Posted:
April 28, 2010
An inter-agency meeting April 16 raised more questions than it answered about the President's recent Executive Order intended to block U.S.-based financial support to terrorists, insurgents and pirates in Somalia.
The meeting, chaired in Washington by the U.S. Coast Guard, was to have clarified the intent of the Executive Order with respect to the payment of ransom to Somali pirates by the owner of a U.S.-flagged ship hijacked in the Gulf of Aden or the Indian Ocean off the African coast.
The Executive Order did not say so explicitly, but the clear implication was that the payment of ransom to pirates by a U.S. vessel owner seeking the safe release of the ship's officers and crew and the return of the vessel and its cargo could open the ship owner to criminal prosecution on federal charges.
"The Justice Department did not participate in the meeting," said American Maritime Officers National Vice President at Large Mike Murphy, who represented AMO in the meeting. "The State Department was represented, and so was the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, but no one from Justice was on hand to answer questions and explain the specific circumstances under which ransom payments by U.S. maritime interests would result in federal criminal charges.
"The outcome was that, if a U.S. merchant ship is seized by Somali pirates, the owner of the ship would have to know before paying ransom that the money would not go to specific individuals or organizations known to be behind the lawlessness and instability in Somalia," Murphy continued. "No one in the administration has explained how a ship owner is supposed to do that with any certainty."
Murphy outlined what he called "a vague procedure" to be followed by U.S. owners whose ships fall victim to piracy off the Horn of Africa.
"The ship owner would have to first notify the Coast Guard that a vessel has been seized, and an inter-agency panel would then attempt to determine if the pirates involved are on the list of known terrorists and insurgents," he explained. "If the pirates are not connected to the listed individuals or organizations, the payment of ransom would be permitted. If the pirates are known to be linked to terrorists or rebels, the payment of ransom would be prohibited. It is in fact a case-by-case situation rife with uncertainty."
AMO National President Tom Bethel also commented on the issue. "With no federal force protection for U.S. ships and crews, with piracy attacks increasing and growing more sophisticated, and with regional risk expanding, U.S. merchant ships are more vulnerable than ever to seizure - and American merchant mariners are more vulnerable than ever to captivity by pirates who may or may not be associated with or inspired by terrorists, or who may simply be common thugs committing crimes of opportunity," Bethel said.
"Unfortunately, the President's Executive Order jeopardizes what was in fact a 'last resort' response in the event U.S. merchant mariners are held hostage in Somalia," he added. "No one in our union wants U.S. money going to terrorists or criminals in Somalia or anywhere else - intentionally or inadvertently. No one in AMO disputes the intent of the President's Executive Order or his declaration of 'a national emergency.' But no one here wants American merchant mariners to suffer needless injury or death."
Bethel called on the administration to "clarify this issue in a substantial and specific way before it becomes - literally - a matter of life or death."
Inter-agency meeting on ransom payments in piracy cases leaves maritime interests with more questions than answers
An inter-agency meeting April 16 raised more questions than it answered about the President's recent Executive Order intended to block U.S.-based financial support to terrorists, insurgents and pirates in Somalia.
The meeting, chaired in Washington by the U.S. Coast Guard, was to have clarified the intent of the Executive Order with respect to the payment of ransom to Somali pirates by the owner of a U.S.-flagged ship hijacked in the Gulf of Aden or the Indian Ocean off the African coast.
The Executive Order did not say so explicitly, but the clear implication was that the payment of ransom to pirates by a U.S. vessel owner seeking the safe release of the ship's officers and crew and the return of the vessel and its cargo could open the ship owner to criminal prosecution on federal charges.
"The Justice Department did not participate in the meeting," said American Maritime Officers National Vice President at Large Mike Murphy, who represented AMO in the meeting. "The State Department was represented, and so was the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, but no one from Justice was on hand to answer questions and explain the specific circumstances under which ransom payments by U.S. maritime interests would result in federal criminal charges.
"The outcome was that, if a U.S. merchant ship is seized by Somali pirates, the owner of the ship would have to know before paying ransom that the money would not go to specific individuals or organizations known to be behind the lawlessness and instability in Somalia," Murphy continued. "No one in the administration has explained how a ship owner is supposed to do that with any certainty."
Murphy outlined what he called "a vague procedure" to be followed by U.S. owners whose ships fall victim to piracy off the Horn of Africa.
"The ship owner would have to first notify the Coast Guard that a vessel has been seized, and an inter-agency panel would then attempt to determine if the pirates involved are on the list of known terrorists and insurgents," he explained. "If the pirates are not connected to the listed individuals or organizations, the payment of ransom would be permitted. If the pirates are known to be linked to terrorists or rebels, the payment of ransom would be prohibited. It is in fact a case-by-case situation rife with uncertainty."
AMO National President Tom Bethel also commented on the issue. "With no federal force protection for U.S. ships and crews, with piracy attacks increasing and growing more sophisticated, and with regional risk expanding, U.S. merchant ships are more vulnerable than ever to seizure - and American merchant mariners are more vulnerable than ever to captivity by pirates who may or may not be associated with or inspired by terrorists, or who may simply be common thugs committing crimes of opportunity," Bethel said.
"Unfortunately, the President's Executive Order jeopardizes what was in fact a 'last resort' response in the event U.S. merchant mariners are held hostage in Somalia," he added. "No one in our union wants U.S. money going to terrorists or criminals in Somalia or anywhere else - intentionally or inadvertently. No one in AMO disputes the intent of the President's Executive Order or his declaration of 'a national emergency.' But no one here wants American merchant mariners to suffer needless injury or death."
Bethel called on the administration to "clarify this issue in a substantial and specific way before it becomes - literally - a matter of life or death."