Recently a federal judge threw out part of a civilian court case against six Somali nationals who fired upon a Navy vessel in the waters along the Somalian coast. His reasoning? Because the pirates did not succeed in their attack, they could not be charged with piracy.
Judge Raymond A. Jackson (a Clinton appointee -- surprise!) deemed that since Congress simply referred to the crime of piracy as one defined by "the law of nations" and the only precedent case (United States v. Smith, from 1820) was one where the pirates succeeded, the federal case failed to prove piracy and could be summarily dismissed because the six men (along with a slain counterpart) were thwarted in their attempt to plunder the naval vessel. By that illogic, a would-be bank robber who departed without the cash couldn't be charged with robbing the bank.
It's obvious that the judge's decision makes about as much sense as the original idea among the Somalis to take on the heavily armed U.S.S. Ashland in an unarmed skiff. However, the survivors still face lengthy prison terms on other counts related to the incident.
