Somalia Pirates seize US-flagged cargo ship

[The Duchess of Zeon]

In response to that latest article--if the government of the Puntland wants to go ahead and claim that all the pirates are operating under Letters of Marque, they can go right the fuck ahead and the entire world will then be at war with them. If the guys in power really gave a shit about things like illegal dumping they'd just send some of their militiamen to seize these boats, and use them for coastal patrols.

[bilateralrope]

I don't know of many "coastguard" organizations that take prisoners and demand ransom for them.

I'm not saying that it justifies the piracy. But it might of put a few more armed boats on the waters there, then those boats turned to piracy.

[Redleader34]

In response to that latest article--if the government of the Puntland wants to go ahead and claim that all the pirates are operating under Letters of Marque, they can go right the fuck ahead and the entire world will then be at war with them. If the guys in power really gave a shit about things like illegal dumping they'd just send some of their militiamen to seize these boats, and use them for coastal patrols.

They tried that dutchess, then Chinese vessels started fighting back.
Then again I find it odd that SDN is advocating for war against a small country who has been the victim of toxic waste dumping and theft of natural resources (fish), but such is life!

[ArmorPierce]

And it's funny because ...?

I heard somewhere that Irony could be used for humor as well...

Oh I get it, children are going to get hurt and "think of the children" is a mocking phrase so it goes together well, lawls!

I hope that was not the actual thought process that went through your head.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not that you don't give a shit about innocent 3rd world nation kids getting killed and it was a joke in poor taste.

[TheMuffinKing]

In response to that latest article--if the government of the Puntland wants to go ahead and claim that all the pirates are operating under Letters of Marque, they can go right the fuck ahead and the entire world will then be at war with them. If the guys in power really gave a shit about things like illegal dumping they'd just send some of their militiamen to seize these boats, and use them for coastal patrols.

They tried that dutchess, then Chinese vessels started fighting back.
Then again I find it odd that SDN is advocating for war against a small country who has been the victim of toxic waste dumping and theft of natural resources (fish), but such is life!

IMHO where the people who were concerned with the dumping and fishing went wrong was in seizing ships and crews for money. There must have been a multitude of ways they could have gotten their point across, but they resorted to seizing vessels and holding them and their crews for ransom. Certain people may have had legitimate issues with what happened, but they lost their credibility when they went to using piracy.

[Darth Wong]

Then again I find it odd that SDN is advocating for war against a small country ...

There's no country in Somalia. It's an essentially ungoverned territory and you know it. It's not war so much as raids on ungoverned pirate strongholds.

[TheKwas]

Not sure if this is worthy of its own topic or not, mods may move around as they see fit:
Ron Paulès plan for Pirates

A little-known congressional power could help the federal government keep the Somali pirates in check — and possibly do it for a discount price.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and a growing number of national security experts are calling on Congress to consider using letters of marque and reprisal, a power written into the Constitution that allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

Used heavily during the Revolution and the War of 1812, letters of marque serve as official warrants from the government, allowing privateers to seize or destroy enemies, their loot and their vessels in exchange for bounty money.

The letters also require would-be thrill seekers to post a bond promising to abide by international rules of war.

In a YouTube video earlier this week, Paul suggested lawmakers consider issuing letters, which could relieve American naval ships from being the nation’s primary pirate responders — a free-market solution to make the high seas safer for cargo ships.

“I think if every potential pirate knew this would be the case, they would have second thoughts because they could probably be blown out of the water rather easily if those were the conditions,” Paul said.

Theoretically, hiring bounty hunters would also be a cheaper option.

National security experts estimate that this week’s ship captain rescue by Navy SEALs cost tens of millions, although a Navy spokesman says the military cannot confirm the exact cost of the mission.

Instead, privateers would be incentivized to patrol the ocean looking for key targets — and money would be paid only to the contractor who completed the job.

“If we have 100 American wanna-be Rambos patrolling the seas, it’s probably a good way of getting the job done,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow and security expert Eli Lehrer. “Right now we have a Navy designed mostly to fight other navies. The weapons we have are all excellent, but they may not be the best ones to fight these kinds of pirates. The only cost under letters of marque would be some sort of bounty for the pirates.”

