On May 20^th, 2009 I wrote a blog entry expressing my astonishment that members of our Pentagon were of the opinion that owners of US Merchant Marine vessels should refrain from placing armed security guards on board their vessels because, “fighting off pirates should be left to the professionals” and that arming merchant vessels “could create an arms race or result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates".” My astonishment was framed as follows:

 Am I missing something here? Where is our common sense? This seems like a definite ‘no-brainer’ situation to me. As a former US Merchant Marine and firearms instructor who has trained US Navy personnel to combat pirates and terrorists on the high seas I am of the opinion that THE ONLY OPTION IS TO TRAIN AND ARM THE CREWS OF ALL MERCHANT SHIPS. It may be just me, but it seems pretty obvious that if someone points a gun in your face you have a right to point a gun at them to protect your life.

Another option is to provide armed security crews for each ship. That would be far more expensive than simply training and arming the crews themselves but one thing is certain, doing nothing at all is definitely a very expensive and risky option. Paying the ransoms (some of which amount to millions of dollars) is a burden on the ship owners and insurance rates have skyrocketed recently.

At the writing of my May 20^th blog entry, Richard E. Hicks, a member of the crew of the Maersk line US Merchant ship Alabama that was rescued from pirates by the US Navy Seals had filed a lawsuit in Houston, Texas alleging that their shipping company employer failed to provide them with the training and weapons to protect themselves.

Apparently that lawsuit grabbed the attention of Maersk because this same ship was attacked again a couple of days ago by Somali pirates. This time the crew was ready and this time the pirates were driven off by gunfire from vigilant armed security officers stationed on deck. Fortunately, Maersk decided to ignore the “wisdom” of our politically cautious Pentagon and took steps to protect themselves. Their precautions prevented another piracy and quite possibly saved the lives of crewmembers. I congratulate them for taking a stand on this vital issue.

It seems I frequently find myself in the position of saying “I TOLD YOU SO”, so this is no new experience for me. I am however pleased that someone out there took the appropriate action and armed this vessel. I hope the other shipping companies passing through the Gulf of Aden do not miss the lesson here.  It is an unfortunate fact that force must sometimes be met with superior force if one desires to avoid victimization by the thugs of the world.

Michael Jaquish- A Vigilant American

 

 

Preamble to the US Constitution:

 “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

 Preamble to the US Declaration of Independence:

  “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. “

 “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, . . .”

 
Striking the balance between national security and fair and consistent respect for basic human rights is a challenge that will not go away until we resolve the issue. It requires us to conduct national dialogues as we confront events like the Fort Hood shooting. Many seem to believe there must be a conflict between these two concepts (National Security & Human Rights) but is there really? What IS America if not a country founded on respect for basic human dignity? This is the very concept that drew us together when we united against a repressive government to declare our independence. Had the motherland treated us with respect and dignity, there would have been little reason for us to revolt. Respect for human rights is therefore the corner stone of the foundation of our existence as a nation and we need to keep this in mind when we evaluate events like the Fort Hood Shooting. 

 The question before us now seems to be "does political correctness cross the line from defending human rights to enabling the enemies of America to accomplish their agenda which involves the extinguishing of human rights."

This is perhaps, the most important dialogue our nation will ever have. Hopefully, we will eventually break the code and uncover the right formula and clarify our position. But accomplishing this difficult task requires much patience, compassion communication, diligence and constant vigilance combined with a serious focus on national security.

 Below is a one perspective of this latest event. There are others, and it is your obligation as and American to seek them out and join in the dialogue. There seems little doubt we will be offered many more opportunities to refine our position as a nation.

 -Michael Jaquish- A Vigilant American

A Culture of Political Correctness 

by Guy Rodgers 

www.actforamerica.org

  The horrific massacre at Ft. Hood has exposed the degree to which political correctness impacts government and military action — and media coverage. 

 Fox News contributor Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (retired) exhibited a courage and clarity that has been lacking in most media coverage when, during two different interviews I saw, he angrily and indignantly denounced what he referred to as a “culture of political correctness” in the leadership of the military. 

 He pointedly asserted that this was an act of Islamist terrorism, and listed just some of the telltale signs to back up his position. For instance: 

 Nidal Hasan opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and would argue with his patients, vets returning from combat, against the justification for the wars.


