Replies

I don't buy the "we're afraid they might cause an environmental disaster," line, that's for sure. An ocean is too big for things to cause it much trouble; probably the worst thing that could happen to the environment is an oil spill - I don't buy the story's assertions about the cargo doing it if sunk. More likely the smuggling is in conventional explosives, personnel, or regular arms.

I can't think of a reason why we wouldn't board and check them out if we knew they were out there, so I tend to think that we wanted someone to know we have an eye on shipping, or that we want someone to assume their ships are still out there and not captured or boarded, or that the lawyers haven't sorted through the international legalities yet and we're holding off for them, or that we're in the middle of an investigation and need to build a case by gathering as much info as possible for the state department's legal team, or some other thing.

I do accept the fact that al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran, Arafat and others have at different times used ships to smuggle assorted materials and arms, as we or other nations have caught them in the act. So I discard the sensational parts.

Sometimes I think reporters include "impending crisis of gargantuan proportions" because they have other than honest intentions.

I don't buy it. It doesn't add up.

You are correct it does not add up. A team could easily take control of any one of these vessels. There is no reason to not do it since they are violating maritime law. Further, just where are they going to get the merchant seamen to willingly lay down their lives for Ol' Saddam?