According to Senate historians, Congress hasn’t issued a letter of marquee since the War of 1812, but the Confederate States of America issued them during the Civil War to deliver supplies behind enemy lines. There are also some indications that a letter was granted to a flying band of armed civilians during World War II to operate the Resolute, a Goodyear Blimp used to patrol the ocean for enemy submarines, but the issuance isn’t apparent in the Congressional Record.

If Congress were to revisit the antiquated process, a serious makeover would be required.

In the past, privateers were allowed to keep the ship and treasure they captured in an enemy encounter.

“That isn’t a viable way of funding in today’s world,” said Lehrer. “These pirates don’t really have treasure chests, and their money is tied up in Swiss Bank accounts. Congress would probably have to attach sizable bounties to people.”

Bounties are not a new idea — there is still a $25 million bounty on Osama bin Laden, and millions have been awarded by the government for other enemy captures.



The U.S. State Department earlier this month put a $5 million bounty on the head of the top Pakistani Taliban leader, and even local police departments use rewards to solve cold cases.

University of Oregon economics professor Bill Harbaugh argues the setup could potentially work better than some of the United States’ relationships with modern-day security contractors.

“Obviously, this is somewhat like the contract the government had with Blackwater, except we forgot the bond part of the contract, he said. “If Congress had used this contract from 1776, it would have been more sophisticated than the one they issued with Blackwater.”

Harbaugh’s fifth great-grandfather, Silas Talbot, worked as an early privateer for the United States in 1780 after serving in the Revolutionary War. His letter of marque shows he set out with 12 carriage guns and a crew of 50 men to attack and seize cargo ships coming from Great Britain on the high seas.

Could it really work again?

“It may work in the sense that if you give people incentives to fight piracy, you’ll see more action taken against it,” said Andrew Grotto, a senior national security analyst with the Center for American Progress. “The ocean is huge and, practically speaking, there’s no way the Navy can prevent piracy; it’s too big. But just given the experience in Iraq with private contractors, that effort showcases the difficulties dealing with folks who aren’t answerable to anyone but shareholders.”

But Paul has already thought through a number of these updates.

Days after Sept. 11, Paul introduced legislation allowing President Bush to allow private citizens to go after Osama bin Laden and other identified terrorists and put a bounty price on the heads of targets responsible for the New York attacks. Contractors would also be required to post a play-by-the-rules bond and turn over any terrorists — and their seized property —to U.S. authorities.

“The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy,” Paul wrote in a press release. “Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man.”

But national security experts and legal analysts warn that applying a colonial-era policy to a modern-day problem could be wrought with legal pitfalls that the Founding Fathers never encountered.

If bounty hunters chase pirates into territorial coastal waters or on to the shore of another country, the problem would fall under the jurisdiction of that country. And any plundering activity that takes place in coastal waters is no longer considered piracy, according to College of William and Mary national security law professor Linda Malone.

Not to mention that there’s also no clear indication where and how the captured pirates should be prosecuted.

“You have to find a stable court system nearby to have them tried for these offenses, but that can be quite complicated,” Malone said. “The fact that the pirates are from Somalia doesn’t make them state actors. They are doing this for private gain.”

And how to determine exactly who is a pirate — and what constitutes pirate activity — could get fuzzy.

“What happens when a ship flying under Congress accidentally takes out an aid ship bound for Somalia?” Grotto said. “At what time does an act seem pirate-like enough to cross the line? Do we really want these snap judgments being made on the fly in waters thousands of miles away from Washington? This is not Johnny Depp we’re dealing with.”

I'm not an expert in naval affairs, but this strikes me as a particularly bad idea.

[Broomstick]

Yes, it is a bad idea.

First of all, the US is party to at least one (and possibly several) treaties where we agreed to NOT issue such letters of marque and reprisal.

Second, it's not a license to go after pirates, a letter of marque is a license to commit piracy against the shipping interests of another nation. Various nations signed treaties to NOT issue these any more because it caused problems back when it was relatively common.

[salm]

In response to that latest article--if the government of the Puntland wants to go ahead and claim that all the pirates are operating under Letters of Marque, they can go right the fuck ahead and the entire world will then be at war with them. If the guys in power really gave a shit about things like illegal dumping they'd just send some of their militiamen to seize these boats, and use them for coastal patrols.