Hasan said the “war on terror” was in fact a war against Islam.


There is evidence that Hasan believed “infidels” deserve beheading.


Internet postings in Hasan’s name months earlier compared suicide bombers to heroic soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.

 Col. Peters went on to blame the culture of political correctness for the failure of the Army to take any action against Hasan, in spite of an awareness that Hasan held these views. 

 Other evidence of Hasan’s beliefs include statements he made to colleagues that Muslims have the right to rise up against the U.S. military, and that they have the right to rise up against their “oppressors” — the United States. 

 A fellow student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences complained about a presentation Hasan gave that “justified suicide bombings and spewed anti-American propaganda.” 

 Here’s the disturbing question that needs to be asked: Could this act of terrorism had been prevented had there not been such a politically correct reluctance to act on what was known about Hasan? 

 Imagine if the Army had acted. It’s easy to envision the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) indignantly blasting the Army with statements alleging “discrimination.” 

 Yet if the Army or law enforcement authorities had stepped in, taken action months ago, and brushed aside the typical and predictable rants from groups like CAIR, is it possible that twelve dead soldiers and one dead police officer would be alive today? 

 Why are so many in government and the military apparently afraid of “offending” a group like CAIR, which deserves to be investigated for its many questionable activities and ties to terrorists, not accommodated? (See our petition calling for such an investigation.) 

 But in the aftermath of this terrorist act, too few in the media or government have been willing to call it that. There has been a desperate search for another motive, the most common focusing on his mental state. 

 Edina Lekovic, communications director for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), also appeared on Fox News. Lekovic was unequivocal in her remarks, claiming Hasan was “clearly disturbed” and comparing him to the killers at Virginia Tech and Columbine. 

 Remarkably, only a minute or so after making this unsubstantiated claim as if it were fact, when asked about any possible connection to Islam, she warned we must not “rush to judgment.” 

 But isn’t that precisely what Lekovic did when she asserted Hasan was “clearly disturbed?” Is she a psychiatrist? Did she examine him? 

 Of course not. What qualifies Lekovic to assert Hasan was like the Columbine killers? Nothing. 

 She did exactly what she is warning others not to. She “rushed to judgment.” And while anyone who is contending that this massacre has all the earmarks of a terrorist attack is challenged, no one on the Fox News program challenged Lekovic’s unverifiable claim falsely asserted as fact. 

 Why not? Political correctness? 

 More political correctness. Prior to killing 13 people on Thursday, Hasan gave away furniture and Korans, a telltale sign of a jihadist preparing for martyrdom. 

 So how does a Washington Post story characterize Hasan’s giving furniture away? As an act of kindness. 

 But the tide may be turning. Facts are stubborn things. There are just too many signs that Hasan was in fact a radical Muslim bent on jihad. Too many signs to be ignored. 

 ABC News last night ran a headline asking if the Army missed signs that Hasan was an Islamic extremist. 

 On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol referred to an AP story that quoted colleagues of Hasan at Walter Reed Hospital who admitted they did not report his suspicious actions due to fear of appearing to be discriminatory toward Muslims. 

 It may well be determined that Hasan had emotional problems. It may also turn out that he didn’t. 

 But as Brit Hume stated on Fox News Sunday, even if Hasan had emotional or psychological issues, the facts clearly point to the conclusion that Hasan was a radical Islamist who acted on his beliefs. 

 

 

Do you have a security alarm system? If so, is it silent or audible? A very loud audible alarm that can attract the attention of neighbors can often be the best option because police take their ever-loving sweet time responding to most home burglar alarms, as most are false alarms. An audible alarm motivates your neighbors to look out the windows and call 911 and take notes and perhaps photos of on/of what they see. I am a big fan of block watch programs. Consider organizing a block meeting and invite all your nearby neighbors and come up with a plan on how to watch out for one another and what procedures should be used.  Crucial information like vehicle descriptions and license numbers is what the cops need to catch the bad guys. Keep in mind that if you want an effective block watch program, everyone needs to be on the same page with the basics. 

