back around to your last question for me. My suggestion to you was to provide you a means to an ends. To join the military and learn firsthand what goes into this kind of situation. To leave the theoretical Monday morning quarterbacking from the comfort of your own home and go out in the real world and see for yourself.

@kevbo said “Hooray for killing more black people!!!”

Seriously? Bad form, go to a kkk meeting or something.

@FreeThinker, everyone (else) here knows Kevbo… and when he’s using sarcasm to make a point.

@robmandu: I think that you should be able to take a critical look at what the military does without having to join it. Your suggestion is still coming off like, “Unless you join up, you can’t know what happened and therefore shouldn’t complain.” There are many reasons not to join up, but that doesn’t make your analysis totally worthless. I disagree with Ivan’s analysis, but neither of us was there. We aren’t pretending to know what exactly happened when the decision was made, as we’ve acknowledged we think it was something different.

Monday morning quarterbacking was the purpose of this question.

@robmandu

“You spuriously accuse the Navy of looking for the meanest solution to any problem”

No, I just don’t think they did enough to look for the best solution. When you end up killing someone, you’ve never done enough to look for the best solution, in my opinion. This is essentially my argument. All of this stuff about me not being experienced or having enough practical knowlege, etc. is largely irrelevant.

You shouldn’t kill people. If you do, you’ve failed somewhere along the line.

“You chose to enter into this conversation by taking a relativistically moralist stand… three lives > one life. And in so doing, made it appear that all other inputs to the situation did not matter.”

Not necessarily. My initial point was to question the support for this operation by the people in this thread. They were making it seem like the captain’s life was more valuable than the pirates’.

@EmpressPixie

Yes, I agree.

@EmpressPixie, I guess my last quip was still not clear.

The suggestion to try the military was a single example of learning more. It seemed the most straightforward and obvious. It is not intended to be read as the only possible way for someone to educate him/herself.

@robmandu: Possibly most straightforward and obvious, but for most people least plausible. Admittedly, it’s easier than joining the NFL so you really have grounds for your Monday morning quarterbacking, but not exactly something we can all up and do. And for many of us, something we have no interest in doing.

What are some other methods you would recommend for becoming knowledgeable about this situation? Keeping in mind, they should be plausibly actionable this time.

@Ivan wrote, “My initial point was to question the support for this operation by the people in this thread. They were making it seem like the captain’s life was more valuable than the pirates’.”

—

That’s probably why many of us got so engaged with you on this. Your question is seen by many as an attempt to use moral reletavism to put yourself on a higher pedestal than rest of “the people in this thread” which then immediately sets up a defensive posture.

To reiterate my point, it’s not the Navy, the captain, America, Europe, or anyone at Fluther who decided those 3 Somali’s lives were worth less than the captain’s life. It was the Somali’s themselves. It was a risk they knowingly took.

It’s too bad that the situation over there is so bad that such risk looks preferable. I’d like to see us do more to help the Somalis get back on their feet.

@Ivan wrote, “My initial point was to question the support for this operation by the people in this thread. They were making it seem like the captain’s life was more valuable than the pirates’.”

The captain’s life is more valuable than the pirates. He was doing his job, legally transporting cargo, they were the aggressors and everything they did was illegal and liable to get them killed. They knew this when they became pirates. When someone gets killed robbing a liquor store, they knew that was a possibility when they chose to take up arms and rob the store. These pirates are no better than liquor store robbers.

as an aside, I find it tough to engage in debate with a fluther moderator. Questions and suggestions carry force when from someone in authority on the site… whether intended or not. I’ll try to meet the standard.

—

@EmpressPixie, well golly. How about going to school?

Take a biology class. Learn something about the biological processes involved in absorption of drugs into the bloodstream.

Take a gun course. Learn something about basic firearm operations.

Take an advanced sniper course. Learn something about shooting over long distances. How to adjust for wind, movement of the target, your own heartbeat.

Take a physics/engineering/fluid dynamics class. Learn something about how projectiles travel through various media. A trank dart being very different than a bullet.

Or hell, just read some Tom Clancy.

@robmandu: We get censored when we attack, just like anyone else. Don’t worry. We know we aren’t perfect.

I guess in some ways, I’m having trouble seeing how my comments are at their heart different from Ivan’s. Neither of us really have insider info. I’ve taken a biology class, but to be at the level to really discuss weapons-grade drug interaction would take rather a lot of time and energy. I still don’t really view that as actionable—or necessarily possible.

