Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level

+

MODEL

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlcj

Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level Victoria Ellen Collins School of Justice Studies, 467 Stratton Building, College of Justice and Safety, 521 Lancaster Avenue, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY 40475, United States

Abstract The focus of literature on the policy responses to the Somali pirate has thus far examined controls put in place at the international, regional, and national levels. There has however, been little research examining how these international level policies have manifested themselves at the interactional level, namely through the prosecution of individuals charged with the crime of piracy. Here, informed by elements of critical race theory and the politics of identity, I analyze the trial transcripts of the prosecution of five Somali nationals in the US. I pay particular attention to the reality of these anti-piracy policies as they play out in a US courtroom where they not only reify larger processes of global stratification, but also deny the defendant's access to justice by characterizing them as black, Muslim, youth with possible connections to terrorism. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Somali piracy; Justice; Critical race theory; Politics of identity; Maritime piracy trials

1. Introduction The international response to piracy in Somalia has led to a multifaceted response involving over 50 different international, regional, corporate, and national actors who are actively engaged in fighting piracy in Somali coastal waters (Oceans Beyond Piracy, 2011; Van Ginkel and Landman, 2012). Although there has been considerable attention paid to international, E-mail address: [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.004 1756-0616/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 2

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

cooperative, and regional efforts to combat piracy, the focus has very much centered on the international policy response to the threat of piracy (i.e. the initiation of naval patrols in the Gulf of Aden) (Bahadur, 2011; Chalk, 2008; Eichstaedt, 2010; Elliott, 2007; Gibson, 2009; Hong and Ng, 2010; Kraska and Wilson, 2009a,b; Lehr, 2007; Mak, 2007; Roach, 2004; Rothe and Collins, 2011, in press; Ulrichsen, 2011). There has been significantly less criminological attention paid to the detention and prosecution processes that occur following the apprehension of individuals accused of piracy, and when these issues are addressed they tend to be done so in two different ways. First, it is discussed as it relates to the structural, legal and practical inefficiencies of the Somali criminal justice system (Clark, 2009; Davenport, 2012; Dubner and Greene, 2010; Dutton, 2010), and secondly, as it relates to the problems that result when states refuse to prosecute individuals they apprehend for acts of piracy (Bont, 2010; Chalk, 2012; Fink and Galvin, 2009; Gardner, 2012; Guilfoyle, 2012; Kontorovich, 2009). This lack of criminological attention is surprising considering the increasing number of individuals who have been detained and prosecuted for acts of piracy both in Somalia, and by jurisdictions all over the world. In October 2011, the UN Secretary General reported that there were 1011 suspected pirates being prosecuted for piracy or awaiting trial in 20 different states. These states include Belgium, Comoros, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, the Netherlands, Oman, the Seychelles, Somalia, the Republic of Korea, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Republic of Tanzania, the US, and Yemen (United Nations Security Council, 2011a). Although international law, along with the sanctioning of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has allowed many members states to pursue their own prosecutions, there still remain considerable inconsistencies in state's responses to prosecuting the Somali pirate. For example, prosecutions against Somali pirates have been brought by the Netherlands, the US and France (BBC News, 2011a,b; CNN, 2010), but with huge variability in the resulting sentences. In France the convicted pirates received between four and eight years (BBC News, 2011b), in the Netherlands the five men received five years (CNN, 2010), and in the US five individuals were sentenced to life in prison (BBC News, 2011a). Additionally, Kenya, Mauritius, and the Seychelles, through cooperative agreements with other states, have accepted accused pirates for prosecution (Oceans Beyond Piracy, 2011). Interestingly, there has been a lack of criminological attention paid to the piracy trials themselves, especially as it relates to how the anti-piracy policies have been created and implemented at the international level, have been enforced at the interactional level in domestic courts. Drawing on trial transcripts from the prosecution of five Somali nationals in the US for piracy, I examine the reality of these anti-piracy policies as they are enacted at trial. In this particular case, five Somali born, young men were prosecuted for an attempted pirate attack on an US warship, the USS Nicholas (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011). US military forces captured the men following a failed attack in international waters, detained them on the USS Nicholas and in cooperation with the FBI, transported them to face prosecution in the Norfolk, Virginia. Utilizing both content and discourse analysis, the court transcripts were analyzed paying particular attention to the politics of language, race, and religion as it relates to the prosecution of foreign nationals in a Western justice system, to determine how broad policies authorized at the international level play out at the interactional level and act to replicate broader global political inequalities. This case was selected, as despite there being considerable media and political coverage of the legal actions taken by different member states of the United Nations, there has been little interest in the micro level analysis of these prosecutions e no direct Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

3

criminological examination of a trial for piracy has been conducted. This approach offers the unique opportunity to examine a piracy trial within its “real-life” context (Yin, 2003:13), and although my purpose is not to generalize my findings to other jurisdictions, a micro level analysis allows for an in-depth examination of any inequities that exist in the enforcement of Western-based international piracy law, and may have implications for piracy prosecutions elsewhere in the world. This is especially so, considering there have now been similar trials in many European countries including France, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain, as well as in African jurisdictions such as those prosecuted in Kenya, Tanzania, and Madagascar (United Nations Security Council, 2011b). Additionally, this case is of particular importance as it was the first criminal trial for acts of piracy in the US in over one hundred years (Adams, 2010), and set an important legal precedent for subsequent piracy prosecutions that have since been brought in the US. Furthermore, the US has been a dominant player in the creation of the discourse on Somali piracy (see Collins, 2012, 2014; Rothe and Collins, 2011) where piracy has been conflated with terrorism1 and organized crime, and the humanitarian implications of the current international response have largely been ignored (Nincic, 2009). Informed by elements of critical race theory (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Hudson, 2006; Trevi~ no et al., 2008), it was expected that politics of identity would likely intersect to create narratives of Otherness e distinct from the Western liberalist ideals of justice (Valverde, 1996). It was anticipated that these narratives, shaped largely by the broader discourse on the Somali pirate, where pirates are framed as dangerous actors, operating as part of pirate militias with possible connections to terrorist groups (Collins, 2012; Rothe and Collins, 2011), would dominant the trial proceedings, reifying larger issues of global stratification in efforts to reinforce global economic order. In accordance with this expectation it was also anticipated that little voice would be given to any alternative understanding of the issue of piracy e i.e. the defendant's being poor, Somali fishermen, as any framing of these men is likely to reflect Western constructed prejudice about the socio-political Other (Nincic, 2009). Before providing an overview of the US trial, I will provide a brief overview of the literature on critical race theory and the politics of identity as it will be applied here. 2. Critical race theory and the politics of identity Critical race theory emerged in the 1970s, first in critical legal studies and then in other fields of study on the margins such as radical feminism, justice studies, sociology and education (Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Hudson, 2006; Trevi~no et al., 2008). It developed as a movement to demonstrate that the social construction of race is central to the ordering of people of color in the US. Scholars of critical race theory direct attention to structural arrangements in society that advantage some groups and disadvantage others (Trevi~ no et al., 2008). As a result, a large focus of this approach is on the racist structure of the law (Bell, 1995; Crenshaw et al., 1995; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Freeman, 1995; Hudson, 2006). It must be noted that United Nations Laws of the Sea defines piracy as acts “committed for private ends” and not for ideological purposes. Scholars studying the problem of piracy in Southeast Asia have argued that by fusing together terrorism and piracy as one issue, it allows stronger states, such as the US, to exert power over weaker states and extend state jurisdictions over international waters (for further information see Young and Valencia, 2003). 1