 

Installing burglar bars is an excellent deterrent but they can be expensive and of course they are an eyesore. Given the poor police response time in most areas though I would say these bars should be the first option if you can afford it and tolerate the appearance. All the expat homes in Africa (and in much of Europe for that matter) have them and I couldn't help but feel very vulnerable in my own home when I returned to the States because there were no burglar bars. You see these bars on windows AND doors in high crime areas of large cities but for some reason, they are rare in the higher-end neighborhoods that attract thieves. Yes, they are ugly but they do present a definite deterrent to thieves. 

 

Cameras are another option but home surveillance camera systems can be very expensive. You are on a budget you can save a lot of money by simply mounting some fake cameras at visible locations within range of any doors or windows that are likely to be used as points of entry. You can even mount some inside the house. You can order these units from home security supply catalogues and they are quite reasonable in price. Thieves don't like being recorded on camera so if they see the cameras they are likely to move on to the next house. If you do nothing else, I would recommend you take this step.

 

You can find them by cutting and pasting the following the following link in your browser:

 

http://www.hughessecuritysolutions.net/Fake_Security_Cameras_From_Hughes_Security_Solutions_s/4.htm

 

Another thing: make sure shrubs are trimmed well back from any windows so thieves will be in view if they try to break in through those locations.   

June 4, 2009

Let's face it... the world is pretty messed up right now. Many around the world have given up all hope that humanity will ever manage to pull ourselves out of the abyss of abuse and mutual destruction. Those who believe there may be hope are deeply divided in their opinions about how we should proceed in our efforts to even survive, let alone  recover and build a better future. Maintaining optimism in the face of such a bleak picture is difficult but wherever there is disaster you will find human beings who cling to hope.

One speech cannot undo all the mistakes and horrors of the past but US President Barack Hussein Obama has made a positively masterful attempt to address all the vital underlying issues in an open and sensitive but firm and determined manner here. Whether this speech leads to motivation to replace hopelessness with hope and action remains to be seen but I personally believe this speech represents a worthy effort. If you haven't read or heard this historic speech in its entirety yet, here is your chance.  

Michael Jaquish- A Vigilant American

=======================================================================================
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt
1:10 P.M. (Local)


PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know -- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

I have watched with growing interest the evolution of the debate about the threat to international commerce presented by the Somali Pirates off the coast of Somali. The Gulf of Aden, which connects the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, is the shortest route from Asia to Europe and is used by more than 20,000 ships a year to transport oil and other commodities. The alternative route around the southern tip of Africa adds two weeks and enormous expense to the trip. Less than half a percent of the ships that pass through this area are attacked by pirates and half of those attacked manage to avoid being taken by the pirates. For this reason, those who advocate training and arming the merchant seamen are viewed as overreacting to the threat. The US Pentagon seems to agree and currently is taking the position that fighting off pirates should be left to the professionals. To this end, the US has deployed a number of battleships in the area and is endeavoring to provide more than a mere deterrent to the pirate threat. However, the area of the gulf of Aden patrolled by Somali pirates covers over two million square miles and a recent US Government assessment of the situation concluded that it would take at least a thousand battleships to effectively secure the area. This is never going to happen and the global community is deluding itself if it believes we can deal with this threat without enough battleships.

Am I missing something here? Where is our common sense? This seems like a definite ‘no-brainer’ situation to me. As a former US Merchant Marine and firearms instructor who has trained US Navy personnel to combat pirates and terrorists on the high seas I am of the opinion that THE ONLY OPTION IS TO TRAIN AND ARM THE CREWS OF ALL MERCHANT SHIPS. It may be just me, but it seems pretty obvious that if someone points a gun in your face you have a right to point a gun at them to protect your life.

Another option is to provide armed security crews for each ship. That would be far more expensive than simply training and arming the crews themselves but one thing is certain, doing nothing at all is definitely a very expensive and risky option. Paying the ransoms (some of which amount to millions of dollars) is a burden on the ship owners and insurance rates have skyrocketed recently.

Some try to point out that the pirates are active because Somalia is a failed state and we should be dealing with the situation by working to salvage Somalia by dragging it back from the pit of self-imposed total anarchy. The fact is, resurrecting Somalia could take years if not decades, even if the Somalis were interested in cooperating with the international community in such a program, which they are obviously not. You can lead a camel to water, but you cannot force it to drink the water. For all intents and purposes, Somalia is a lost cause and the immediate threat of Somali piracy in the Gulf of Aden should and must be addressed quickly and efficiently.

