From a reader:

Dear Mr. Goldberg, From my reading of the US Code you are correct that Pirates are waging illegitimate war on the commerce of the United States. This is not only upon the High Seas but, due to extension by Congress, of International Airspace as well. The commerce power extends to all US owned vessels and other property necessary for this, and covers all foreign commerce of the US to protect it from attack not only on the High Seas, International Airspace but from attacks upon ground facilities of the companies and personnel involved with same. Add into that ALL Admiralty offices, which means each and every Embassy of the United States. All of those are ‘war crimes’ and the court they go to is Admiralty Court, not US Federal Civl Court. The US Federal Code is quite expansive in its covering of the commerce activities of the United States and its Citizens abroad and the protection from illegitimate warfare is primary. You are correct that the bombings, slaughter and such waged by ‘terrorists’ are war crimes. They put US commerce at peril as specified under the US Code with the power given to Congress on regularizing treaties and setting forth the High Seas laws. Congress has specified Admiralty Courts as the venue involved, and life imprisonment for any Pirates as the ONLY punishment allowable. I have no problems with the US Navy holding Admiralty Courts to adjudicate on war crimes against the commerce of the United States as waged by those organizations that have attacked: any ship or aircraft owned in whole or in part by any lawful entity of the United States, any ancillary property and equipment such as offices and such owned in whole or in part by the United States, all personnel involved with these things who are lawfully covered under US law (Citizens and legal residents), all US Embassies, and any organization that has attacked either US shipping or commercial shipping on the High Seas or in the air without formal declaration of war. This includes: hijackings of aircraft, bombings of offices at airports, kidnapping of US Citizens or legal residents engaged in lawful commerce activities, US Naval Vessels adhering to Treaty and invited by a Nation for a visit (like the USS Cole), and any group or organization that attacks any of the lawful commerce of the high seas or airspace (like Hezbollah’s sinking of a commercial vessel last year). The NY Times authors are incorrect to say these are criminal activities. They are not under the Hague and Geneva conventions: they are war crimes that the US has designated as acts of Piracy to be tried in Admiralty courts. Why conservatives do not uphold the right of commerce of the United States to be unhindered under lawful treaties and by the laws of the sea with extensions into airspace is beyond me. I thank you for your time,

Update: From a reader:

Jonah, Your reader is a little confused. The US District Courts have jurisdiction over all maritime and admiralty actions (see 28 USC Section 1333) and there is no distinction between civil and criminal courts at the federal level.

And another (different) reader:

There is not some separate set of criminal “admiralty courts” designed to
hear cases against pirates. Regular federal district courts hear admiralty
cases all the time, although as far as I know “admiralty law” refers to
exclusively private disputes, not criminal cases which have some connection
to open water.
Anyway, the statutes your correspondent cites all define crimes which would
be tried just like any other federal crime in a federal district court.
That’s why they appear in 18 U.S.C. in the first place.
To argue that there’s constitutional authority for the executive to
summarily detain those involved in activities equivalent to piracy is
perfectly reasonable, and special courts might play in the mix, whether
established by Congress or the executive alone. But it’s just gibberish to
suggest that the particular statutes your correspondent cites have anything
to do with Guantanamo. They just allow pirates to be tried alongside crack
dealers and tax evaders in federal district court.