[B]US[/B][B] ships urged to hire guards to sail off Somali coast</SPAN>[/B]
Updated May 13, 2009 06:02 AM
WASHINGTON, [B]FONT=Verdana[/B] – The US Coast Guard urged yesterday US-flagged ships sailing around the Horn of Africa to hire armed or unarmed guards.[/FONT]
The Coast Guard’s director of prevention policy, Rear Admiral James Watson, said at a maritime security meeting in Florida that new measures should be taken to respond to the increasing pirate attacks off the Somali coast.
“We expect to see additional security on US-flagged vessels that transit these waters,” said Watson.
He also said that owners of all US-flagged ships have to submit anti-piracy security plans by May 26, and “tell us what they propose” for approval.
The piracy issue came under spotlight after a US- flagged Danish cargo ship was attacked last month off the Somali coast, leading to a several-day standoff between US military and pirates.
The US government and military have since called for a new strategy to protect the US-flagged boats from being attacked by pirates, including hiring armed guards on board.
However, shipping industry is hesitating to take the advice since some countries will not allow armed vessels to enter their ports, and the measure is considered likely to increase risks of violence.
Watson said that the State Department was working with countries in pirate-plagued regions to learn what weapons laws apply in their ports in order to clarify the issue for US shipping industry.
I wish the USCG would start certifying security service providers. There are top companies who I would trust with my life (like GR) then their are dozens of fly-by-the night providers. Having no set standards allows ship owners to hire just about anyone.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Coast Guard issued a maritime security directive Monday in response to the rise in piracy in the waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa and in light of recent pirate attacks on U.S. flagged vessels.
Maritime Security Directive 104-6 (rev. 2) issued by the Coast Guard under the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2004 provides the maritime industry with specific, risk-based measures to take to deter, detect or disrupt piracy. Prior to entering high risk waters, U.S. flagged vessels should establish an anti-piracy plan that includes the hardening of rigging and operating vessels in a manner to prevent attacks and subsequent boarding. Ships shall also use established transit lanes, erratic ships maneuvering, increased speed and cooperation with military forces patrolling the area. During transits through high-risk areas, it is the ship’s responsibility to maintain a vigilant anti-piracy watch and ensure all shipboard anti-piracy precautions are in force.
Vessel security plans for U.S. flagged vessels that operate in high risk waters must have security protocols for terrorism, piracy, and armed robbery against ships that meet the performance standards in this directive by May 25. An annex to the directive provides further specific measures required for vessels transiting in the Horn of Africa and Gulf of Aden high risk waters. All vessel security plans must be approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
“Piracy presents a multi-faceted threat to the United States, our international partners and the maritime industry and the seafarers who make their living on the global maritime transportation system,” said Rear Adm. Brian Salerno, assistant commandant for marine safety, security and stewardship. “The Coast Guard has a unique role to play in response to this threat and we remain committed to working with our governmental, defense and industry partners to bring pirates to justice and to help provide for the safety of mariners upon the high seas.”
In addition to working with the maritime industry to help vessel owners and operators develop plans to deter, detect and respond to acts of piracy, the Coast Guard is actively engaged in counter piracy operations under Combined Task Force 151, in which Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments and cutters are working with the U.S. Navy to deter piracy and apprehend criminals. Coast Guard units, working with U.S. Navy Visit Board search and Seizure teams, have made four interdictions, resulting in the apprehension of 30 suspected pirates.
It’s all about US flagged ships, but what about cruise ships?
Virtualy all huge cruisers are registered in tax free havens.
I spent some time working as security specialist at cruisers, but it paid low. I wonder if this “pirate situation” could get me higher paid job?
In my part of the world (East Europe), I have seen some interest in hiring private security to fight piracy, but again, they pay $1.750 for a Team Leader in charge of 8 guys, and they only mentioned “less leathal” weapon for use against pirates, which is probably LRAD (sonic weapon) or something similar. Not good enough.
I don’t fell like playing poker with pirates with loudspeaker on one side, and rocket louncher on another.
It is about time that this has been made mandatory not only because of the business for us but because alot of companies think they don’t need protection and are naive to the fact that there are dangerous people out there.
Here is another avenue to go down, not a solution but better than most ideas. http://www.over-watch.co.uk
All the navies are saying the same thing, not enough aircraft to search these buggers out.
[quote=user999;12288]It’s all about US flagged ships, but what about cruise ships?
Virtualy all huge cruisers are registered in tax free havens.
I spent some time working as security specialist at cruisers, but it paid low. I wonder if this “pirate situation” could get me higher paid job?
