So, is anyone calling for reimbursement of our expenses from the rescue?

[krkaufman]

Given that these sailors were captured because their company made a business decision to not arm the sailors or provide for their protection, and given that said company would have been forced to pay ransom to free their employees were it not for the actions of the US government, shouldn't this company be paying some percentage of the expenses associated with the rescue of their employees?

Using the terminology of others, isn't there a moral hazard in the government providing such services to these companies without some sort of associated cost reflected on the company's balance sheets? If the pirates are emboldened by negotiation and their ransom demands being met, aren't companies not providing their own security similarly reinforced in their choice when the government bail them out, as happened today? Is this just another case of privatizing profits and socializing risk? (I'd be very interested to learn what corporate taxes Maersk has paid in recent years.)

I'm thrilled that the crew escaped, in this instance, without any loss of life, but I have to wonder if events would have been different if their company had a different approach.

[stillcool]

1. nah..we 'bailed them out'...

I've read that the company that owns the ship is a defense contractor..so it makes perfect sense.

[anigbrowl]

2. Zzzzz

Look - it's illegal to arm sailors, by international treaty. Protecting the merchant marine is one of the oldest functions of government, and always has been for any nation with a coastline. This is one of the most basic reasons for payment of taxes - national defense, including the defense of our citizenry and commercial interests. There is an abundance of history, both of the US and older countries like Britain, documenting this.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Pirates#19th_century.2C_United_States-Barbary_wars

As for the amount of taxes paid, you can easily find that information for yourself: http://shareholders.maersk.com/en/Pages/ShareholdersHome.aspx

[seabeyond]

3. i willingly give my tax money for stuff like this. along with the rescues we do in so many areas

called the safety net i expect, that makes us so good, that we have lacked during the last 8 yrs with bushco cutting these things out

[Warpy]

4. Uh, what part of the Navy's function in protecting international

trade did you miss?

Did you know that shipping is specifically not armed because armed ships aren't allowed into a lot of ports?

The international community needs to come together to patrol these waters and make piracy too dangerous and expensive to continue.

That's only the short term solution, though.

Aid is the long term solution.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. As a practical matter, it is not possible to arm merchant shipping

Most nations have insanely restrictive laws with regards to weapons and firearms, even those carried aboard a ship for self protection.

This is in fact what navies are for, and the USN did its job.