A Danish warship that was searching to destroy pirate ships in the Gulf of Aden recently found seven suspected Somali pirates stuck in the ocean due to a broken motorboat. The warship rescued the seven pirates who were in need of water and food, gave them shelter, and turned them over to Yemen authorities.
It’s ironic that if the pirates were in a better position – having a functioning motorboat and sufficient provisions – they might be dead. If the pirates had fled, the Danish warship would have given chase. In the chance that the pirates used the rocket-propelled grenade launchers on board against a chasing warship, the Danish warship would have opened fire.
The commanders of the warship obviously made the right decision. But the reason for that decision has to be made clear. The commanders spared the suspected pirates not because they were in need of food and water and were in all senses defenseless in the open sea. The pirates’ need for mercy did not – or should not – factor into the commanders’ decision. Rather, the commanders made the decision to take the suspected pirates on board their own warship because they had no evidence that the seven men were pirates.
Besides the grenade launchers and AK-47s – common pirate weapons – stowed on board the motorboat, the seven men were not doing anything wrong. Those men were judged as innocent before proven guilty, and therefore saved and turned over to Yemen authorities, who will hopefully investigate more into the matter and prosecute the men if they do turn out to be pirates. A “victory” in a legitimate court is worth much more than a “victory” of taking life.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/world/europe/06pirate.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/world/africa/19somalia.html?fta=y
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I’m a little unsure of the moral argument here. First, when the Danish warship found this boat of Somali’s, did they immediately suspect they were pirates? Could they see that the members of the other ship had AK-47s?
As your argument is that it was good that the Danish considered the “pirates” to be innocent until proven guilty, I don’t see how taking them aboard is not a consideration of the pirates need for mercy. You said that the Danes “spared” the pirates. That implies that they could have legitimately sunk their ship, even though the “pirates” had not been proven guilty, and did not seem to pose a threat to the Danes (there was no mention of struggle in this anecdote). I think you’re confusing two levels of action. The first is threat or no threat. If there is a threat, obviously the commander should protect his own crew first. But if there is no threat, as is the case here, it is right for the commander to take mercy on these “pirates.” Even if a battle had ensued, the Danes had sunk the pirate ship such that all the pirates were alive and trying to swim away from their ship, had no weapons, and no longer posed a threat, the Danes should then still find themselves in the merciful position again. I think mercy must factor into the commanders decision (as it did), albeit perhaps with some qualification as a second consideration.
Post a Comment