They tried that dutchess, then Chinese vessels started fighting back.
Then again I find it odd that SDN is advocating for war against a small country who has been the victim of toxic waste dumping and theft of natural resources (fish), but such is life!

IMHO where the people who were concerned with the dumping and fishing went wrong was in seizing ships and crews for money. There must have been a multitude of ways they could have gotten their point across, but they resorted to seizing vessels and holding them and their crews for ransom. Certain people may have had legitimate issues with what happened, but they lost their credibility when they went to using piracy.

It´s more complicated than that. There´s a country covered in shit with no governance, no forces to defend them, and there are powerful forces stealing necessary resources and destroying them. On the other hand there are pirates kidnaping inocent crew members and ships.
I find it difficult to judge this whole situation because we don´t know if these peoples situation is so bad that it is justified to resort to thievery in order to support themselves and we don´t really know if our fault in this situation was grave enough to support a retaliation campaign.

This is a very big problem in this conflict. Information flow is very small and very one sided because the Somalis don´t have a good information infarstrucure.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, it is a bad idea.

First of all, the US is party to at least one (and possibly several) treaties where we agreed to NOT issue such letters of marque and reprisal.

Is it? Because I've seen this article posted elsewhere, where it was specifically claimed we're one of the few naval powers that aren't party to such a treaty.

Second, it's not a license to go after pirates, a letter of marque is a license to commit piracy against the shipping interests of another nation. Various nations signed treaties to NOT issue these any more because it caused problems back when it was relatively common.

In the interests of playing devil's advocate, the letter of marque must name the nationality of the ships that it grants license to attack, correct? It seems that the letter could name Somalian pirate vessels and be done with it; attacks against ships that aren't the named targets are treated as piracy. And unlike in the 18th century, it's not difficult to ascertain who's attacking who out there, and there's little motivation to attack legitimate shipping since no country in the world would allow you to take a prize into one of their ports to sell, even if you did manage to get that far.

[Broomstick]

Even IF there truly is some concerted conspiracy to dump radioactive waste and fish out Somali coastal waters, and IF they were severe enough to justify revenge, reprisals should be carried out against the guilty parties - the US has done some shitty things in its time, but there's no fucking way we'd be shipping nuke waste that far to dump it (actually, we truck it to an in-country disposal site - I was late to work last week because I got stuck behind one such convoy). Nor do US fishing fleets go there. So capturing a US ship is wrong not just because it was delivering food aid, but because there's no way it would have been involved in crimes against Somalia such has been described.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's true, we did not sign the Treaty of Paris, though we later said we'd abide by it, but that was just a government policy declaration.

[Rye]

At this moment I think that unless a modern country wants to go to the colonial/revolutionary route with Somalia, dwelling on the injustice of it all is just going to let the problem inflate.

As an aside, I wonder if bugging a lootable cargo and, when it gets within visual range of a couple of fishing villages, nuking it would be illegal? I'd bet it'd make an impression. It's not like it'd be declaring nuclear war on any real nations, and it's the sort of news that would carry even in a shithole where the only law is the law of the gun. Granted, nukes are expensive, but all this piracy will no doubt add up to a nuke in expense after a bit.

[salm]

Even IF there truly is some concerted conspiracy to dump radioactive waste and fish out Somali coastal waters, and IF they were severe enough to justify revenge, reprisals should be carried out against the guilty parties - the US has done some shitty things in its time, but there's no fucking way we'd be shipping nuke waste that far to dump it (actually, we truck it to an in-country disposal site - I was late to work last week because I got stuck behind one such convoy). Nor do US fishing fleets go there. So capturing a US ship is wrong not just because it was delivering food aid, but because there's no way it would have been involved in crimes against Somalia such has been described.

Conspiracy? What? What are you talking about? Why are you bringing this up?

[CaptainChewbacca]

At this moment I think that unless a modern country wants to go to the colonial/revolutionary route with Somalia, dwelling on the injustice of it all is just going to let the problem inflate.