The argument that training and arming seamen produces some sort of “liability” concern for ship owners or that it “could create an arms race or result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates"  is ludicrous. The pirates are acquiring more sophisticated weapons and getting bolder all the time anyhow with every successful attack. What about the liability incurred by failing to provide seamen with the tools they need to protect themselves? Why isn’t THAT liability being taken seriously?

Apparently, the crew of the Maersk line US Merchant ship Alabama that was rescued from pirates by the US Navy Seals recently agrees because one of them, Richard E. Hicks, has filed a lawsuit in Houston, Texas alleging that their shipping company employer failed to provide them with the training and weapons to protect themselves. It will be very interesting to see how this lawsuit transpires. If the ruling is in favor of the plaintiff I predict you will see a rush to train and arm US Merchant Seamen.

This will not be the first time US Merchant Seamen have been armed. During WWII the US Merchant Marines was considered a part of the armed services and all crews had to graduate from boot camp where they were provided the skills needed to survive in a combat environment. Considering the current threat of global terrorism and piracy it is reasonable to expect that such survival tools and skills should be a part of the US Merchant Marine tool chest today as well.

The entire world is watching to see how the shipping industry responds to this situation. If it fails to react appropriately to the threat it is likely that other thugs around the globe will be motivated to begin using the tactics currently being employed successfully by the Somali Pirates. I therefore urge the US Government to get off the fence on this important issue and do the right thing by passing legislation that authorizes the US Merchant Marine industry to train and arm their seamen or requires the shipping companies to provide armed security. Once that is done, the threat posed by the illiterate, ill-prepared and ill-equipped thugs on the coast of Somalia will evaporate.

 

Michael James Jaquish- A Vigilant American

==========================================================================================

READER COMMENTS

05-24-09

Mike,

 

A RESPONSE FROM A US CONGRESSMAN (Who was sent a copy of this blog)

June 17, 2009

Dear Mr. Jaquish:

 Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts on piracy off the coast of Somalia and ensuring that U.S. and world interests are protected from piracy on the high-seas.  I value the opportunity to hear the concerns of all my constituents. 

Piracy has been a scourge to the safety of American mariners and a problematic international security issue literally since our Nation's birth.  While the location and context of piracy changes periodically, the threat itself is enduring.  There were no 'simple' solutions to piracy then and this remains true today.  Dealing effectively with piracy requires not only coordinated action from the maritime nations of the world, but also resolution of the underlying conditions that support it.  It is a long term effort requiring patient diplomacy and economic ingenuity as well as military capability and capacity.

The problem we face with piracy in East African waters is a complex one.  The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepared a report entitled Piracy off the Horn of Africa in April of 2009, stating:

The risk of pirate attacks in the waters off the Horn of Africa is unlikely to disappear in the near term . . Like terrorism, acts of piracy in African waters pose a transnational security threat that emanates from areas plagued by conflict, weak governance, and economic insecurity. Regional security forces currently have limited maritime capability, and many governments have prioritized the development of their armies at the expense of navies or coast guards.

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are fully engaged with our international partners in developing a coordinated policy for dealing with piracy near the Horn of Africa.   The State Department has taken four immediate steps: it sent an envoy to work with other nations on improving Somalia's ability to police its own sovereign territory; it is working through the International Contact Group on Piracy to establish a multi-national response to ongoing acts of piracy and to gain the release of currently held ships; it is engaging the Somali Government to encourage them to act against pirate bases on their coastlines; and it is engaging the shipping industry to seek ways to enhance its ability for self-defense.  In addition to the immediate activities, the State Department is also in the process of developing a long term strategy for countering piracy.  Both are essential to improving the security of US merchant mariners and ensuring our national commercial interests long term.

Eliminating piracy requires the coherent and persistent application of diplomatic and economic effort as well as military capability.  I will remain informed of the Administration's efforts as we continue to work against the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa and around the world.  As I continue my efforts here on your behalf, I will keep your comments in mind.  I look forward to learning your views on any matter of concern to you.