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 4

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

There have been countless examples, too many to report here, of the injustices perpetrated against racial minorities by the male-centered white US justice system. As noted by Hudson (2006:30) “law in modern western societies reflects the subjectivity of the dominant white, affluent, adult, male.” The white male is the center of law creation as it is his behavior that provides the standard against which all other behavior is compared, and those engaged in processes of law creation in the US are primarily those who represent white maleness (Hudson, 2006). Law therefore, is constructed to control some behaviors and not others for the benefit of certain populations over others (Alexander, 2010; Parenti, 2008). The law, in both practice and discourse, is reflective of socio-political power structures that repeatedly fail to protect minority groups, such as women and racial minorities, and instead overly penalize them “to the degree that they are removed from the characteristics of white masculinity” (Hudson, 2006:30). To emphasize this point, scholars of critical race theory have drawn attention to the stunted progression of law as it relates to improving the rights of those who do not fulfill the ideal of the dominant male (Bell, 1995; Crenshaw et al., 1995; Freeman, 1995; MacKinnon, 1989, 1991; Smart, 1989). The law therefore, only inherently recognizes, rewards, and protects white male justice, and only provides remedy or redress to others, including racial, ethnic, and religious minorities as well as women, when they can prove they are the “same” as the recognized white male standard (Hudson, 2006; Williams, 1991). This creates a socio-political, cultural Other who by virtue of having being constructed as having different characteristics from the “white male ideal” must first establish their identity, before they can make a claim for justice. More simply, this means that the law must first acknowledge and recognize the many and varying subjectivities (i.e. different race, ethnicity, gender, religion, and culture) that an individual occupies before their claim to justice will be deemed legitimate. The advantages that result from this polarizing division e that of white male justice vs. Other e benefit those groups in positions of power. Racial, ethnic, and religious difference are defined as being “lesser,” as they symbolize a lack of democracy, religious not secular systems of law, having disregard for human rights and as being less progressive and sometimes even archaic in both their belief systems and their scientific advancement. These constructed narratives of Otherness are used to undermine the credibility of populations and individuals who are ascribed them, and then utilized to justify policies and practices that are used against them (Hudson, 2006). Such policies are enacted at both the national and international level. Examples include slavery, Jim Crow, colonialism, targeted killings, and more recently extralegal detentions such as in the case of Guantanamo (Alexander, 2010; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Jamal and Naber, 2008; Parenti, 2008; Peller, 1995; Wing, 2003). For example, following the 9/ 11 attacks on New York City, there was considerable support from the American people for the infringement of civil liberties largely based on misrepresentations of Arabs and Muslims as being “enemy Others” (Jamal and Naber, 2008:116). Arabs and Muslims were otherized through their characterization as being different from, removed from, and inferior to whites. They were portrayed as being potentially violent, dangerous, and as posing a threat to the “American way of life.” Based on a constructed dichotomy of “us” versus “them,” Arabs and Muslims were pathologized, racialized and criminalized, denying them their civil liberties, without any evidence of criminal behavior. This served to not only clearly define the “enemy Other” in the US led war on terror, but also to justify the implementation of legislation, such as the PATRIOT Act, that infringed and/or denied the rights of the designated enemy group (Jamal and Naber, 2008). Although the otherizing of Muslim and Arab groups is one of the most recent examples, as indicated by Naber (2006:241) throughout US history “non-immigrant groups, Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

5

whether blacks, Asians or Mexicans have been denied the benefits of citizenship based on the assumption they are unassimilable and foreign.” Liberal societies therefore, are always engaged in the creation of divisions between “the rational and the irrational, the civilized and the barbaric” (Hudson, 2006:33). As societies move toward being more egalitarian, instituting laws to address structural inequalities, society finds further distinctions on which to create division, distinguishing individuals who belong to groups that have characteristics that are different from the dominant “ideal.” As noted by scholars of critical race theory, as well as those who embark on post-liberal critiques of criminal justice, justice itself is not universal, rather it centers on the socially constructed ideal of the Western white male, while simultaneously excluding all other groups (Lewis, 2003; Williams, 1991). When claims to justice are made they are only understood if they are made using discourse that situates the claimant as being representative of the dominant group (Hudson, 2006; Young, 1990). As noted by Hudson (2006:34), “harms have to be described in terms of legally recognized offence categories.” In other words the discourse has to be put in the terms that are consistent with the dominant political and legal discourse of “justice” (Fraser, 1992; Hudson, 2006). This is not restricted to political and legal discourse at the national level but extends to the policy enactment at the international level, as in the case of maritime piracy. Scholars that have examined international control mechanisms have also recognized that they are reflective of existing global political and economic power structures (Iadicola, 2008, 2010, 2011; Ross and Rothe, 2008; Rothe and Mullins, 2006; Rothe et al., 2006) driven by capitalist markets (Underhill, 2000). Within the structure of global economic power, some states have greater influence than others. This explanation of the globalized market undergirds the discourse, understanding, policy creation and practice, disseminating culture, ideology, and values through capitalist development at the global level (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2001; UNRISD, 1995; Watkins, 1995). International policy is reflective of the existing power relations, which are structured, repetitious, and self-reproduced (H€ornqvist, 2010), by the “states of domination” (Foucault, 1997:283). Specifically, by forces located in what has been termed the Imperial West (Petras and Veltmeyer, 2001), with the US overwhelmingly being the dominant decision maker with regards to the processes of economic, political, and cultural integration (Iadicola, 2008, 2010). Discourse therefore, serves a greater function than communicating an idea from the speaker to the listener. As indicated above, embedded in discourse are reflections of existing social structures, such as hierarchies of power (both national and global), more subtle power differentials based on access to social resources and political inequities, as well as perceptions of social competencies (Bourdieu, 1982). This is especially important as it relates to the prominent discourse surrounding the understanding of particular modes of justice, access to said justice, as well as types of behavior, and people who are deemed criminal. As already noted, before justice can be claimed identity has to be established. This is of particular difficulty for those whose ascribed characteristics and low rank in the larger global stratification system, situate them as the socio-political Other (as being different from the Western ideal of the white male), people such as the five Somali's charged and subsequently tried for piracy in a US federal court in Norfolk, Virginia. Here, drawing on the aforementioned elements of critical race theory and the politics of identity, an examination of how international policy on piracy has manifested itself at the interactional level, namely through the prosecution of individuals charged with the crime of piracy, will follow. Considering that the pirates themselves are young, Black, Muslim males, who do not speak English, it is expected that not only will they be at a significant disadvantage Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 6