As an aside, I wonder if bugging a lootable cargo and, when it gets within visual range of a couple of fishing villages, nuking it would be illegal? I'd bet it'd make an impression. It's not like it'd be declaring nuclear war on any real nations, and it's the sort of news that would carry even in a shithole where the only law is the law of the gun. Granted, nukes are expensive, but all this piracy will no doubt add up to a nuke in expense after a bit.

I'm sorry, are you proposing using a nuclear strike against a soft target on the coast of Somalia just to make a point?

[Broomstick]

Yes, it is a bad idea.

First of all, the US is party to at least one (and possibly several) treaties where we agreed to NOT issue such letters of marque and reprisal.

Is it? Because I've seen this article posted elsewhere, where it was specifically claimed we're one of the few naval powers that aren't party to such a treaty.

Ron Paul has been saying that since September 2001 and hopes that by repeating it often enough it will magically become true. I am not a constitutional scholar or an expert on treaties, so I won't go to the boards on this issue, but I do know it's not a cut-and-dried matter among constitutional scholars and there are arguments on both sides.

Beyond that, IF the US started issuing letters of marque the signatories of the Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law of 1856 would NOT be happy with us. While many of the signatories no longer exist (Ottoman Empire, for example) some of the survivors include the UK, France, and Russia which are nominally our allies and not people we really want to piss off in a major way. The international sentiment against privateers has had over a century and half to become the norm.

If we weren't willing to do it in the Bush-says-fuck-the-rest-of-the-world-we'll-do-whatever-the-hell-we-want years I doubt very much we'll do it now.

Second, it's not a license to go after pirates, a letter of marque is a license to commit piracy against the shipping interests of another nation. Various nations signed treaties to NOT issue these any more because it caused problems back when it was relatively common.

In the interests of playing devil's advocate, the letter of marque must name the nationality of the ships that it grants license to attack, correct? It seems that the letter could name Somalian pirate vessels and be done with it; attacks against ships that aren't the named targets are treated as piracy. And unlike in the 18th century, it's not difficult to ascertain who's attacking who out there, and there's little motivation to attack legitimate shipping since no country in the world would allow you to take a prize into one of their ports to sell, even if you did manage to get that far.

A letter of marque is against merchant shipping, that is, transport of passengers or cargo. Does Somalia even have "merchant shipping"? If they do, I doubt very much those are the folks doing the pirating.

Privateers (that is, the folks who hold a letter of marque, and distinct from pirates, who do not) generally loot their prizes and sell the stuff they get in order to fund their operations. Pray tell, what highly profitable shipping does Somalia have that would make it profitable, or even break-even, to capture and loot Somali ships? A privateer is a private man-o-war, that is, an independent contractor like Blackwater. If we're going to fund such operations why not use the navy we already have? If we cheap out and authorize contractors to raid for profit... well, do you really thing there is enough profit to compensate for cost and risk?

Keep in mind, too, that signatories of the Declaration of Paris will likely NOT let you into port if you're a privateer. Just as many nations will not allow any civilian ship with arms aboard - even those for self-defense - into their ports a lot will want nothing to do with what they see as legalized piracy.

And finally, just because recent events have reminded me, I offer up a song to share. It's fictional, and concerns Canadians vs. Yankees rather than Somalis vs. the USN but the references to a privateer's life being less than wonderful are pretty authentic. I offer you Barrett's Privateers. Yes, I'm trying to lighten the mood here a bit, but really, the reason privateering was largely abolished is because so many outfitted the ships on the cheap, things went wrong and privateers died or were maimed, it tended to generate even more reprisals, and a certain number of privateers graduated from letters of marque to being out and out pirates, such as William Kidd, who was eventually hanged for piracy by the very government that issued his letter of marque.

Arguably the most successful privateer was Sir Henry Morgan (yes, the English crown liked him enough to knight him and make him governor of Jamaica), a man loathed by the Spanish (and anyone else he captured) and who didn't stop merely at looting ships, he also organized land campaigns and had such charming habits as torturing the captured and using human shields. Also known for sacking, looting, and burning Panama City. He also tortured what inhabitants hadn't fled. (He also sacked Port-au-Prince, Haiti, too, and several other places). Remember, Morgan was the one nice enough to make into governor. There were privateers much nastier (though less successful) than him out there.

