| Submit your comments on this article |
| Africa Horn |
| Heroic Brit trio take on Somali pirates before escaping into sea |
| 2008-12-31 |
| Interesting pics at the link... These dramatic pictures show the moment three British ex-soldiers took on heavily-armed pirates who hijacked their container ship. The brave trio defied the gun-toting gang by every means possible – including using home-made weapons. But the odds were just too great… and they were forced to jump 50ft into the shark-infested sea to avoid being killed or held as hostages. They endured 40 agonising minutes being shot at in the water before a rescue helicopter arrived. The three, working as security men on the ship, are the first Britons to escape from the pirates holding the world to ransom by ambushing ships off the coast of Somalia, East Africa. Ex-Para Mike Kelly said: “It was terrifying. The pirates shot at us with AK-47s while we tried to tackle them with anything we had to hand – scaffolding poles and flare guns. We intended to take them out and grab the ship back, but there were too many of them. We knew if they caught us we’d be dead. We had to take our chances with the sharks.” In a brazen raid three weeks ago one gang from the pirate strongholds of Eyl, Harardheere and Hobyo seized the tanker Sirius Star, filled with £67m of crude oil, and are still demanding a £6million ransom from its owners. Ten days later, Mike, 36, ex-Royal Marine Carl “Rocky” Mason, 44, and another ex-military pal who does not want to be named, were paid £10,000 a month to safeguard the MV Biscaglia as it sailed through the same treacherous waters. Maritime law banned any weapons being taken on board, but their employers, Anti-Piracy Maritime Security Services of Poole, Dorset, promised the ship would be equipped with “deterrents”. Rocky said: “The ship had water cannon and a sonic device which we were told was so painful any pirates would scarper. We also made a bazooka from a scaffolding pole and flares.” The Biscaglia and 18 other cargo vessels at first sailed with a French frigate for protection. But two days out of Oman, 300 miles off the Somali coast, it fell behind. Mike, from Dublin, said: “We noticed a skiff about three miles off our port side – and knew it was pirates.” The Biscaglia sent a distress signal to the frigate as the skiff circled the tanker staying well out of range of water cannons. Mike said: “We used our makeshift bazooka but it was wildly inaccurate and the pirates started firing rocket-propelled grenades.” While two pirates stayed in the skiff, six scrambled on board, firing AK-47s at the bridge where the three men were masterminding the defence. Rocky, from Poole, said: “They started shooting at me and I ran with them coming after me. They were only about 18, skinny and looked high on the local drug, called khat. They were spraying bullets everywhere.” The men decided to use the sonic weapon, called an L-RAD. Mike said: “We thought it would make the pirates back off, but they just laughed. It was a total waste of time.” The trio locked all the hatches and doors and retreated to the roof of the bridge. Half an hour after the attack had begun, a helicopter from the French warship appeared. Although it was armed, it is against maritime laws in the area to board a vessel by force after it has been taken by pirates. So the helicopter crew were forced to hover and photograph events from above. Mike said: “We decided the best thing to do was maybe hide somewhere and then take the pirates out. We heard shooting and glass breaking and realised they’d got onto the bridge. The pirates made the crew kneel outside the bridge with their hands on their head. A couple stood over them with guns. In one of the pictures you can see I’ve crept forward to the edge of the roof. The pirates don’t know where we are. Rocky is behind me. We found some iron bars and our plan was for Rocky to jump off the roof, bringing a bar down on the head of one pirate. We thought there were only three of them and after taking out one we’d be able to handle the other two. But then one of the crew gestured at us that there were six pirates – and we knew we had no chance of taking them on.” Rocky added: “We didn’t want to leave the crew. They have families too. But we’d pissed the pirates off and the chances were we’d get a bullet each.At best we’d have a beating and, because of our British passports, be high-value hostages. So we decided the only option was to go over the side.” The pirates shot at the men as they made a dash for it. And they continued trying to kill them as they floated in the water. Eventually, a second helicopter arrived with a winch and hauled them to safety. Now home, they say there needs to be a drastic change in the way the world deals with the bandits – who net millions in ransom from firms in return for crews and cargo. Rocky said: “They know we can’t really