Tweet
Piracy Alibi
July 8th, 2010
Defence solicitors for a group of suspected Somali pirates are challenging the very heart of the government?s case, arguing that in the history of the United States there has never been a piracy case that did not involve plundering or stealing a vessel.
For that reason, the solicitors argue, the piracy case should be thrown out of court.
In their most recent court filing, the solicitors argue that the 200-year-old piracy statute has never been updated and is not applicable to modern-day pirate suspects.
Under that law, they say, Greenpeace activists who forcibly prevent a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates. The filing is the latest in a string of challenges to one of two piracy cases pending here in federal court.
In a flurry of motions filed over the past several weeks, defence solicitors have provided new details that they say raise more doubts about the intent of one group of six Somali nationals charged in the case.
It was also revealed publicly for the first time that in the April 10 attack on the Ashland ? a Little Creek-based amphibious dock landing ship ? a seventh man was present and was killed when sailors returned fire, blowing up the small skiff. The Navy never acknowledged a death during the attack.
That man was the only one with a firearm, the defence solicitors say, making the other suspects less culpable. And with him dead, the real reason he opened fire may never be known.
In a move to throw out the most serious charge ? piracy, which carries a mandatory life prison term ? the lawyers in the Ashland attack case argue that the legal definition of piracy requires that there be a robbery or seizure of a ship.
?Tellingly, the government cites not one example in the history of American jurisprudence of a criminal prosecution for piracy that did not involve the seizure of a ship,? Keith Kimball, an assistant federal public defender, wrote to the court on behalf of the six suspected pirate s. (Each defendant has his own lawyer as well.)
?It cites to none because there are none,? he said in the filing.
But the government contends that the Piracy Act of 1819, on which the case hinges, historically has included different types of violent acts committed on the high seas. Government prosecutors urged the court not to consider piracy as it existed 200 years ago and to rely on modern-day common law and international treaties.
The Ashland was fired upon just before dawn on April 10 while on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, about 330 nautical miles off Djibouti. The Ashland fired back, causing an explosion that destroyed the skiff.
After jumping into the ocean, the six surviving Somalis, two seriously injured, were taken into custody and brought to Norfolk U.S. District Court to face piracy and other charges. Part of one man?s leg was amputated as a result of his injuries.
The case is set for trial Oct. 19.
In one recent court filing, the Somalis provided their first hint of an alibi.
They ?repeatedly told investigators that they had helped transport Somali refugees to Yemen and then had been stranded at sea on a small boat without fuel or supplies for several days before firing their single weapon in an act of desperation in order to attract the attention of the USS Ashland,? Kimball wrote.
Kimball added that all six provided statements to the FBI and Navy investigators asserting their innocence. They told the agents they were lost at sea for five days.
The government says in one filing that the ?description of the defendants? statements? is inaccurate but does not provide more detail.
Five other Somalis are charged in a March 31 attack on the Nicholas, a Norfolk-based frigate that had been patrolling the waters off Somalia. Like the others, the indictment says those five, armed with assault rifles, attacked the Nicholas that night, believing in the darkness that it was a merchant vessel.
That trial is set for Sept. 9, but the solicitors have yet to file any pretrial motions. They have until July 13 to do so.
All 11 defendants remain in jail without bond.
July 8th, 2010
Defence solicitors for a group of suspected Somali pirates are challenging the very heart of the government?s case, arguing that in the history of the United States there has never been a piracy case that did not involve plundering or stealing a vessel.
For that reason, the solicitors argue, the piracy case should be thrown out of court.
In their most recent court filing, the solicitors argue that the 200-year-old piracy statute has never been updated and is not applicable to modern-day pirate suspects.
Under that law, they say, Greenpeace activists who forcibly prevent a whaling ship from conducting its mission could be considered pirates. The filing is the latest in a string of challenges to one of two piracy cases pending here in federal court.
In a flurry of motions filed over the past several weeks, defence solicitors have provided new details that they say raise more doubts about the intent of one group of six Somali nationals charged in the case.
It was also revealed publicly for the first time that in the April 10 attack on the Ashland ? a Little Creek-based amphibious dock landing ship ? a seventh man was present and was killed when sailors returned fire, blowing up the small skiff. The Navy never acknowledged a death during the attack.
That man was the only one with a firearm, the defence solicitors say, making the other suspects less culpable. And with him dead, the real reason he opened fire may never be known.
In a move to throw out the most serious charge ? piracy, which carries a mandatory life prison term ? the lawyers in the Ashland attack case argue that the legal definition of piracy requires that there be a robbery or seizure of a ship.
?Tellingly, the government cites not one example in the history of American jurisprudence of a criminal prosecution for piracy that did not involve the seizure of a ship,? Keith Kimball, an assistant federal public defender, wrote to the court on behalf of the six suspected pirate s. (Each defendant has his own lawyer as well.)
?It cites to none because there are none,? he said in the filing.
But the government contends that the Piracy Act of 1819, on which the case hinges, historically has included different types of violent acts committed on the high seas. Government prosecutors urged the court not to consider piracy as it existed 200 years ago and to rely on modern-day common law and international treaties.
The Ashland was fired upon just before dawn on April 10 while on patrol in the Gulf of Aden, about 330 nautical miles off Djibouti. The Ashland fired back, causing an explosion that destroyed the skiff.
After jumping into the ocean, the six surviving Somalis, two seriously injured, were taken into custody and brought to Norfolk U.S. District Court to face piracy and other charges. Part of one man?s leg was amputated as a result of his injuries.
The case is set for trial Oct. 19.
In one recent court filing, the Somalis provided their first hint of an alibi.
They ?repeatedly told investigators that they had helped transport Somali refugees to Yemen and then had been stranded at sea on a small boat without fuel or supplies for several days before firing their single weapon in an act of desperation in order to attract the attention of the USS Ashland,? Kimball wrote.
Kimball added that all six provided statements to the FBI and Navy investigators asserting their innocence. They told the agents they were lost at sea for five days.
The government says in one filing that the ?description of the defendants? statements? is inaccurate but does not provide more detail.
Five other Somalis are charged in a March 31 attack on the Nicholas, a Norfolk-based frigate that had been patrolling the waters off Somalia. Like the others, the indictment says those five, armed with assault rifles, attacked the Nicholas that night, believing in the darkness that it was a merchant vessel.
That trial is set for Sept. 9, but the solicitors have yet to file any pretrial motions. They have until July 13 to do so.
All 11 defendants remain in jail without bond.
Comment