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

in establishing their claim to justice in a Western court, but they will face the enormous challenge of first establishing their identity. Compounding this issue are that policies on piracy at the international level have been initiated due to the equating of piracy to terrorism and increased pressure from interests that represent private shipping to protect global trade (Collins, 2012). Despite maritime terrorism posing no real threat to international shipping lanes2 (Chalk, 2008; Møller, 2009), the deployment of military warships to the Gulf of Aden in efforts to deter piracy, has been predicated on political and media constructions originating in the West, of the Somali pirate as being dangerous, threatening actors with links to terrorism (Collins, 2012; Rothe and Collins, 2013). As a result, the defendants here are expected to occupy social positions that are subject to “fear based discourses of otherization and patholigization.” Their characterization is likely to be reflective of political and popular media rhetoric that depicts pirates as “guerillas and gangstas” (Watson, 1992:A3), and representing “an emerging strain of terrorist piracy which desperately needs to be addressed” (Editorial, 2004:24). As with other groups that are held up to the constructed ideal of Western white maleness, these men are “at the margins and borders of dominant political and cultural apparatus” (Aldama, 2003:5) and it is expected that the analysis of the discourse will show the trial is a control mechanism that replicates broader political and economic inequities. Therefore, the trial discourse is expected to not only frame the Somali men as the socio-political Other, but to also reify geo-political identities and Western orientated global prejudices that act to reinforce global and economic order. 3. Method Data were collected from the US trial of five Somali pirates in Norfolk, Virginia. This data comes from the transcripts of the trial of Somalis accused of a pirate attack on the US warship the USS Nicholas. These transcripts were available through the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia website (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov), through the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system. This system provides access to case documents that were included in the trial, omitting information that was deemed private such as financial account numbers, social security numbers, names of minors, dates of birth, and home addresses (PACER, 2012). The transcripts were downloaded from the website and an analysis was conducted on the language and discourse used by the various actors participating in the trial, such as the prosecutor, defense attorneys, witnesses, expert witnesses, the Judge and the defendants in the cases. The transcripts were organized chronologically, from the trial commencement date (April 20, 2010) to the date of the sentencing hearing (July 13, 2012), and were examined for patterns and themes that emerged. The data collection resulted in a total of 276 documents. Included in the documents were the indictments, warrants, motions, responses, judgments, orders, sentencing documents, as well as transcripts from the hearings in the courtroom. Some of the documents were sealed and consequently unable to be included in the analysis. For example, pre-sentencing reports were sealed as they were said to include personal information about the defendants so they were not 2 As indicated by Collins (2012) the threat of maritime terrorism has been greatly exaggerated in the discourse and according to data collected from the RAND terrorism database, only two percent of terrorist attacks occurring over the last thirty years, have been perpetrated against maritime targets, none of which can be attributed to Somali pirates (Chalk, 2008). Furthermore, as indicated by Møller (2009:23) “maritime terrorism has so far been a very minor problem.”

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

7

included in the analysis. Before I present the findings of the analysis, first consider the prosecution case against the five Somali men. 4. Somali pirates in a US court According to the indictment, on March 31st 2010, five Somali men; Mohammed Modin Hasan, Gabul Abdullahi Ali, Abdi Wali Dire, Abdi Mohammed Gurewardher and Abdi Mohammed Umar were accused of attacking a US warship involved in the counter-piracy mission (Combined Task Force 67) the USS Nicholas, from a small skiff (15e20 feet in length) in the Gulf of Aden. Having identified three vessels suspected to be involved in piracy on its radar, the warship changed course with the purposes of intercepting them. Three of the Somali men approached the USS Nicholas in a small vessel, came alongside the warship and opened fire (fired three shots), and the Nicholas returned fire on the vessel (approximately 40 rounds). The small craft (the pirate's vessel) then attempted to flee the warship which then pursued it for approximately 45 minutes before the engine on the skiff cut out. US navy personnel then boarded the skiff taking the three defendants into custody. They were handcuffed and blindfolded before being taken onboard the USS Nicholas where they were photographed, stripped naked and medically examined. This all occurred without effective verbal communication as no one onboard the USS Nicholas was able to speak the defendants' native language. Another skiff (later identified and referred to as the mother ship) was tracked by radar and pursued by the warship. When the warship came up alongside the 30e40 foot vessel, it was boarded and the other two defendants were taken into custody. During their detention on the ship, one of the Somalis' allegedly confessed via satellite phone to an interpreter to being a pirate and engaging in piratical acts. Later, when an interpreter was brought to the warship in person, all five defendants denied being engaged in acts of piracy. The defendants were subsequently transported back to the US for prosecution. The trials resulted in the conviction of all five Somali men for acts of piracy, and they each received life sentences for piracy plus an additional 80 years for other charges, all of which they are now serving in the US federal prison system. The men have appealed the court's decision. 5. The Somali other The findings from the court transcripts can be grouped into three general themes that are reflective of the discourse at the international level that reifies geo-political identities, as well as emphasizes the significant barriers to the defendants establishing identity in a Western court of law: 1) problem practices revolving around the implementation of broad international piracy policy, 2) barriers to language and culture that significantly hindered communication, and 3) the marginalization of the defendant's account of the events that transpired e an issue that was strongly related to the second theme. Each of these themes will be discussed in turn beginning with an examination of the practices and procedures surrounding the apprehension and detention of the suspects. 5.1. Problematic practices Before addressing the practices involved in apprehending and detaining the defendants, it is important to note that each of the defendants were represented at trial by a court appointed attorney. All of the attorneys were white males employed in private practice. The Judge was Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 8

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

also a white male, as were the majority of the actors appearing for the prosecution including many of the witnesses testifying for the prosecution. Therefore, like many minority offenders of lower economic means in the US, the defendants in this case were tried by a predominantly white courtroom (Kansal, 2005; Rachlinski et al., 2009; Walker et al., 2006). Additionally, and although perhaps not expressly intended to further alienate the defendants, the court informally assigned each defendant a number that was used instead of their names to make reference to each of them throughout the trial e defendant 1, defendant 2, defendant 3, etc. As demonstrated in the court transcripts, the defendants are often referred to as D1, D2, D3, D4 or D5 e the D meaning detainee. This marks the beginning of the process of characterizing the defendant's as “lesser” as throughout the trial their importance as a person is reduced to a numerical label. As this was the first time that individuals had been charged with the crime of piracy in the US in over one hundred years, almost immediately amendments were made to the charges in the pre-trial stage of the case adding ten additional charges to the indictment.3 The offenses added to the initial charge of piracy were all violent felony offenses, many of which were based on the defendant's alleged use of assault rifles and an RPG during the attack. Interestingly, motions were made by several of the defense attorneys to dismiss the indictments as the USS Nicholas destroyed the skiff that the defendants were found in and as a consequence any evidence that supported the additional charges was not available for trial (important to note there were no weapons taken into evidence). The defense motion argued that, At no time did any of the three defendants board or even attempt to board USS NICHOLAS until they were forcibly brought aboard by crew members while restrained in handcuffs and while blindfolded. The fishing boat was then completely destroyed by gunfire, burned and sunk. USS NICHOLAS then continued its mission with the three defendants on board under restraint. The small boat was then searched at night and was intentionally destroyed by gunfire, burned and sunk (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 70, 2). The defense argued that the State intentionally destroyed evidence that was the basis for their case, especially as no inventory or video recordings were made of the vessels before they were blown up. This is indicative of the practices of many different states operating in the Gulf of Aden, who after having captured suspected pirates, blow up their skiffs, burn off the vessel's fuel, and then dump the boat's contents into the water (Eichstaedt, 2010; Rice, 2008). The US Navy's reasoning for the destruction of the vessels was that they were unable to properly secure the boats for transportation, and that they were under time constraints as they needed to refuel their vessel. However, although a video recording was not made of the evidence before it was destroyed (i.e. the skiff and the items found on it including the weapons, that supposedly implicated the defendants as being engaged as pirates), one was made of the destruction of the vessel, and furthermore the defense counsel points out the recording lasts the full 23 minutes necessary for the skiff to sink into the ocean, which undermines the claim that the warship urgently needed refueling. Therefore, before the commencement of the trial for piracy, 3

1) Act of Violence Against Persons on a Vessel; 2 and 3) Two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon in the Special Maritime Jurisdiction; 4 and 5) Two counts of Assault with a Dangerous Weapon on Federal Officers and Employees; 6) Conspiracy Involving Firearm and a Crime of Violence; 7) Use, Carry and Possession of Firearm In Relation to Crime of Violence; 8) Use, Carry and Possession of Destructive Device in Relation to Crime of Violence; 9) Carrying an Explosive During the Commission of a Felony; and, 10) Conspiracy to Carry an Explosive During the Commission of a Felony.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