In my part of the world (East Europe), I have seen some interest in hiring private security to fight piracy, but again, they pay $1.750 for a Team Leader in charge of 8 guys, and they only mentioned “less leathal” weapon for use against pirates, which is probably LRAD (sonic weapon) or something similar. Not good enough.
I don’t fell like playing poker with pirates with loudspeaker on one side, and rocket louncher on another.
Numerous surveillance security systems are available in the market. The most secured and safe system is digital video surveillance security camera system. It is installed for the basic purpose of feeling safe and secure in our home, office or premises. There are various different reasons that we get these system installed, but the effect is solely one, which is be relaxed and happy with best security.
These security cameras allow us to monitor the business or home in our absence. The latest enhancement is motion detector which can send us security alerts through a mail or mobile in case of emergency of disturbance.
If you are interested to know more about Criminal Investigations, please search our site for more in-depth information and resources.
My tank crew and I (4 of us) have just recently seperated from the US Army where we served as the lead vehicle for roughly 200 combat missions. We don’t have much maritime experience, but we have plenty of trigger time, physical security knowledge, and experience working under pressure to make life or death decisions. How much of an asset would we be as a private team for hire for vessels in these hostile areas?
None? What makes you say that? I was just over there and, while we had a Navy EST onboard, I did feel better having them there knowing they would light up anything that approached us with hostile intent. Shoot first, ask later.
US Navy (or another group of prof. operators) = Knowledgeable about naval warfare, ships, vessels, armament, etc. Trained for the environment and able to know what’s going on.
Wannabe’s = Let’s just start blasting whoever has dark skin
Results?
Navy (or another pro crew) = pirates or hostiles are ID’ed, warned and if need be, engaged with sufficient force.
Wannabe’s= Bum boat trying to sell coconuts (or whatever) get’s lit-up, another half a dozen locals killed, lawsuits against the shipping company and better yet, the families ( we are talking about dozens or even hundreds of people) will sure hate mariners and their vessels even more, guess what??? More pirate recruits and perhaps even some terrorists.
I worked in private security and I saw way too many yahoo’s that thought because they had a badge and maybe even a gun that they ready to take on the world. Big mistake.
“Wannabees”??
So are you suggesting that since we are “ground-pounders” we use reckless abandon to engage targets?
Positive Identification (PID) and Escilation of Force are a HUGE part of the life and death decisions we made on a daily basis. We more often than not stayed our trigger rather than squeeze it. However, if the trigger needed a squeeze we’ve had the intestinal fortitude to sqeeze without hesitation.
We are a professional group that have been in and analyzed more threatening situations than most can even exaggerate. We have devised and executed security plans protecting 360 degrees 24 hrs/day assets of up to 35 cargo vehicles with upwards of 70 civilians.
I personally think protecting a boat against inaccurate AKs and RPGs would be cake.
I think what SaltySailor is saying, and anyone has to agree, is that a team specifically trained and experienced for the task is much more valuable than a team that is not, despite their previous quasi-related experience; thats all, don’t take it personally. Your experience is a great perquisite for further training in maritime security, nothing can replicate combat, but not for a direct job swap. Put yourself in the place of a mariner on a vulnerable vessel, hundreds if not thousands of miles away from the nearest help - would you rather have a trained vessel security team on board or some Army tankers with no additional training that think its “cake”? Seems like thats the very attitude SaltySailor was alluding to.
As John mentioned previously, this very example raises the notion of certifying proper companies to do this task. Everything else on a vessel has to be checked, signed, certified, and/or documented, why not these companies? Just as your fixed firefighting system has to be certified to a set of standards, so should your security team, they’re both vessel- and life-saving apparatus after all.
[QUOTE=LongGun;47804]“Wannabees”??
So are you suggesting that since we are “ground-pounders” we use reckless abandon to engage targets?
Positive Identification (PID) and Escilation of Force are a HUGE part of the life and death decisions we made on a daily basis. We more often than not stayed our trigger rather than squeeze it. However, if the trigger needed a squeeze we’ve had the intestinal fortitude to sqeeze without hesitation.
We are a professional group that have been in and analyzed more threatening situations than most can even exaggerate. We have devised and executed security plans protecting 360 degrees 24 hrs/day assets of up to 35 cargo vehicles with upwards of 70 civilians.
I personally think protecting a boat against inaccurate AKs and RPGs would be cake.[/QUOTE]
First it’s a SHIP not a BOAT.
Second, I can see my comments hit home for some reason (Never said your name in my post).
Third, your response proves what I thought from the get go.
Thanks for confirming that and best of luck in all your future endeavors.