fight back. It’s easy money – and something must be done.” |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #12 It seems to me that the Brits were nuts to take on the assignment with the equipment and ROE's they had, as well as the recognition that Somali thugs would look askance at their nationality. *Nobody* needs the money this badly. And the ship's owners are silly to bother with the expense of hiring elite ex-military people as guards when they're not giving them the equipment with which to fight pirates off. My guess is that insurance companies won't relent on the rule about armed guards until they go bust paying compensation, or discover that more and more ships are choosing to self-insure rather than pay their exorbitant premiums. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-12-31 23:33 |
| #11 Let's put our thinking caps on.... how did these Maritime rules of behavior evolve? Perhaps they were hatched in full form from the UN in 1949? Maybe not... let's all think real, real damn hard on this.... Law of the Sea? Hum......... NO. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-12-31 18:13 |
| #10 in times like these any sane man would asked the rhetorical question - what would Chuck Martel do? |
| Posted by: Andy Ulusoque aka Broadhead6 2008-12-31 14:30 |
| #9 a helicopter from the French warship appeared. Although it was armed, it is against maritime laws in the area to board a vessel by force after it has been taken by pirates. Those who do not protect their freedoms will soon find they have none. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2008-12-31 14:11 |
| #8 Say the word “pirate” and you and I see a violent, peg-legged sea dog with gunpowder smouldering in his beard. Shipowners see businessmen, and rightly so: only three hostages have been killed so far in the recent attacks (all the deaths were accidents), while the pirates have made tens of millions of pounds in profit. The last thing that shipowners want to do is to change a monetary relationship into a gunfight. Why? It’s bad for business, driving the all-important insurance rates through the roof. Individual ships can deploy preventive measures such as proper lighting, round-the-clock watchmen with radar and thermal video equipment, fire hoses, physical barriers, acoustic weapons, radar, video cameras, electric fencing and high-intensity light beams. Armed guards, however, are a last resort. They are expensive, some flag states don’t allow them, and many ports won’t admit ships with weapons on board, forcing the guns to be dumped overboard on arrival. And the consequences of unleashing a cut-price, untrained army on to the decks of the world’s merchant navy sends shivers down the keel of the maritime world. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-31 13:49 |
| #7 Barry Hart Dubner, a law professor at Barry University in Florida who has written extensively on piracy, said that on the high seas, anyone can step up to battle the pirates. "It gets trickier when you try to get them in territorial waters (within 7.5 miles of the coastline), because theoretically you need permission of the coastal state. But they can use any force they want because they're considered enemies of mankind," Dubner said. Bringing weapons on board ships is "strongly discouraged" by the United Nations' International Maritime Organization, and experts agree that arming commercial crews is a bad idea. "If you hire a company to do it or even arm your crew personnel, I think it would put them more at risk than if they weren't. If they start shooting Â… now you have an international incident," said Michael Lee, assistant vice president at Miami-based "non-lethal" security company McRoberts Maritime Security. Having weapons on board isn't just a health and liability hazard, it also increases insurance costs "exponentially," Lee said. Armed guards cost between $1,000 and $1,500 a day. "The problem is that most ship owners will not allow crews to carry weapons on board the ship. Most of these crews come from the Philippines and other areas and they're worried they'll kill each other. They're more worried about that than they are about piracy," Dubner said. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-31 13:46 |
| #6 Now, now folks. A polite way to say it would be, "perhaps maritime law should be changed". |
| Posted by: tu3031 2008-12-31 13:34 |
| #5 What everyone said. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-12-31 13:29 |
| #4 What Menhadden said. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2008-12-31 13:26 |
| #3 fuck maritime law |
| Posted by: Menhadden Ulomock4010 2008-12-31 12:42 |
| #2 Can someone point me to the maritime law that prevents gear for ship's security? |
| Posted by: Penguin 2008-12-31 12:35 |
| #1 Maritime law banned any weapons being taken on board, IDIOTS |
| Posted by: Rednek Jim 2008-12-31 12:28 |