9

charges characterizing the defendants as violent have been added to the indictment. This marks the beginning of shaping the identity of the young African men as being different from the Western ideal of the Euro-American white male, emphasizing the violent nature of their crime. Despite the five young Somalis having no known links to terrorism, the State links the issue of piracy to terrorism during some of the opening testimony of the case. For example, the State in their preliminary questioning of the NCIS Agent onboard the USS Nicholas, asking about the reason for the US warships presence in the Somali region, asks “Can you tell the court, what is Al-Shabbab?” the Agent replies “It's a terrorist group that operates primarily in Somalia, although they're branching out all over East Africa now, and they're known to be associated with Al-Qaeda” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 242). This is described as being one of the “operational concerns” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 243) when assigned to that region of the world. In addition, when the NCIS Agent was asked what the concerns of the captain during the pirate attack itself were, he asserted “Multiple things. Primarily the safety of the crew and his ship, obviously. Secondly, is this e to include that, is missing vessel going to swing back on us, you know, try and rescue their mates, is this a terrorist attempt by Al-Shabbob, lots of unknowns” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 246). Even after the defendants were apprehended and detained the same NCIS Agent still persisted in associating the defendants to terrorism, “Q. And just for one second let's go back to D3. Based on what D3 told you, were you able to eliminate AlShabbob as a possible terrorist attack at this point? A. Not at all” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 251). So not only have the defendants been depicted as being violent offenders, the State has discursively linked them with terrorism. As in the discourse at the international level equating piracy to terrorism, pirates then become associated with post-9/11 Western liberal constructions of Islamic fundamentalism. As noted by Afsfar (2013:10) “there is an assumption that Muslims as a whole, regardless of where they live, belong to a ‘world’ that is separated by a growing ‘chasm’ from the West.” Although there is no charge of terrorism against these suspects, and no proof that piracy in Somalia is definitely connected to the terrorist group Al-Shabaab (Chalk, 2008; Collins, 2012; Møller, 2009; Rothe and Collins, 2011), these five young men have been ascribed terrorist characteristics that represent the “antithesis of the West” (Lueg, 1995:24) and consequently “pose a threat to our way of life” (Cummins, 2004). Ironically, the possible association with terrorism is also leveraged against the defendants as a tool for interrogation, as indicated by the NCIS agent, I told him that everyone had already been honest about the situation; nobody blames him from [sic] wanting to make money for his family; that many Somalis have two choices, join the terrorist group Al-Shabbob, or be a pirate, and I told him that many people believe he's Al-Shabbob, a terrorist, and I wanted to help him convince people he was not (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 166, 27). This shows that despite having no relevance in this case, the label terrorist is used to construct identities of the defendants that are far removed from the Western ideal of white maleness. Additionally, this reinforces broader post-9/11, US driven socio-political attitudes that cast suspicion on Muslim/Arab males as being sinister, dangerous and as a threat to global freedom (Jamal and Naber, 2008). The connotation of such an allegation in the current political atmosphere is so profound it is even adopted as an interrogation tool in an effort to procure a confession of piracy from the defendants. The state also introduced testimony from many expert witnesses. Many of these witnesses held positions of rank and appeared in uniform, indicating to the court that they occupied Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 10

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

positions of authority. For example, testimony was heard from the Counter-piracy Branch Chief for the Office of Naval Intelligence, whose job was to, provide intelligence to U.S. decision-makers to include the President, the National Security Council, policymakers in the Office of Secretary of Defense and the State Department to coalition partners in NATO and the European Union, and [to] provide information to Naval forces to include military commanders, fleet commanders, strike group commanders and Navy ships (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 249, 490). This witness also worked in conjunction with the UK Maritime Trade Organization and the International Maritime Bureau and stated that although his job is focused on piracy in general, “Nearly almost every day that, every minute of the day is primarily devoted to Somali piracy” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 251, 751). Therefore, this particular witness has established not only that the threat of piracy in Somalia is very serious and widespread, but that he occupies an identity that fits within the requisite parameters of the Western ideal (i.e. smartly dressed, well groomed, male in a position of authority). This occurs before being called to provide expert testimony on piracy in Somalia, “the beauty of piracy from an intelligence analysis perspective, first off, it's a regional activity that's having a global impact. It's affecting freedom of the seas and it's having a negative effect on global commerce” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 249, 496). This illustrates the broader focus of the anti-piracy response, that of the protection of global shipping and trade, which as in the case of the policies at the international level is justified by a discourse on the threat it poses to both freedom and global commerce (International Maritime Bureau, 2011; United Nations Security Council, 2008). The five accused pirates, who have previously been framed as violent and terrorists, are now being associated with a larger threat to the freedom of the world's seas as well as to global trade. In addition, when asked how many ships have been fired upon by Somali pirates, the Counterpiracy Branch Chief for the Office of Naval Intelligence answers “Approximately 280” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 249, 496). In discussing the modus operandi of those engaged in Somali piracy he indicates that the presence of an RPG is indicative of piracy as “It's significant because in the region it's not uncommon for fisherman to also be armed with AK-47s. And we've seen incidents where merchant ships may get too close to their fishing area, and in response those fisherman will shoot at them with an AK-47” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 251, 761). This expert witness, who has been established as having legitimate identity in the Western court, confirms that the incident in question was consistent with a pirate attack. This conclusion is reached despite there being only four shots allegedly fired by the defendants, and no RPG or AK47 found on the attack skiff. The only evidence of any weaponry, were a few rounds from an AK47. The state also asked this witness to provide an example of an evolving trend specific to piracy in Somalia, and he states that a, “Perfect example with an evolving trend is related to the use of motherships. What we see now is Somali pirates, when using motherships, will employ the use of a 30-foot whaler, fishing vessels and dhows. And what we've seen recently that we believe may be an evolving trend is the use of hijacked large merchant ships that are being used as motherships to attack other ships” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 249, 504). This seems to contradict the evidence in the case as there was no confirmation from the defendants, who were on different skiffs, that they knew each other. The second skiff was only pursued after the first was apprehended, and it could not be confirmed with any certainty that the defendants knew each other prior to the incident. Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

11

As with the discourse at the international level (Chalk, 2008; NATO, 2012; Rothe and Collins, 2011; Van Ginkel and Landman, 2012), the Counter-piracy Branch Chief for the Office of Naval Intelligence also commented on the increasing costs incurred by private shipping as a result of piracy, “the industry as far as increase in costs. There are estimates from 1 billion to $16 billion” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 251, 757). He also testified to the amount of ransoms paid since 2005 as being $160 million for 150 ransoms. Here, the private shipping industry with interests located predominantly in the West, are being framed as the victim of piracy. This is reflective of the focus of the anti-piracy response, where the focus is the protection of the economic interests of the dominant global powers with little acknowledgment of the etiology of the crime itself (i.e. the extant conditions within Somalia itself). Therefore, before the specific details of the case being tried have even been heard, the state has painted the defendants as violent offenders, with terrorist associations, responsible for large economic losses, and posing a threat to Western freedom. The defendants are also linked in the trial discourse to organized crime as the Counterpiracy Branch Chief for the Office of Naval Intelligence asserted that the business model for piracy is that of organized crime, with someone funding the pirate attack; “an investor who is financing the operation oversees the procurement of those supplies and equipment” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 251, 812). This suggests that individuals engaged in piracy are part of large organized crime networks, operating not as individuals, but as part of a more sophisticated criminal group. Despite this testimony, the witness does not claim that the attack on the USS Nicholas was in any way associated with organized crime; rather this was used to characterize Somali pirates in general e and through implication the defendants. It has thus far been demonstrated that the State in launching a criminal case against the defendants has engaged in the process of otherizing. Before the details specific to the charges have even been introduced to the court, the prosecution has ascribed the defendants characteristics that pathologize and criminalize them, so as to create a sharp contrast between those being tried and everyone else; making the distinction between the “civilized and the barbaric” (Hudson, 2006:33). Through discursively linking the young men being tried for piracy with AlShabaab, organized crime, RPGs, AK-47s, and as posing a threat to private shipping, global trade, crew, ships and cargo, their chances of establishing identity in the US court has been significantly diminished. This characterization of the defendants is also reflective of a broader socio-political atmosphere that demonizes Muslims as a group portraying them as a threat to US national security (Ross, 2012). This is further exacerbated by the defendant's general lack of comprehension of many terms and concepts used during the trial which created significant barriers to effective communication.

