Navy rescue personnel from the dock landing ship Ashland pull suspected pirates from the sea off the coast of Djibouti on Saturday, April 10, 2010. (Petty officer 2nd Class Jason R. Zalasky U.S. Navy)
Posted on 07/05/2010 1:25:07 PM PDT by GATOR NAVY
NORFOLK
Defense attorneys for a group of suspected Somali pirates are challenging the very heart of the government's case, arguing that in the history of the United States there has never been a piracy case that did not involve plundering or stealing a vessel.
For that reason, the attorneys argue, the piracy case should be thrown out of court.
In their most recent court filing, the attorneys argue that the 200-year-old piracy statute has never been updated and is not applicable to modern-day pirate suspects.
Under that law, they say, Greenpeace activists who forcibly prevent a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates. The filing is the latest in a string of challenges to one of two piracy cases pending here in federal court.
In a flurry of motions filed over the past several weeks, defense attorneys have provided new details that they say raise more doubts about the intent of one group of six Somali nationals charged in the case.
It was also revealed publicly for the first time that in the April 10 attack on the Ashland - a Little Creek-based amphibious dock landing ship - a seventh man was present and was killed when sailors returned fire, blowing up the small skiff. The Navy never acknowledged a death during the attack.
That man was the only one with a firearm, the defense attorneys say, making the other suspects less culpable. And with him dead, the real reason he opened fire may never be known.
In a move to throw out the most serious charge - piracy, which carries a mandatory life prison term - the lawyers in the Ashland attack case argue that the legal definition of piracy requires that there be a robbery or seizure of a ship.
"Tellingly, the government cites not one example in the history of American jurisprudence of a criminal prosecution for piracy that did not involve the seizure of a ship," Keith Kimball, an assistant federal public defender, wrote to the court on behalf of the six suspected pirate s. (Each defendant has his own lawyer as well.)
"It cites to none because there are none," he said in the filing.
But the government contends that the Piracy Act of 1819, on which the case hinges, historically has included different types of violent acts committed on the high seas. Government prosecutors urged the court not to consider piracy as it existed 200 years ago and to rely on modern-day common law and international treaties.
The Ashland was fired upon just before dawn on April 10 while on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, about 330 nautical miles off Djibouti. The Ashland fired back, causing an explosion that destroyed the skiff.
After jumping into the ocean, the six surviving Somalis, two seriously injured, were taken into custody and brought to Norfolk U.S. District Court to face piracy and other charges. Part of one man's leg was amputated as a result of his injuries.
The case is set for trial Oct. 19.
In one recent court filing, the Somalis provided their first hint of an alibi.
They "repeatedly told investigators that they had helped transport Somali refugees to Yemen and then had been stranded at sea on a small boat without fuel or supplies for several days before firing their single weapon in an act of desperation in order to attract the attention of the USS Ashland," Kimball wrote.
Kimball added that all six provided statements to the FBI and Navy investigators asserting their innocence. They told the agents they were lost at sea for five days.
The government says in one filing that the "description of the defendants' statements" is inaccurate but does not provide more detail.
Five other Somalis are charged in a March 31 attack on the Nicholas, a Norfolk-based frigate that had been patrolling the waters off Somalia. Like the others, the indictment says those five, armed with assault rifles, attacked the Nicholas that night, believing in the darkness that it was a merchant vessel.
That trial is set for Sept. 9, but the attorneys have yet to file any pretrial motions. They have until July 13 to do so.
All 11 defendants remain in jail without bond.
Navy rescue personnel from the dock landing ship Ashland pull suspected pirates from the sea off the coast of Djibouti on Saturday, April 10, 2010. (Petty officer 2nd Class Jason R. Zalasky U.S. Navy)
“Under that law, they say, Greenpeace activists who forcibly prevent a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates.”
___________________________________________________________
And??
my thought exactly
I agree.
The stupid hippies from Whale Wars fly the Pirate Flag..and call themselves pirates I say we should treat them as such.....
The should be treated like terrorists..Shot on Sight..Not brought back to the US for a trial.
“...a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates.”
.
Wait till someone gets killed and the rules of the game will be established.
We should have never rescued them; they could have been easily categorized as “lost at sea”. Why do we bother when we are at war with these mohammedans? We have gone totally mad, and now they’re in our courts stateside, when this is an international incident? We need a naval version of the 3 S’s: “shoot, shovel and shut up”...Shoot, sink and shut up?
That was my thought too. Sure seems to me by that flag that they want to appear as pirates.
That whole history of combating piracy in the early 1800’s is fascinating. Adams urged Jefferson to pay tribute to the pirates. Jefferson refused. “Millions for defense, not one penny for tribute” was the slogan of the day. Young, heroic secret agents traveled over the desert from Egypt to where captives were held and staged daring rescues, etc. Jefferson in Paris urged europeans to unite to combat the piracy. It took a while before they responded. Thank goodness they are atually helping in Afghanistan.
Good for these lawyers for pointing such things out. Too bad the regime doesn’t get that pirates should be made to walk the plank, not stand trial in court.
the 1819 law may be just fine (I haven’t read it but....)
yes, treat the Greenpeace clowns who interfere with other sea traffic as pirates
yes, treat the Somali thugs who fired on a US warship (DUH, how stoopid are they?) as pirates
open-and-shut cases, thank you
There ya go.
Two mistakes, one was rescuing them, which led to the second, bringing them to Norfolk.
Now the lawyers will drag the trial out until the pirates end up w/ 'time served'.
There ya go.
Two mistakes, one was rescuing them, which led to the second, bringing them to Norfolk.
Now the lawyers will drag the trial out until the pirates end up w/ 'time served'. (and rich lawyers)
They were caught engaging in an act of piracy.....and they are being DEFENDED?!
Good frakin grief, please, please bring back the days when these idiot pirates were hung or shot after they were caught engaging in an act of piracy...... =.=
“Your honor, I refer to you paragraph arrrrrrrrr.”
“..Under that law, they say, Greenpeace activists who forcibly prevent a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates....”
As others have said “And?”
I got no problem with whalers using shotguns to clear the decks of boarders.
Still in principle I agree with you.
“The should be treated like terrorists..Shot on Sight..Not brought back to the US for a trial.”
We could just amputate some their leg as the navy did. That would put meat back on the menu boys.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.