Do we really want to start that up again? Seriously?

[Broomstick]

Even IF there truly is some concerted conspiracy to dump radioactive waste and fish out Somali coastal waters, and IF they were severe enough to justify revenge, reprisals should be carried out against the guilty parties - the US has done some shitty things in its time, but there's no fucking way we'd be shipping nuke waste that far to dump it (actually, we truck it to an in-country disposal site - I was late to work last week because I got stuck behind one such convoy). Nor do US fishing fleets go there. So capturing a US ship is wrong not just because it was delivering food aid, but because there's no way it would have been involved in crimes against Somalia such has been described.

Conspiracy? What? What are you talking about? Why are you bringing this up?

There have been statements by Somalis that some entities have been dumping nuclear waste,sickening and even killing Somalis when it washes ashore; and fishing out Somali territorial waters, thus depriving Somali fishermen of food and livelihood. Said guilty parties rumored to be European in origin. I do not in any way believe that a European government is involved in this, but I could well believe there might be criminals doing such things. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste does occur everywhere in the world and is a crime that is prosecuted when the guilty are caught. Likewise, I can well believe there are people poaching Somali waters because the US has to deal with such happy horseshit even though we have the power to seriously kick ass when we want to - what chance would Somali, with its dysfunctional and fractured government and poverty, have to stop a modern fishing factory (that's what they are - factories) from encroaching on their waters? None.

In such case I could see the Somalis arguing they are issuing letters of marque, but a true letter of marque limits the targets of the privateers and, to be frank, privateering is a form of warfare. That's basically Somalia declaring a war on other nations. Privateers who overstep the bounds of their letter of marque are pirates. Traditionally, privateers have taken and sold cargo, not kidnapped seamen and held them for ransom, that's more of a pirate thing.

Really, what needs to be done (though I doubt it will be) is that any accusations of illegal dumping or fishing in Somali waters really should be investigated and the guilty parties brought to justice. After conviction in a neutral court (difficult, as the Hague would be seen as biased towards Europeans by the Somalis, the US wouldn't be trusted, and I can't see Europeans handing other Europeans over to some other group) they should be handed over to the tender mercies of Somali justice. (bwa-ha-HA!). Meanwhile, Somalia would definitely have to stop attacking merchant ships and any Somalis caught acting like pirates should be treated as such - that is, as criminals plain and simple. Conviction in a neutral court and handed over to the justice of the countries whose ships they captured. Yes, this probably means better treatment than what the western dumpers/poachers get from Somalia, but really, it's high time that westerners stop exporting their problems and shitting on the third world. As westerners have many more non-criminal options for earning a living than Somalis do I can't shed many tears for those that get caught shitting on poor brown or black people.

Of course, little or none of that will actually happen.

[Rogue 9]

I'm aware of Barrett's Privateers; in fact I flatter myself to say I sing it fairly well. From the article, Paul's proposal is essentially to offer bounties on Somalian pirates, so the profit would not come from looting ships; I imagine that as you say most Somalian pirate vessels aren't worth looting.

It goes without saying that a privateer wouldn't be able to make port outside his country of origin and possibly its naval bases; he is, after all, an armed civilian vessel, and so not allowed into most ports. It's the same problem with arming merchant vessels.

And William Kidd was who I had in mind when I said it's not difficult to ascertain who's attacking who. Presumably a privateer vessel that turned pirate would have the USN come crashing down on it and share Captain Kidd's fate. I don't think any of this is a good idea, but privateers turning pirate in the modern age just isn't plausible; they couldn't possibly get away with it.

[salm]

There have been statements by Somalis that some entities have been dumping nuclear waste,sickening and even killing Somalis when it washes ashore; and fishing out Somali territorial waters, thus depriving Somali fishermen of food and livelihood. Said guilty parties rumored to be European in origin. I do not in any way believe that a European government is involved in this, but I could well believe there might be criminals doing such things. Illegal dumping of hazardous waste does occur everywhere in the world and is a crime that is prosecuted when the guilty are caught. Likewise, I can well believe there are people poaching Somali waters because the US has to deal with such happy horseshit even though we have the power to seriously kick ass when we want to - what chance would Somali, with its dysfunctional and fractured government and poverty, have to stop a modern fishing factory (that's what they are - factories) from encroaching on their waters? None.