5.2. Barriers to language and culture There were significant differences in language and culture that emerged during the trial that resulted in profound obstacles to communicating effectively with the defendants. The defendant's did not speak, read, or understand English. This was made particularly apparent during the defendant's testimony.4 Even with the aid of an interpreter there were difficulties with ensuring they fully understood everything that was being asked of them. For example, one 4

Four of the five defendants opted to testify as part of their defense.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 12

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

defendant did not know what months of the year were as indicated in the following interaction with his attorney who asked him the following; Q. Do you understand the months of the year? A. I do not understand. Q. Do you know what we call March is? A. March? Tell me. I do not know. Q. Okay. I'm trying to refer to a date in the past, a time (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc 252, 99). There also seemed to be considerable difficulty in conveying certain concepts; Q. Did the bad men give you a ladder, Mr. Dire? A. What do they call ladder? Q. You don't know what ladder is either? A. No, I don't (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:251, 1130e31). The disadvantage of not speaking English was not restricted to the courtroom as it impacted the defendant's throughout their time in US custody. For example, defendant Ali's defense council provided, For several days, the defendants were kept handcuffed and blindfolded while being detained on the ship and surrounded at all times by armed men. At one point, Mr. Ali was handcuffed with his hands crossed over his head in a painful position for several hours. Mr. Ali has never been to school and cannot write in any language. He can speak Somali, but does not speak English. He has never been to the United States of America, has no experience with our customs or traditions, and has no familiarity with our judicial concepts or system (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 73, 2). Furthermore testimony from the NCIS Agent highlights the language barriers that existed between the defendants and the US naval personnel, A. They came and got me and Special Agent Knox, and we took D3 to the flight deck and he was – we were trying to just see if we could communicate with him at all. Q. All right. Now, as far as the other detainees, not D3, as far as you knew, did they have any English? A. Like I say, they could say “water” and “smoke”. Q. But that was it? A. Pretty much it. Q. Did D3 have some more English words? A. In the end, after talking to him, we couldn't really get more than hand signals and drawings on a paper.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

13

Q. All right. Not much, if any? A. Yes, sir (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 49e50). This placed the defendants at a significant disadvantage as it is through language that “defendants engage with the law, understand it, and express anger, remorse, and their acceptance or rejection of the criminal justice process” (Natapoff, 2005:1). This disempowers the defendants and further alienates them from the Western liberal criminal justice system of which they are being made subject. Following their initial apprehension, the five young men were detained on the USS Nicholas for five days (March 31st, 2010eApril 4th, 2010) before an interpreter arrived by helicopter. As a result, any interactions between the defendants and Navy personnel were reduced to crude forms of communication such as hand gestures and drawings; Q. All right. And how was he able to communicate to you based on that question? A. Based on that question, he used hand gestures to – if I may Q. Why don't you use the hand gestures, yes. What did he do? A. Okay. When I asked him – all right. I looked at him, I said, why did you shoot at us? Q. So for the record, you pointed to him, and then when you said shoot, you held your finger out like guns, and shook them up and down like you were shooting? A. Yes. That is correct (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 196). Despite the subjective nature of these forms of communication, the State introduced them as evidence of guilt. For example, one of the defendants, according to the prosecution's case, admitted to being a pirate and engaging in piratical acts. The defendant allegedly indicated his guilt by communicating via drawing, which was not available for trial as it was described by the Naval officer involved as “a scratch piece of paper I had in my pocket” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 72, 202). Not only does the inability to communicate through language subject any communication to varying interpretations, it also increases the defendant's vulnerability to abuses, both physical and procedural. There was considerable concern during the pretrial stages of the case, as to whether the defendants had been properly Mirandized when they were first arrested. Testimony from the interpreter (a US citizen born and raised in Somalia) indicated that the defendants would have had no concept of the US criminal justice system, as he had no understanding of it when he emigrated to the US in 1994 (when he was 26 years old). For example, during the interrogation of the defendants no attempt was made by the NCIS investigators to describe the US justice system or the procedural requirements necessary for detention, interviewing or making statements that can be later used in a prosecution e such as rights contained in the Miranda warning (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 166). As noted by Nakane (2007:88) the “language of Miranda warnings would cause difficulty in reading comprehension for 50 per cent of grade eight students,” and this percentage is lessened further when it is delivered verbally (Nakane, 2007). Furthermore it has been found that even if the words of the warning are understood, the legal implication of the warning is not always clear to the suspect (Gibbons, 2001, 2003; Shuy, 1997). This is further illustrated by defendant Gurewardher's confusion about the seriousness of his situation when he was transferred into the custody of the FBI. As indicated by Lieutenant Hutchins (state's witness), “He said he wants to come back to the NICHOLAS. I said, well, ask

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 14

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

him why. And he said, Because I like it” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 165, 76). The potential for abuse is increased when there are significant language and cultural differences between the accused and the interrogator as the power differential is even more acute. One such example of blatant power abuse was alleged by defendant Gurewardher who asserted that he had been abused when he was in US custody. His defense counsel argued that “he was physically and verbally abused and threatened, interrogated, and ultimately coerced into making a false statement of certain activities that have been used in part to form the basis of the charges now pending against him” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 85, 2). In a similar manner, Defendant Umar's defense argued that, Umar was taken from his boat, handcuffed, placed on his stomach, stepped upon, and kicked numerous times after his capture. He was then held in a room aboard the USS Nicholas for four days until being formally interviewed through an interpreter hired by the Navy. During the interrogation, the interpreter was physically in the room with Umar. Umar, however, had difficulty understanding the interpreter. In response to Umar's protestations of his innocence, the interpreter repeatedly stated he did not believe him. The interpreter told Umar that he must confess and admit to being a pirate or the Navy would throw Umar overboard into shark-infested waters (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 104, 2). This was further demonstrated in a less direct way by testimony from US navy personnel about defendant Gurewardher's behavior during his detention on the USS Nicholas. Many of the US Navy personnel testified that during the course of his detention on the USS Nicholas defendant Gurewardher, after having confessed to being a pirate to an interpreter via satellite phone,5 became the “favorite” on the USS Nicholas. He earned this title because he smiled a lot at the naval personnel and often greeted them by making the thumbs up hand gesture. Furthermore, in initial exchanges with the crew of the Nicholas, where he communicated with hand signals, he was given juice and oranges by Navy personnel. However, when the interpreter spoke with him at a later date and conveyed to the crew that he believed the suspect to be lying, he was not given an orange or any juice. Although not explicitly stated, the provision of fruit and juice seemed to be offered as a reward for cooperating with the piracy investigation. 5.3. The marginalization of the defendant's account The defendants did present their understanding of the events, and they denied being pirates and claimed they were forced to engage in piracy after having been kidnapped. For example, when defendant Ali testified he claimed, we were fishing, we found two lion fish, we had two lion fish in the boat. Then all of a sudden two boats came to us. They shot, they fired shots. They came into our boat and then they beat us. Q. How did they beat you? A. Very bad. Very bad. Q. What else did they do to you? 5