I’ve read spy books and seen movies—it’s what has formed many of my notions of how they might go about deciding this. But that’s half my problem—I have no idea how realistic that stuff is.

I think my point was kind of that obviously educating yourself is good and necessary, but where do you say “okay, I’ve got enough info that I can talk about this”. Personally, I think once you’ve read the news stories, you can talk about them. It appears as though you’d prefer people to withhold judgment until they’ve got professional experience or knowledge of some sort. Whereas, I believe Ivan thinks that the power of his convictions and their difference from the general acceptance norm makes it his duty to speak up.

Re: educating yourself, if you start down that road, you’ll hear a lot about what is and is not possible. That knowledge, while useful, is also confining. After being told something isn’t possible, a lot of people stop looking for a way to make it so, but impossible things become possible all the time.

If you want to talk about what’s theoretically possible, feasible, or just wildly imaginative, that’s fine. Science fiction writers do it all the time. And I don’t think we’re at a loss for coming up with new ideas.

But then there’s a line that’s been crossed.

I think that calling into question the moral rightness of the tactics used in a rescue operation and basing that judgment on limited or non-existent knowledge is on the wrong side of that line.

Suggesting alternatives as being of equivalent utility when they’re expressly not and then condemning the dismissal of those alternatives by people who are educated and trained in their use seems like folly to me.

And so no, you cannot be an expert on all aspects of everything all the time. That’s why we ask questions after all. But the judgement we read in @Ivan‘s quips goes beyond just questions. S/He’s already decided. And from where I sit, that decision was based on a faulty premise.

@robmandu

“Your question is seen by many as an attempt to use moral reletavism”

My argument is based on ethics, but then so is yours. A simple question can be asked, “Is it ever justifiable to take another human’s life?” Either answer is a reflection of your ethics. I don’t think it’s ethical to kill someone, regardless of the situation. You feel that it is ethical to kill someone, so long as the situation justifies it. Neither answer is any better or worse than any other. You act as if I just stated my moral superiority and never attempted to rationalize it and was never open to having it criticized. Of course, the past several dozen comments disproves that notion thoroughly. I came into this thread with an opinion, I attempted to explain that opinion, I encouraged people to address my opinion, and so on. I could have easily just stormed in here, asserted that I was of moral superiority and that I was obviously right and that nothing could ever change my mind, but that is the very opposite of what I did.

“To reiterate my point, it’s not the Navy, the captain, America, Europe, or anyone at Fluther who decided those 3 Somali’s lives were worth less than the captain’s life. It was the Somali’s themselves.”

There is nothing you can do to decrease the value of your own life. They deserved to live just as much as if they had chosen to be volunteer workers.

“I think that calling into question the moral rightness of the tactics used in a rescue operation and basing that judgment on limited or non-existent knowledge is on the wrong side of that line.”

I imagine this opinion of yours is not consistent. For instance, I doubt that there is not at least one example of military action that you morally disapprove of.

@Ivan I don’t think anyone is arguing that it is ever ethically right to take another person’s life. I do think we are asserting that it is occasionally, unfortunately, necessary to do so, in order to preserve the life of innocents. If a situation arose, where a choice was presented to you to either save the life of someone you loved—your child, perhaps—or save the life of a criminal who is threatening their life, I think the choice would be pretty obvious. That’s not to say it would be ethical to do let the criminal die, but it would be the ethically preferable choice.

I know, you believe that there would be other choices that would allow both to survive. Unfortunately, this isn’t always the case. Seems the contention on this particular issue is not whether it was good to kill the pirates, but whether it was the only choice that would allow the captain to live.

Earlier you said that you agreed with @robmandu‘s statement that the Navy should have made the choice to use non-lethal means, no matter the probability of success. Fortunately for American citizens, this isn’t the business of the military. Our job is to protect Americans from those who would do them harm. I think you would appreciate that more if you were being held by pirates.

@Poser Thanks for the response.

I think that the military can protect it’s citizens without killing anyone. Of course anyone who was actually being held captive by the pirates probably wouldn’t mind having the pirates killed, but that wouldn’t be an objective position.

“I think that the military can protect it’s citizens without killing anyone.”

Hahahahahaha!