In such case I could see the Somalis arguing they are issuing letters of marque, but a true letter of marque limits the targets of the privateers and, to be frank, privateering is a form of warfare. That's basically Somalia declaring a war on other nations. Privateers who overstep the bounds of their letter of marque are pirates. Traditionally, privateers have taken and sold cargo, not kidnapped seamen and held them for ransom, that's more of a pirate thing.

Really, what needs to be done (though I doubt it will be) is that any accusations of illegal dumping or fishing in Somali waters really should be investigated and the guilty parties brought to justice. After conviction in a neutral court (difficult, as the Hague would be seen as biased towards Europeans by the Somalis, the US wouldn't be trusted, and I can't see Europeans handing other Europeans over to some other group) they should be handed over to the tender mercies of Somali justice. (bwa-ha-HA!). Meanwhile, Somalia would definitely have to stop attacking merchant ships and any Somalis caught acting like pirates should be treated as such - that is, as criminals plain and simple. Conviction in a neutral court and handed over to the justice of the countries whose ships they captured. Yes, this probably means better treatment than what the western dumpers/poachers get from Somalia, but really, it's high time that westerners stop exporting their problems and shitting on the third world. As westerners have many more non-criminal options for earning a living than Somalis do I can't shed many tears for those that get caught shitting on poor brown or black people.

Of course, little or none of that will actually happen.

I know that there are accusations of dumping waste and stealing fish. It´s just that, unless conspiracy has some meaning i´m not aware of, i find it strange to describe this as one.
I agree mostly with you on the neccessity to take these fuckers to court. However, i also agree with you that this is going to be pretty hard or impossible.
And, like mentioned before, there´s another problem here, which is information flow. The Somalis have almost no way to advocate their possition whereas the Europeans can spindoctor everything the way it suits them. That´s why i find it very difficult to judge who is the worse in this scenario (personally i tend to think the Europeans are the worse here but that´s just gut feeling based on too little and unreliable news).
Then, maybe it´s more important to stop the whole thing thann to worry about who´s the bad guy. However, besides improving the situation in Somalia which is unrealistic, the only chance would be to bomb the pirates and their bases, which might be unfair.

[Broomstick]

I know that there are accusations of dumping waste and stealing fish. It´s just that, unless conspiracy has some meaning i´m not aware of, i find it strange to describe this as one.

If it was an isolated incident or two, no conspiracy. If someone is regularly dumping that ship that might be called a conspiracy. Or a criminal enterprise.

The Somalis have almost no way to advocate their possition whereas the Europeans can spindoctor everything the way it suits them. That´s why i find it very difficult to judge who is the worse in this scenario (personally i tend to think the Europeans are the worse here but that´s just gut feeling based on too little and unreliable news).

There's little information going the other way, either. Like I said, these dumping incidents may have been only one or two in number - still bad and unacceptable but far different than systematic dumping or systematic fish poaching. I also suspect that to many Somalis all white folks look alike and they won't make a distinction between the guilty and the innocent.

Then, maybe it´s more important to stop the whole thing thann to worry about who´s the bad guy. However, besides improving the situation in Somalia which is unrealistic, the only chance would be to bomb the pirates and their bases, which might be unfair.

Until we stop the piracy, though, no one will ever be able to get to the bottom of Somali accusations. Although in many ways it's more likely that if the piracy was stopped no one would give a damn about the Somalis are saying.

[His Divine Shadow]

I wonder, could you pay the pirates? And maybe have them hunt other pirates / patrol the waters? They're doing it because they want money and are poor, give them a steady paycheck doing something productive instead.

[salm]

You mean like setting up a coast guard? That´s a bit problematic without a functioning government.

[Thanas]

Ron Paul's response is the typical "the-market-solves-everything" idiocy. Putting bounties on the head of pirates is a stupid idea, because people will then lie and cheat in order to get bounties. Look at what happened with the detainees at Guantanamo, where the USA offered bounties and certain people turned in everybody they did not know in order to score a quick buck.