The Judge did not allow the confession via satellite phone into evidence, as it could not be determined with any certainty that it was obtained legally.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

15

A. Well, when they beat me up very badly, then they blindfold me, they handcuff me. Q. What else happened? A. That's what happened. They beat us (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 253, 31). It was following this attack that the defendant asserted his hands were bound behind his back and left for an unknown period of time, long enough that defendant Ali said “that [his hands] started swelling” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 253, 32), and then forced into another boat. At some point they were then placed back into their original vessel (although it is not clear whether it was the same or a different vessel from the defendants testimony), handed weapons, given instruction on how to use them, and then told to attack the USS Nicolas. Q. What happened after they threw the guns in and told you to go to the light? A. Well, they told us go to that light. Q. And what happened? A. Well, Mohammed said, well, I cannot drive this boat. Q. Did he ever drive the boat? A. He did little bit, and then he could not drive any more. Q. Were – the other people, what did they do? A. Well, when Mohammed was unable to drive the boat and we were in the middle between the lights and the boats, then they start shooting us. Q. Who started shooting? A. The other men who were actually force us. Q. The other men that were shooting, what were they doing? Were they driving the boat? What were they doing? A. Which boat? Q. The men that gave them the gun? A. Yes. Q. How far away were they from you? A. They were very close. Little bit. Q. What happened after they were shooting at you? A. Well, then the other side the lights, they told us to go, then they began shooting back. (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 253, 35). This explanation of events was confirmed by the other three defendants. Interestingly, there was no medical evidence submitted that could of confirmed the defendants story (i.e. showing marks on his wrists from being bound). The defense also arranged for a witness in support of one of the defendants who could confirm that he was indeed a fisherman. This witness testified from Mogadishu and confirmed that one of the defendants was a fishermen employed by him through another man, and was Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 16

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

using his vessels for the purposes of fishing for “lion fish” (sharks) and selling them at the Hamar market in Mogadishu. This witness also confirmed that the boat known to be used by the defendant had gone missing in March 2010, and was still missing. He also said that five other individuals worked with the defendant on the fishing boat, and that these men were not involved in piracy (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 253). The testimony of this witness seemed to support the defendant's account of the events. However, it had little impact on the verdict. All of the defendants were found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for the charge of piracy, and an additional 80 years for the other charges to be served concurrently, as well as a $1300 special assessment fee. The defendants were each asked whether they wished to make a statement to the court prior to their sentencing, and each of the defendants obliged. Defendant Hasan stated “I am sorry that I have been accused of these crimes” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 345, 48). Defendant Ali asserted “I do not accept what's been convicted of me here. I am being judged on the basis of something I did not commit” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 345, 57). Defendant Dire stated “Well the only statement that I'd like to make is that I did not commit this crime and I am not accepting the outcome of this case” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 345, 62). Defendant Gurewardher said “Well, I, I find the crime that I was found guilty on is unjust” (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 345, 68). Defendant Umar addressed the court and said; DEFENDANT UMAR: Well, I do have a question for you. THE COURT: Yes, sir? DEFENDANT UMAR: Well, it seems to me that you're going to sentence me life sentence? THE COURT: Is…I'm not sure that's a question. It sounds like a statement, Mr. Umar. DEFENDANT UMAR: Yes, that's e the statement that I'd like to make: I did not kill anyone. I did not rob anybody. I didn't attack anybody. I like to be told the reason that I am found guilty on this case (United States v. Hasan et al., 2011:Doc. 345, 74). All of the defendants maintained their innocence and in some instances even seemed confused by the outcome of the sentencing hearing, which in many ways is characteristic of their reaction to the proceedings as a whole. Although it is possible the defendant's accounts of the events were strategies to defend their actions, the defendant's accounts of what transpired had little impact on the court. However, irrespective of guilt, the defendant's social location, that of individuals from a different country, with no economic means, as well as being young, black males of Muslim faith, they were already at a significant disadvantage in establishing an identity within a Western criminal justice system. 6. Discussion In summary, the discourse of this particular trial of five Somali men for crimes associated with piracy, is reflective of the policies on maritime piracy enacted at the international level, as well as broader inequities that represent the current global socio-political and economic order. This is largely related to the way piracy has been framed as a problem at the international level e the product of dangerous actors, associated with pirate militias and terrorist groups, threatening world trade. This understanding of the Somali pirate enters the discourse at the interactional level in a manner that characterized these particular young men as being violent Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

17

offenders, terrorizing the seas with AK-47s and RPGs, as well as having possible affiliations with Al-Shabaab and organized crime. This acts to replicate broader power relations that prioritize the interests of the West e protecting world shipping lanes e and ignoring other understandings of the issue. This is particularly problematic as there appeared to be little evidence to support many of these claims. Information on piracy in general was provided through expert testimony that emphasized piracy's connection with terrorism and organized crime, both points not being relevant to this particular case. In addition, by characterizing the defendants in this way it prevented them from establishing an identity that is in accordance with Western ideals of justice. This is compounded by the defendant's lack of voice in the court proceedings, and their inability through barriers of both language and culture, to comprehend what was happening to them. Throughout their detention the defendants were reduced to expressing themselves through rudimentary hand gestures as well as drawings on scraps of paper. When they were given voice through testimony, it became clear that the defendants did not understand simple concepts, such as “March”, or “ladder”. Collectively, all of these factors contributed to frame the defendants as the dangerous Other e as being not only different from the Western ideal of white maleness but as being representative of a group of people that in the current social and political atmosphere, are characterized to incite fear. The introduction of the term “terrorism” is of particular importance as it has the most damaging connotations. By introducing the possibility that the defendants are associated with Al-Shabaab, the prosecution evoked US constructed narratives of post-9/11 Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although, overwhelmingly the product of politic and media fear-mongering, the application of these narratives to the defendants in this trial casts them as dangerous, threatening, aliens attempting to “subvert the American way of life” (Thistletwaite, 2013). Consequently, despite there being no terrorist connection in this case, the defendants have been portrayed as a people that symbolize a lack of democracy and are therefore the polar opposite of Western ideals of justice. As already noted, the law does not recognize different subjectivities, but instead recognizes only claims made in the terms of the Western, white male. Even if the label of terrorism had not been introduced in this trial, the defendants are at a significant disadvantage due to language and cultural differences, and as a consequence are unable to effectively voice their claim to justice. The court finds little credence in the defendants own accounts of the events that transpired e that they were fisherman kidnapped and forced to engage in piracy e despite providing corroborating evidence from the head of a fishing company in Somalia. This is not surprising considering the prosecution has successfully pathologized them as being both irrational and barbaric, denying them identity in a Western court of law, which in turn diminished their claim to justice. 7. Conclusion Through the above analysis of the US prosecution of five Somali men for crimes of piracy, I have demonstrated that there are issues of concern that arise when narratives that have been used to justify maritime policy at the international level, are then introduced at the interactional level. This is of particular concern when viewed through the lens of critical race theory, where the application of these narratives to individuals carries characteristics that portray them as the socio-political Other. This prevents the defendants from establishing identity, and undermines their claims to justice e i.e. any alternative narrative of the events that transpired. In the case of Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 18