US Congressman Norm Dicks (WA-D)

wa06ima.pub@mail.house.gov

 

 

FROM MIKE JAQUISH

 

While I do indeed greatly appreciate US Congressman Dicks taking the time from his busy schedule to respond to my blog entry, I could be wrong here but I get the impression his reply is a rather typical political "beating around the bush" response to a difficult subject that contains excellent vocabulary but in the end, offers no indication that anything significant will be done by his office to alter our current official government stand on this issue. In other words, this response is yet one more example of how trying to generate change government in government is like giving birth to an elephant. (An enormous and painful experience.)

 

-Mike Jaquish

==========================================================================================

Maersk Alabama crew member sues over safety issues

By HOWARD ALTMAN | The Tampa Tribune

Published: April 27, 2009

Updated: 04/27/2009 10:05 pm

 

HOUSTON - Ken Quinn is rooting for Richard E. Hicks, his fellow Maersk Alabama shipmate who is suing two shipping companies for failing to heed crew safety warnings.

Though he is not sure Hicks will win, Quinn said that at the very least, decision makers might side with Hicks.

"It might force companies to put on a Blackwater security team or mercenaries or armed guards," said Quinn, who recently returned to his home in Bradenton after spending about a dozen harrowing hours on a ship boarded by armed pirates.

Quinn said he first heard about a potential lawsuit on the ship.

"I heard some talk," said Quinn. "He said it when we were down below, waiting down in the room with pirates aboard, when we were sitting in the hot, sweltering room suffering from heat exhaustion. There are always guys on the crew who might sue. There might be more as time goes by."

Quinn said he will not sue.

Hicks, the chief cook on board the Maersk Alabama, alleges in his lawsuit that Maersk Line Limited, which owns the ship, and Waterman Steamship Corp., which provided the crew, ignored requests from sailors to improve safety measures for ships traveling through pirate-infested waters off the Somali coast.

Hicks asked the two companies improve safety for ships by providing armed security or allowing crew members to carry weapons. He also asked that they send ships through safer routes and place safety measures on ships like barbed wire that would prevent pirates from being able to board vessels.

"We've had safety meetings every month for the last three years and made suggestions of what should be done and they have been ignored," Hicks said. "I'm just trying to make sure this is a lot better for other seamen."

Hicks also asked the two companies pay at least $75,000 in damages, saying he doesn't know if he will ever work on a ship again.

"My family is not looking forward to me going back out to sea. But I'm not sure if I'm going back. I'm still nervous, leery. I might find something else to do,'' said Hicks, who has worked for 32 years as a merchant seaman.

Officials for Norfolk, Va. based-Maersk Line and Mobile, Ala.-based Waterman both said their companies don't comment on pending litigation.

"We think (the companies) should be more concerned about the personnel on their ships than the profits the companies make," said Terry Bryant, Hicks' attorney. Both companies do business in Texas, which is why the suit was filed in Houston, he said.

Quinn said that while he is not sure Hicks has a case, he agrees that merchant marines should be armed when traveling through pirate-infested water.

He said he would like to see a situation similar to the Maritime Administration, a federal seafaring transportation system for which he also sails. Crews on those ships have armed security details, weapons lockers and sailors trained to use small arms.

One rationale for not allowing sailors to be armed is that many nations do not allow crews to have weapons. Quinn has a solution.

"If we have to shoot, then the Navy can pick up that sailor before we get into port," he said.

For his own part, Quinn said he has been certified to use weapons for seven years and is prepared to use them.

Mike Perry, the ship's chief engineer from Riverview, said in an interview last week that he, too, is prepared to use weapons, is willing to continue his training and that ships should have armed crews.

Quinn doesn't agree with everything about the lawsuit.

Barbed wire, for one, has the potential to be more dangerous to the crew than pirates, he said. And the suit might mean the end of American-flagged shipping in that part of the world.

The suit comes at an interesting time.

Quinn is going to make the case for arms aboard ships himself Tuesday night in Washington at the International Propeller Club dinner. In addition to members of the crew, maybe even including captain Richard Phillips, the dinner will be attended by lawmakers, military personnel, shippers and a representative from the executive branch.