Well… wait…

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Do you know what a military actually is???

@Ivan You are wrong. The military, by definition, must kill people. Bad people want to kill you. The military will stop them. In order to do that, the bad people must be killed.

That’s why we have all these guns.

Well, if you are going to keep believing that the very definition and nature of a military is a killing force, it will continue to be one. If you believe that we should not be paying citizens to kill people, then the nature of the military will change. This isn’t about what the military is, this is about what the military should be.

@Ivan It’s extremely naive of you to think that there are always options that don’t involve force. And dangerous.

But if I ever become a criminal, I know who I’m going to rob first.

@Ivan. What should the military be and what kind of extensive experience are you basing your answer on? Have you ever served in the armed forces? Do you have knowledge of or experience with lethal force and non-lethal force situations? I do, from my military police background, so I know what I’m talking about. I’ve been in the military for the past 21 years and I can attest to the fact that our military is in fine shape where it is right now and isn’t in need of any drastic changes. The only thing we might be lacking is more good people to join but that’s going to happen anyway so I’m not too worried about it.

The nature and definition of a military, at least the U.S. military, is not a killing force. It is a protective and defensive force mostly and can be used offensively during a time of war, if needed.

You wrote, “If you believe that we should not be paying citizens to kill people, then the nature of the military will change.” If you’re referring to my brothers-in-arms and I, we are NOT paid to kill people and for you to think that is patently absurd.

@Bluefreedom: Well, our military being “in fine shape” and not needing any drastic changes is certainly not true. It needs a massive cultural overhaul. They next time you see three women in uniform, here’s something to think about: statistically speaking, at least one of them has experienced MSA. She is nine times more likely to then experience PTSD regardless of if she ever sees combat. Yet results from a study conducted by the VA in 2004 suggest she will receive fewer health care services than a man with PTSD.

MSA, by the way, stands for Military Sexual Assault. It is significantly more under-reported than non-military sexual assault. The Pentagon estimates that only 10 – 20% of all cases are ever reported. At least a third of women in the military are sexually assaulted, that’s the low number. But it may be as high as 70%.

@EmpressPixie. I stand corrected. What you described doesn’t make the military in fine shape, like I suggested, and some change is needed in some areas. I still believe our military is the best in the world but I also agree that the deplorable situation that you mentioned concerning the mistreatment of women in the military certainly deserves more attention.

My husband was in the military for 22 1/2 years and he never had to kill anybody. However, he could have it if was called for. Fortunately, it wasn’t.

Not everything the military does results in killing. In fact, often the military tries to avoid killing folks, no matter what the t-shirts say.

@Ivan I agree that a non-lethal solution would be better, in the best of all possible worlds and scenarios. However, we don’t live in that world, and this was not the best of all possible scenarios. It sucks royally, but sometimes people have to die.

@Poser

I never said force, I said lethal force.

@Bluefreedom

As I (and EmpressPixie) explained before, all of this stuff about not having practical experience is irrelevant. This isn’t a matter of practicality. I have been continually attempting to explain that there logically has to be nonlethal solutions available.

“we are NOT paid to kill people”

The military is paid by public tax money, and they just killed 3 people. We payed for the deaths of 3 people. When that happens, something requires a drastic change.

@Darwin

Yes, I never said that everything the military does results in killing.

@augustlan

See: The entirety of this thread.

@Ivan. Your logic and reasoning is dismal regarding this topic and you are the only one in this thread that doesn’t realize it. Having practical experience is very relevant towards understanding this situation. People can talk to you until they’re blue in the face trying to help you understand the essence of their views and you still won’t recognize any other opinions and answers as being correct except for your own. A large part of this thread proves that point. I refuse to continue to comment here and debate with someone such as yourself who is so close minded, cynical, and short sighted.

@Bluefreedom

Heh. Yup, while everyone else was just telling everyone who disagreed with them to STFU and GTFO, I took the time to attempt to rationally explain my position, but I’m the one that’s closed minded. I continually encouraged people to address my logic point by point, and thanked people mightily when they did, but I am the one that’s closed minded. While everyone else, including you just now, has said something to the effect of “I’m done listening to your arguments,” I am the one that’s closed minded.

Believe it or not, I understand your arguments; I simply believe them to be incorrect.