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

US v. Hasan et al. (2011), the five Somali defendants have been subject to the same disenfranchisement that many minority groups have previously experienced in the US criminal justice system. Furthermore, the trial replicates broader political inequality that is reflects the dominance of the West in their construction of the issue of piracy. The focus of the discourse in the trial was characteristics of the defendants that clearly indicate their lesser social positioning not only in the US, but also their positioning in the larger global geo-political structure (i.e. African males being subject to Euro-American law). The trial mirrors the same prejudices that occur at the international level enforcing the interests of the powerful on the less powerful, reinforcing the current structures that control global and economic order. The defendants symbolize the dangerous Other and are then dealt with according to this characterization, and in turn this leaves them vulnerable to possible abuses from a criminal justice system that only recognizes justice in terms of the Western white male. Although this research has focused on the US prosecution of Somali pirates and cannot be generalized beyond the US system, it has potential implications for prosecutions in other jurisdictions that may suffer similar challenges (antiquated laws, communication barriers, and identity politics). This is especially so, as many of the anti-piracy responses are initiatives by the West (see Van Ginkel and Landman, 2012) with several navies patrolling the Gulf of Aden from Europe and North America (United Nations Security Council, 2011b). Given the sociohistorical, political and cultural variance of domestic jurisdictions that prosecute individuals for acts of piracy, further research on the interactional level application of international maritime policy would serve to highlight the similar and disparate treatment of individuals prosecuted for piracy and perhaps inform future maritime piracy policy.

Acknowledgments I would like to acknowledge Dawn Rothe, Favian Martin and the reviewers for their feedback on previous drafts of this paper.

References Adams, J., 2010. Historic Somali piracy trial in US wrapping up as German one opens. The Christian Science Monitor. Online: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2010/1122/Historic-Somali-piracy-trial-in-US-wrappingup-as-German-one-opens. Afsfar, H., 2013. The politics of fear: what does it mean to those who are otherized and feared? Ethnic Racial Stud. 35, 9e27. Aldama, A.J., 2003. Violence, bodies and the color of fear: an introduction. In: Aldama, A. (Ed.), Violence and the Body: Race, Gender, and the State. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 1e18. Alexander, M., 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press, New York, NY. Bahadur, J., 2011. The Pirates of Somalia: Inside their Hidden World. Pantheon Books, New York, NY. BBC News, 2011a. Convicted Somali pirates get life sentences in US court, BBC News US and Canada. BBC News. Online: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12739803. BBC News, 2011b. Somali pirates jailed in France for kidnapping couple, BBC News Africa. BBC News. Online: http:// www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15976883. Bell, D.A., 1995. Brown v. board of education and the interest convergence dilemna. In: Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., Thomas, K. (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. The New Press, New York, NY, pp. 20e28.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

19

Bont, S.D., 2010. Prosecuting Pirates and Upholding Human Rights Law: Taking Perspective. One Earth Foundation. Online: http://oceansbeyondpiracy.org/sites/default/files/human_rights_law_-_saoirse_de_bont.pdf. Bourdieu, P., 1982. The production and reproduction of legitimate language. In: Thompson, J.B. (Ed.), Language and Symbolic Power. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Chalk, P., 2008. Maritime Dimension of International Security: Terrorism, Piracy & Challenges for the United States. RAND Corporation. Online: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG697.html. Chalk, P., 2012. Assessing the utility of current counterpiracy initiatives off the Horn of Africa. Stud. Confl. Terror. 35, 553e561. Clark, K.K., 2009. Maritime piracy: nature, impact and legal frameworks for prosecution. Int. J. Crim. Just. Sci. 4, 13e23. CNN, 2010. Somali pirates get 5 years in prison, CNN Justice. CNN. Online: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/17/ pirates.convicted/. Collins, V.E., 2012. Dangerous seas: moral panic and the Somali pirate. Aust. N.Z. J. Criminol. 45, 106e132. Collins, V.E., 2014. A lust for treasure and a love of gold…or desperation? Global facilitation of piracy, neoliberal policies and the control of the Somali pirate. Crit. Crim. 22, 433e450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10612-014-9239-2. Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., Thomas, K., 1995. Critical Race Theory: the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. The New York Press, New York, NY. Cummins, W., 2004. Muslims are a threat to our way of life. Telegraph. Online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/ personal-view/3608849/Muslims-are-a-threat-to-our-way-of-life.html. Davenport, T., 2012. Legal measures to combat piracy and armed robbery in the horn of Africa and in Southeast Asia: a comparison. Stud. Confl. Terror. 35, 570e587. Delgado, R., Stefancic, J., 2012. Critical Race Theory: an Introduction, second ed. New York University Press, New York, NY. Dubner, B.H., Greene, K., 2010. On the creation of a new legal regime to Tey Sea pirates. J. Maritime Law Com. 41, 439e463. Dutton, Y.M., 2010. Bringing Pirates to Justice: a Case for Including Piracy within the Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Oceans Beyond Piracy. Online: http://oneearthfuture.org/research/publications/bringing-piratesjustice-case-including-piracy-within-jurisdiction. Editorial, 2004. Piracy poses threat to world trade as maritime attacks hit record levels. Pirates staged 445 attacks last year, killing at least 21 people. How can they be stopped? The Independent. Online: http://www.independent.co.uk/ news/world/politics/piracy-poses-threat-to-world-trade-as-maritime-attacks-hit-record-levels-565585.html. Eichstaedt, P., 2010. Pirate State: Inside Somalia's Terrorism at Sea. Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, IL. Elliott, R., 2007. Piracy on the high seas. Secur. Manag. 51, 40e42. Fink, M.D., Galvin, R.J., 2009. Combating pirates off the coast of Somalia: current legal challenges. Neth. Int. Law Rev. 56, 367e395. Foucault, M., 1997. In: Rabinow, P. (Ed.), Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954e1984, vol. 1. The New Press, New York, NY. Fraser, N., 1992. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracies. In: Calhoun, C. (Ed.), Habermas and the Public Sphere. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 109e142. Freeman, A.D., 1995. Legitimizing racial discrimination through antidiscrimination law: a critical review of supreme court doctrine. In: Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., Thomas, K. (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. The New Press, New York, NY, pp. 29e45. Gardner, M., 2012. Piracy prosecutions in national courts. J. Int. Crim. Just. 10, 797e821. Gibbons, J., 2001. Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: applied linguistics in action. Appl. Linguist. 22, 439e469. Gibbons, J., 2003. Forensic Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Gibson, J., 2009. Maritime security and international law in Africa. Afr. Secur. Rev. 18, 60e70. Guilfoyle, D., 2012. Prosecuting Somali pirates: a critical evaluation of the options. J. Int. Crim. Just. 10, 767e796. Hong, N., Ng, A.K.Y., 2010. The international legal instruments in addressing piracy and maritime terrorism: a critical review. Res. Transp. Econ. 27, 51e60. H€ ornqvist, M., 2010. Risk, Power, and State: after Foucault. Routledge, New York, NY. Hudson, B., 2006. Beyond white man's justice: race, gender and justice in late modernity. Theor. Criminol. 10, 29e47. Iadicola, P., 2008. Globalization and empire. Int. J. Soc. Inq. 1, 3e36. Iadicola, P., 2010. The centrality of empire in the study of state crime and violence. In: Chambliss, W.J., Michalowski, R., Kramer, R.C. (Eds.), State Crime in the Global Age. Willan Publishing, Portland, OR, pp. 31e44.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+ 20