He said he will tell guests the same thing he is telling his friends on ships now cruising through pirate infested waters who are calling him asking for advice.

Arm the ships, he said.

"If I can speak at this dinner," he said, "there are a lot of people who will listen."

============================================================

With piracy odds in their favor, ships shun armed guards

The small number of successful pirate attacks, an increase in military patrols, and legal concerns have kept many firms from hiring security.

By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the May 5, 2009 edition

Washington - Less than half a percent of the ships that transit the Gulf of Aden are attacked by pirates, and of those attacks, less than half are successful.

That statistic, reported during a Senate panel Tuesday in Washington, offers one reason why shipping firms have been unenthusiastic about using armed guards to thwart pirate attacks, leaving the problem to be solved by the US and other militaries.

"Many in the merchant shipping industry continue to assume, unrealistically, that military forces will always be present to intervene if pirates attack. As a result, many have so far been unwilling to invest adequately in basic security measures that would render their ships far less vulnerable," said Michele Flournoy, the Pentagon's chief of policy, at the hearing.

As with the "asymmetrical threat" posed by insurgents on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, experts have been taken aback by how quickly a small band of pirates can successfully attack large vessels with millions of dollars worth of cargo aboard. One answer is for shippers to provide for their own security, employing armed security crews to man each ship.

But those crews can be expensive and the shippers don't necessarily want to spend the money to hire them. And despite the recent high-profile pirate attacks, shippers recognize the odds are in their own favor and essentially see any ransom they may have to pay as the cost of doing business.

About 33,000 ships sail through the Gulf of Aden each year, and there were just 122 attacks in 2008, according to Pentagon officials at Tuesday's congressional hearing. Of those attacks, only 42 were successful.

Shipping officials also say that arming the ships could create an arms race. "Our belief is that arming merchant sailors may result in the acquisition of ever more lethal weapons and tactics by the pirates, a race that merchant sailors cannot win," said John Clancey, chairman of Maersk, Inc., which owns the Alabama, during another recent Washington hearing.

Shipping firms are also constrained by legal rules pertaining to port entries for armed private security, as well as insurance issues. Using private security firms is "the most controversial issue that we have right now," said James Caponiti, top official at the US Maritime Administration, at the hearing.

Still, some private security firms have offered their services. XE, the firm formerly known as Blackwater USA, is reportedly in negotiations to contract with shippers to provide a "security escort service" in the Gulf of Aden with their own 183-foot ship called the MacArthur.

In the meantime, Aegis, the British security firm, is offering a land-based sensor system that could help monitor pirate ship movements. Many experts believe the key lies in targeting the "mother ships" that are used as a base of operations, sometimes more than 400 miles out at sea.

The Pentagon is looking at what role the US should play. Last month, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged a group of officers to look at options for not only for the US military but also other government agencies, including the Departments of State and Transportation. On Monday, the group presented an initial set of findings that included offense- and defense-related solutions for ships at sea, says a military official, as well as solutions that could be effective on shore.

That includes the possibility of a combat action – one of the least desirable alternatives – as well as diplomatic and economic measures.

Military solutions have partly worked. The presence of some 28 nations patrolling the region has pushed some pirates out from the Gulf of Aden back to the Indian Ocean, says Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical intelligence for SRATFOR, an intelligence firm.

But most experts agree that military solutions alone won't do it. The root causes of piracy stem from poverty, lack of opportunity and lawlessness, things the military simply can't address on its own.

"Piracy, although generally considered a scourge of the world's oceans, has its origins on land and has usually been defeated on land as a result of political and economic changes that have evolved over time," said Sen. Carl Levin (D) of Michigan, who chaired Tuesday's Senate panel hearing on piracy in Washington. "Ultimately, the solution resides ashore, not just through action on the open seas."

In the meantime, American officials are urging shippers to take their own precautions to keep the pirates at bay. They run the gamut from rolling up ship ladders, to keeping the perimeter of ships well-lit, to installing barbed wire fences around the sides of the deck.

Nearly 80 percent of thwarted attacks were the result of ships employing some kind of defensive measure, including armed guards, according to Pentagon officials.

"They need to do some things on their own," says one military official. "Just like ... when you drive through a bad neighborhood, you roll up the windows and lock the doors."