I don’t agree with Ivan, but I think his logic and reasoning has been fine. He’s simply started from a different place from where I did. And a different place from where you did. He has clearly demonstrated that he understands my position and your position, he just finds it unacceptable.

And I think calling someone who believes a non-deadly method of solving this can be found and that military might can be used in non-violent ways“cynical” is bizarre at best.

@Bluefreedom @cak @chyna

I have had this same type of disagreement with Ivan when Wis was the place. He is an intelligent kid but can’t seem to find reality in some places. ;)

@Ivan—Here is the bottom line. If the SEALs had done nothing and Captain Phillips had been killed or died, they would have been responsible, as would President Obama for failing to give the go-ahead. Any rescue attempt would have utilized violence in some respect, and the less direct and powerful this violence, the greater the chance that Phillips would have been killed in the process. As for negotiation—the longer a hostage situation is prolonged, the more agitated and irrational everybody involved becomes. Captain Phillips might have tried to escape, the pirates might have simply shot him. They all could have starved to death or a storm could have come along and drowned them all. You object to this action on the grounds that nobody ever needs killing. You are a pacifist and while this may be true in principle, few of us agree in practice. But if we accept your viewpoint, the answer is that while killing the pirates may not have been the “right” thing to do, it was undoubtedly the quickest and least risky way of ending the incident. Any more complicated options would have put American lives at risk, and the concern of the President and the Navy is the preservation of innocent lives. When the Somalian pirates took a hostage, they also took on the accompanying risk. View this not as what is right and wrong, but instead as what is cause and effect.

“If the SEALs had done nothing”

Most of your potential scenarios result in only one person dead. 1 < 3

“it was undoubtedly the quickest and least risky way of ending the incident.”

Oh, I agree. They took the easy way out rather than attempting to solve the problem in the most acceptable manner. That is what I disapprove of.

“View this not as what is right and wrong, but instead as what is cause and effect.”

It is only a matter of cause and effect if you define it to be so. If this were as simple as saying “By definition, if you are a pirate, you deserve to be shot,” then there wouldn’t be much argument.

They forfeited their right to a peaceful resolution by introducing violence to the interaction. Your objection is theoretical, not practical. There is a difference between “taking the easy way out” and resolving the situation quickly. The easy way out is the path of least resistance, in this case complying with the pirates’ demands and hoping they would free Captain Phillips. To do that would be to risk that they would kill him anyway or any of the scenarios I described above. Killing is never the easy way out. The SEALs who fired the kill shots will have to deal with their actions for years to come, as will their families, who know that their fathers and husbands and sons have taken human lives. President Obama has to live with giving an order that ended three human lives. The families of the pirates will mourn. This is not the easy way out.

The Navy did not “settle” for a lethal solution when they did not had to. The course of action they took was determined to be the course of action with the most probable positive outcome. Negotiating with pirates has been proven to encourage them towards more attacks. The reason a long-range sniper shot was picked was because a non-lethal rescue attempt would have been noticed and responded to with the murder of Captain Phillips and perhaps the loss of American military lives.

The President and the Navy do not have a responsibility to protect terrorists, pirates or international criminals, just as the Somalian pirates do not have responsibility to protect American lives. If you can come up with an “acceptable” manner that would not have unnecessarily risked Captain Phillips’ life, I welcome it. But there are not an infinite number of solutions to this problem; the resolutions are finite and few. You are arguing on very weak theoretical grounds. If you were in Captain Phillips’ place, you would be grateful. You would not wait six weeks for negotiations to ultimately end in the demise-by-starvation of you and your captors, or allow yourself to be transported to a pirate haven such as northeastern Somalia, never to be heard from again. You would welcome your freedom.

“They forfeited their right to a peaceful resolution by introducing violence to the interaction.”

So we should stoop to their level, then?

“If you can come up with an “acceptable” manner that would not have unnecessarily risked Captain Phillips’ life, I welcome it.”

Good. My argument is that there has to be a safe, nonlethal solution, even if we aren’t clever enough to come up with it.

“If you were in Captain Phillips’ place…”

Right, but that would remove my objectivity, wouldn’t it?

“even if we aren’t clever enough to come up with it”

So you’re admitting that you are arguing on a purely theoretical basis?

@quarkquarkquark

Yes of course, I never said otherwise. But you say ‘theoretical’ as if that completely invalidates my argument.