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

Iadicola, P., 2011. Do empires commit state crimes? In: Rothe, D.L., Mullins, C.W. (Eds.), State Crime: Current Perspectives. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 122e141. International Maritime Bureau, 2011. Annual Report on Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Commercial Crime Services. Jamal, A.A., Naber, N.C., 2008. Race and Arab Americans before and after 9/11: from Invisible Citizens to Visible Subjects. Syracuse University Press, New York, NY. Kansal, T., 2005. Racial Disparity in Sentencing: a Review of the Literature. The Sentencing Project, Washington, DC. Kontorovich, E., 2009. “A Guantanamo on the Sea”: the difficulty of prosecuting pirates and terrorists. Calif. Law Rev. 98, 243e275. Kraska, J., Wilson, B., 2009a. Combating pirates of the Gulf of Aden: the Djibouti Code and the Somali Coast Guard. Ocean Coast. Manag. 52, 516e520. Kraska, J., Wilson, B., 2009b. The global maritime partnership and Somali piracy. Defense Secur. Anal. 25, 223e234. Lehr, P., 2007. Introduction. In: Lehr, P. (Ed.), Violence at Sea: Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. viiexii. Lewis, H., 2003. Embracing complexity: human rights in a critical race feminist perspective. Columb. J. Gender Law 12, 510e521. Lueg, A., 1995. The perceptions of Islam in western debate. In: Hippler, J., Lueg, A. (Eds.), The Next Threat Western Perceptions of Islam. Pluto Press, London, UK, pp. 7e31. MacKinnon, C.A., 1989. Towards a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. MacKinnon, C.A., 1991. Reflections on sex equality under the law. Yale Law J. 100, 1281e1328. Mak, J.N., 2007. Pirates, renegades, and fisherman: the politics of ‘sustainable’ piracy in the strait of Malacca. In: Lehr, P. (Ed.), Violence at Sea: Piracy in the Age of Global Terrorism. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 199e223. Møller, B., 2009. Piracy, Maritime Terrorism and Naval Strategy. Danish Institute for International Studies Strandgade, Denmark. Naber, N., 2006. The rules of forced engagement: gendered inscriptions of terrorism on Arab Muslim bodies. J. Cult. Dyn. 18, 235e267. Nakane, I., 2007. Problems in communicating the suspect's rights in interpreted police interviews. Appl. Linguist. 281, 87e112. Natapoff, A., 2005. Speechless: the silencing of criminal defendants. N. Y. Univ. Law Rev. 80, 1449e1504. NATO, 2012. Counter-piracy Operations. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Online: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/ natolive/topics_48815.htm?selectedLocale¼en. Nincic, D., 2009. Maritime piracy in Africa: the humanitarian dimension. Afr. Secur. Rev. 18, 2e16. Oceans Beyond Piracy, 2011. The Economic Cost of Somali Piracy 2011. Oceans Beyond Piracy. Online: www. oceansbeyondpiracy.org. PACER, 2012. PACER: Public Access to Court Electronic Records. US Courts, PACER Service Center, San Antonio, TX. Parenti, C., 2008. Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis. Verso, New York, NY. Peller, G., 1995. Race-consciousness. In: Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, N., Peller, G., Thomas, K. (Eds.), Critical Race Theory: the Key Writings that Formed the Movement. The New Press, New York, NY, pp. 127e158. Petras, J., Veltmeyer, H., 2001. Globalization Unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century. Palgrave, New York, NY. Rachlinski, J., Johnson, S., Wistrich, A., Guthrie, C., 2009. Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges? Notre Dame Law Rev. 84, 1195e1246. Rice, X., 2008. Focus: ocean terror: how savage pirates reign on the world's high seas. The Observer (England), Online: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/apr/27/somalia1. Roach, J.A., 2004. Initiatives to enhance maritime security at sea. Mar. Policy 28, 41e66. Ross, J.I., Rothe, D.L., 2008. Ironies of controlling state crime. Int. J. Law, Crime Just., 196e210. Ross, S., 2012. Demonizing Muslims. America's Worldwide Witch Hunt: Heading into a “World War III Scenario”? Centre for Research on Globalization. Online: http://www.globalresearch.ca/demonizing-muslims-america-sworldwide-witch-hunt. Rothe, D., Mullins, C., 2006. The international criminal court and United States opposition. Crime, Law Soc. Change 45, 201e226. Rothe, D., Muzzatti, S., Mullins, C., 2006. Crime on the high seas: crimes of globalization and the sinking of the Senegalese Ferry Le Joola. Crit. Criminol. 14, 159e180. Rothe, D.L., Collins, V.E., 2011. Got a band-aid? Political discourse, militarized responses, and the Somalia pirate. Contemp. Just. Rev. 14, 329e343.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004

+

MODEL

V.E. Collins / International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice xx (2014) 1e21

21

Rothe, D.L., Collins, V.E., 2013. The circle of state violence and harm. In: Arrigo, B., Bersot, H. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of International Crime and Justice Studies. Taylor and Francis, Oxon, UK, pp. 493e515. Shuy, R.W., 1997. Ten unanswered language questions about Miranda. Forensic Linguist. 4, 175e195. Smart, C., 1989. Feminism and the Power of Law. Routledge, London, UK. Thistletwaite, S.B., 2013. The “Othering” of Muslim Americans. The Islamic Monthly. Online: http://www. theislamicmonthly.com/sandbox4/the-othering-of-muslim-americans/. Trevi~ no, A.J., Harris, M.A., Wallace, D., 2008. Introduction to special issue: what's so critical about critical race theory? Contemp. Just. Rev. 11, 7e10. Ulrichsen, K.C., 2011. The geopolitics of insecurity in the horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. Middle East Policy 18, 120e135. Underhill, G.R.D., 2000. State, market, and global political economy. Int. Aff. 76, 805e824. United Nations Security Council, 2008. Resolution 1816: UN doc. S/RES/1816 (2008), UN Doc. S/RES/1816 (2008). The United Nations. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/361/77/PDF/N0836177.pdf?OpenElement. United Nations Security Council, 2011a. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1950 (2010), S/2011/662. The United Nations Security Council. Online: http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/ N11/544/11/PDF/N1154411.pdf?OpenElement. United Nations Security Council, 2011b. Report of the Secretary General on the Modalities for the Establishment of Specialized Somali Anti-Piracy Courts: (2011), S/2011/360. The United Nations Security Council. Online: http:// daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/358/22/PDF/N1135822.pdf?OpenElement. UNRISD, 1995. States of Disarray: the Social Effects of Globalization. UNRISD, Geneva. United States v. Mohammed Modin Hasan, Gabul Abdullahi Ali, Abdi Wali Dire, Abdi Mohammed Gurewardher, Abdi Mohammed Umar, 2011. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Valverde, M., 1996. Despotism and ethical liberal governance. Econ. Soc. 25, 357e372. Van Ginkel, B., Landman, L., 2012. In search of a sustainable and coherent strategy: assessing the kaleidoscope of counter-piracy activities in Somalia. J. Int. Crim. Just. 10, 727e748. Walker, S., Spohn, C., DeLone, M., 2006. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America, fourth ed. Thomas Wadsworth, Belmont, CA. Watkins, K., 1995. Oxfam Poverty Report (Oxford, UK). Watson, P., 1992. Food is a ‘raw power’ in perilous port city: Gunmen in Somalia wait for ships to pillage. The Toronto Star (The Toronto Star, Toronto, Canada). Williams, P., 1991. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Wing, A.K., 2003. Civil rights in the post 911 world: critical race praxis, coalition building, and the war on terrorism. Louisiana Law Rev. 63, 717e757. Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Method. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Young, I.M., 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Young, A., Valencia, M., 2003. Conflation of piracy and terrorism in Southeast Asia: rectitude and utility. Contemp. Southeast Asia 25, 269e283.

Please cite this article in press as: Collins, V.E., Guilty until proven guilty?: An examination of the anti-piracy response at the interactional level, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.ijlcj.2014.07.004