International Affairs: November 2008 Archives
It looks like there were only ten gunmen involved in the Indian terrorist attacks, which begs the question: could an armed citizenry have put the series of attacks to a much quicker end?
(Anyone know about the right to bear arms in India? Doesn't seem like concealed-carry is very widespread there.)
You can't always count on the police to protect you. Writes a photographer on the scene:
But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back." ...The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Mumbai has been hit by a coordinated set of distributed terrorist attacks involving the use of machine guns against crowds of people in at least nine locations throughout the city. Three of the city's top law enforcement officers were apparently targets and have been killed.
Gunmen have opened fire at a number of sites in the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay), killing at least 78 people and injuring about 200 more.Police said shooting was continuing and that the incidents were co-ordinated terrorist attacks. Gunmen have taken hostages at two luxury hotels. ...
On Wednesday, gunmen opened fire at about 2300 local time at sites in southern Mumbai including a train station, two five-star hotels, a hospital and a restaurant popular with tourists.
Police said the gunmen had fired indiscriminately.
"The terrorists have used automatic weapons and in some places grenades have been lobbed," said AN Roy, police commissioner of Maharashtra state.
Much easier than building a bomb, but these are the first attacks of this kind I've heard of. Pray for India and her people.
Michael B. Oren explains some of America's history with pirates.
The answers to these questions can be gleaned from America's experience with Barbary. Lacking a navy and unwilling to bear the financial burden of building one, early American leaders opted to pay tribute to the pirates. By the 1790s, the U.S. was depositing an astonishing 20% of its federal income into North African coffers -- this in addition to costly naval stores and even cannons and gunpowder. In return for this tribute, America only received more piracy. Foreign corporations refused to ship their goods in American hulls and U.S. diplomats were forced to sail overseas on European-flagged ships for fear of seizure. Dozens of American sailors languished in captivity.Humiliated by these depredations, the American public grew critical of its feckless government and began to demand action. "Steer the hostile prow to Barb'ry's shores," wrote an anonymous poet, a veteran of the Battle of Bunker Hill, "release thy sons, and humble Africa's power." In response, in 1794, Congress passed a bill authorizing $688,888.82 for the construction of six frigates "adequate for the protection of the commerce of the U.S. against Algerian corsairs." By 1801, America possessed a navy capable of striking back at the pirates and a president willing to do so. In reply to Tripoli's declaration of war against the U.S., Thomas Jefferson ordered those frigates into battle.
Learn more about the First Barbary War.
(HT: TigerHawk.)
Here's a live piracy map, courtesy JV and IO9.
Man, it's a sad age we live in. The Royal Navy has been ordered to ignore pirates.
THE Royal Navy, once the scourge of brigands on the high seas, has been told by the Foreign Office not to detain pirates because doing so may breach their human rights.Warships patrolling pirate-infested waters, such as those off Somalia, have been warned that there is also a risk that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain.
The Foreign Office has advised that pirates sent back to Somalia could have their human rights breached because, under Islamic law, they face beheading for murder or having a hand chopped off for theft.
1. Pirates face death or dismemberment as punishment if turned over to local authorities
2. These punishments violate the pirates' human rights
3. People whose human rights could be violated can seek asylum in the UK
4. Therefore, captured pirates can seek asylum in the UK
What a joke.
A Foreign Office spokesman said: “There are issues about human rights and what might happen in these circumstances. The main thing is to ensure any incident is resolved peacefully.”
Really? The "main thing" isn't to eliminate all the pirates and protect the high seas?
Are there no men in Her Majesty's service?
The proper way to deal with pirates has been known for centuries: you hang them on the spot.
(HT: Kenneth Anderson.)
Close on the heels of his other missteps, Obama has decided not to attend the upcoming G-20 summit. His aides say his presence would be "awkward" because he isn't yet the president, but couldn't he just go and listen?
Several Obama advisers, in separate interviews, all used the word “awkward” to describe the situation. But Robert Gibbs , a senior adviser to Mr. Obama, said: “While some may say it’s awkward that he’s not there, it would be far more problematic to be there. We firmly believe there is only one president at a time.” ...The potential for even more significant misunderstanding was underscored last weekend when a quick, seemingly perfunctory telephone call by Mr. Obama returning the congratulatory call of Poland’s president led to a dispute about what was said about missile defense. If confusion over such a delicate issue could arise from a roughly five-minute phone call, Obama advisers reasoned, then the prospect of longer encounters in person with foreign leaders at this point would be fraught with peril. He has not even designated a secretary of state, Treasury secretary or national security adviser.
It's true that Obama can't set policy yet, but maybe there's something he could learn by listening to the visiting foreign leaders and watching the process.
Seeing as how, you know, he has no experience with this sort of thing.
(HT: TDS.)