Your argument is theoretical (“violence should never be used”) but you’re arguing practically (“the best thing in this case was for violence not to have been used”). Obviously, you’re a pacifist. Your belief is that violence is never justified. A pacifist solution would be to avoid violence at all costs, allowing the Captain to die, if necessary. But you cannot claim a “best” practical solution that would save Captain Phillips’ life based on pacifist values.

Sure I can. My only premise is that the best practical solution would be one in which no one dies. Certainly there must be some practical solution in which no one dies.

There are plenty. But none of them fit the requirements as well as the solution the Navy came up with. Their requirements are the preservation of American life: primarily Captain Phillips’, then those of the SEALs. Your requirement is the preservation of human life, period; you are also not as interested in the certainty of the outcome of such a pursuit.

Why shouldn’t the SEALs’ requirement be the preservation of human life too?

Now that is a truly hypothetical question. The Navy’s job is to protect American life. They have no legal or moral obligation to protect the enemies of the United States.

Well, so long as we have established that the Navy finds it moral to kill anyone who isn’t American, I guess my point has been proven.

The Navy does not find it moral to kill it anyone. As I’ve said before, any loss of life is regrettable. However, the solution the Navy reached was the one that accomplished its responsibilities with the least potential for variability in the circumstances. The only moral responsibility the Navy had was to Captain Phillips. Beyond that, concerns are practical, not ethical. Keeping in mind that there is no obligation to the Somalian pirates threatening death to an innocent American, their killings were the most efficient end to the situation. Everybody involved wishes it could have been differently, but the pirates backed themselves into a corner. You seem to think the SEALs take some kind of sick joy in killing these people, and that the American standpoint is that other lives have no value. If these pirates had been American, things would not have been different. The distinctions made are not national, they are practical. In taking a hostage, pirates forfeit their right to safe passage. This is a legal and moral fact that is agreed upon almost universally. Your point has not been proven. You are grasping blindly to defend your ego.

Uh, your last statement was irrelevant, random, and unnecessary, but whatever.

I do not find efficiency as a rationalization for murder. I bet if we just dropped a handful of nukes on Somalia, that would be a pretty efficient way of solving the piracy problem altogether.

This is what I mean. You keep using broader and broader interpretations of my points to defend a viewpoint that is not practically defensible, giving the impression, to me at least, of a simple ego trip. But let’s forget that. Nobody is trying to rationalize murder, putting aside the fact that few people view self-defense or defense of another as murder. You are trying to make this an ethical issue when it cannot be viewed as one; what happened was the result of a rational conclusion as to how to save Captain Phillips’ life with a high degree of certainty as to his ultimate safety.

For the sake of argument:
You have a spear. You see somebody running at Captain Phillips with a knife. Do you spear his attacker, knowing full well that you will a. save Captain Phillips and b. take a human life? Or do you use a lesser amount of force and attempt to trip or somehow disarm the attacker with your simple spear, risking Captain Phillips’ death?

The latter.

I accept this as a consequence of your pacifist belief. Since the U.S. government and Navy are not adherents to this philosophy, they have no responsibility to pursue a course of action along those lines. You cannot expect pacifism from a power whose prime concern is the protection of its own citizens, provided they are innocent of any crimes. Pacifism in this case did not accomplish this goal, although I agree with you that in some cases it is the best course of action (even though the military may not think so).

I would, however, like to point one more thing out. You are concerned with the moral responsibility involved in taking a human life. If you save Captain Phillips’ life by killing his attacker, you bear the moral responsibility for murdering this man. However, if you forego lethal force and the man succeeds in murdering Captain Phillips, you bear the full brunt of ethical responsibility for the Captain’s death.

The U.S. government is not ever willing to accept this latter moral weight, and believes that, if you attack an innocent person, you effectively release yourself from any outside party’s ethical obligation towards your own safety. I am inclined to agree.

Dare I say it? Quot erat demonstratum, motherfucker.

And I mean that in the nicest way possible.

??? Are you serious right now? Yikes.

The pirates started it and it had to be ended. They were given the opportunity to do so. They chose to continue their threats. Those threats were credible. I am sorry that they are dead but it was because of their own actions that they died.

Fuck yeah! Kill em all!

As a former Sailor, I have a natural distaste for pirates. It is too bad that one or two weren’t taken alive so that they could be hung from the yardarms and sailed into the the pirate ports.