Posted by Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging:
Pirate Prosecution NIMBY: Catch-and-Release or the Kenya Option
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_12-2009_04_18.shtml#1239738164


   The very pirates who terrorized the crew of the Maersk Alabama may
   have been caught and released by the U.S. or navies in the past year.

   Given the robust military reaction to the seizure of an American
   vessel, most people would be surprised to learn that the response of
   the United States and other nations patrolling the Gulf of Aden to
   pirate attacks over the past year has been to either avoid arresting
   the pirates in the first place, or to put them back in the water once
   caught. Indeed, some European countries have even given pirates in
   broke-down boats a lift back to port. After all, international law
   (the UNCLOS treaty) demands solicitude for "distressed mariners."

   The reason for such a strange piracy policy is that the legal
   obstacles to successfully prosecuting are so daunting that Western
   nations would rather not risk it. The title of my forthcoming essay in
   the California Law Review is taken from a quote from the German
   Foreign Minister, who explained the catch-and-release policy by saying
   no one wanted a "Guantanamo on the Sea."

   According to news reports, the Administration is debating whether to
   try the captured pirate in the U.S. or to transfer him to Kenya. The
   U.S and Britain had made a deal with Kenya to transfer captured
   pirates there, so that they could be tried under universal
   jurisdiction. This is analogous to the rendition or third-country
   solution to the Guantanamo problem, and is similarly limited by
   Kenya�s unwillingness to be a pirate holding pen. There are numerous
   problems with this plan, and it is to early to judges its success, as
   no trial has yet finished.

   Yet the current case is unique because it involves an attack on a U.S.
   vessel. America has jurisdiction not because of the universal status
   of piracy but because the attack happened on what is constructively
   considered its territory, involving its nationals. Much like the
   attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, there could be no
   clearer case for U.S. prosecution. Such piracy cases are quite rare
   because there are very few U.S. flagged commercial vessels.

   Given that the bombers of the U.S. embassy in Kenya were brought here
   for trial - at great expense - sending this pirate to Kenya, with
   which he has no connection, would be a great admission of defeat for
   the U.S. legal system. It would be particularly ironic at a time when
   Guantanamo terrorists are being transferred for to U.S. civilian
   courts for trial.

   The fact that the Administration is entertaining the possibility of
   deferring this prosecution to Kenya seems to confirm my view that the
   no one has any appetite for such cases because of their difficulty.
   Yet even I am surprised that Kenya is entertained as a possibility
   here. It is one thing to be deterred by high costs when the case does
   not involve ones own nationals � there, the direct benefits are low.
   But here, it is hard to imagine the Attorney General passing on such a
   case. Indeed, France and Holland have brought pirates that attacked
   their vessels for trial in their domestic court.

   Still, one can imagine the concerns Attorney General Holder has.
   Surely the young pirate will say � like many captured Guantanamo
   detainees � that he knew nothing of his shipmates plan; he thought
   they were just going fishing. In the few cases that have already begun
   in Kenya, pirates have claimed they have been tortured, and that their
   Islamic rites have been disrespected. With a good U.S. defense
   attorney, a pirate brought to America could really refine this pitch.
   (The forthcoming essay discusses these and other difficulties at much
   greater length).

   In any case, where will one find a lawyer or translators who speak the
   defendant�s Somali dialect? Will the officers of the U.S.S.
   Bainbridge, the crew of the Alabama, and the Navy SEALS have to be
   brought in as witnesses? If so, it will interfere both with the
   policing of the seas and the Alabama�s mission of providing relief
   supplies.

   NOTE: I will not be able to respond to posts or emails until Thursday
   night.

_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh

Reply via email to