[[R_H]]

Somali 'pirate' to be tried in US

A Somali teenager captured by the US navy during a confrontation with pirates is to be taken to the US to face trial, US officials have said.

The man, named as Abdul Wali Muse, was allegedly involved in the attempt to seize the Maersk Alabama merchant ship off Somalia last week.

His three companions were killed by US navy snipers in the operation to rescue the Alabama's kidnapped US captain.

Capt Richard Phillips is now returning to the US from Kenya after his ordeal.

US officials say Mr Muse will be tried in a federal court in New York, American media have reported.

There is some confusion about his age, however, and whether he can be tried as an adult in the US.

No charges have been filed, but acts of piracy can carry a sentence of life in prison, says the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington.

Hero's welcome

It is not clear when Mr Muse will be taken to the US.

US officials had considered handing him over to authorities in Kenya, which has prosecuted pirates in the past under an international agreement.

On Thursday, French officials said they would send 11 suspected pirates to Kenya for trial.

There has been pressure to prosecute him in an American court as the Maersk Alabama is a US-flagged ship and Capt Phillips is an American citizen, says our correspondent.

He was held hostage for five days after the Alabama was attacked on 8 April.

The crew disabled the ship's power and hid from the pirates while Capt Phillips offered himself as a hostage, the ship's crew said.

The crew sailed the ship to Kenya after the pirates left on a lifeboat with the captain.

The other 19 members of the crew returned to the US on Thursday to be greeted by cheers and hugs from family and friends.

After his rescue, Capt Phillips was taken on board the destroyer USS Bainbridge, which has been in the waters off Somalia conducting anti-piracy patrols.

He was taken to the Kenyan port of Mombasa on Thursday and is now on his way back to the US where he is expected to receive a hero's welcome.

Anti-piracy measures

Pirates operating off the coast of Somalia have intensified attacks on shipping in recent weeks in one of the world's busiest sea lanes, despite patrols by the US and other navies.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton unveiled a plan on Wednesday to tackle piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off Somalia.

She said an expanded international effort was needed, as well as freezing pirates' assets, and plugging gaps in the shipping industry's own defences.

Improving the situation in Somalia itself was also key, she said.

and more news about Somali pirates

Nato foils Somali pirates' attack

An attempted attack by Somali pirates on a Norwegian tanker was foiled by Nato warships and helicopters after an overnight pursuit in the Gulf of Aden.

Nato said a Canadian warship caught the pirates before releasing them after the gang attacked the MV Front Ardenne.

The alliance said the pirates had been released because they could not be prosecuted under Canadian law.

On Saturday, Dutch commandos serving with the Nato anti-piracy operation freed 20 pirate captives from Yemen.

In that incident, too, the raiders were released. American forces joined in Sunday's pursuit of pirates who used rocket-propelled grenades in an attack on the 80,000-tonne MV Front Ardenne.

Portuguese Lt Cdr Alexandre Santos Fernandes told AP news agency the raiders only stopped after repeated warning shots were fired.

He said the gang was interrogated and disarmed before being released.

A spokesman aboard the Canadian warship, the Winnipeg, Michael McWhinnie, said they had switched off all lights to hunt the fleeing pirates through the night.

"We blocked their path. We were faster and surprisingly more manoeuvrable than the pirate skiff," Mr McWhinnie told Reuters news agency.

Pirates have intensified attacks on shipping in recent weeks in one of the world's busiest sea lanes, despite patrols by the foreign navies.

In another incident on Saturday, Somali pirates seized a Belgian ship and its 10 crew, including seven Europeans.

Nato's success this weekend is the latest in a string of recent Western military operations against the pirates.

French and US troops have both taken action against pirates in recent days.

The French rescued three people from a captured yacht in an assault which saw one man killed.

Last week US troops killed three pirates and captured another as they rescued the American captain of a tanker from captivity.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently unveiled a plan to tackle piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean off Somalia.

[Rogue 9]

Nato said a Canadian warship caught the pirates before releasing them after the gang attacked the MV Front Ardenne.

The alliance said the pirates had been released because they could not be prosecuted under Canadian law.

You've got to be shitting me.