Report: Seizing of Pirate Chiefs Questioned in Killings of Four Americans (FBI screw up?)

Fox News ^ | February 24, 2011

[Pan_Yan]

...

The New York Times reports that an FBI hostage-rescue negotiator aboard the U.S.S. Sterett came to believe the two Somalis were not serious when they boarded the vessel. Once those men were taken into custody, U.S. officials told the pirates on the yacht -- called the Quest -- to send over someone they could negotiate with.

The events that immediately followed have been sharply contested and raises questions about the decision to detain the pirate leaders, the Times reports.

American officials said the pirates on the yacht seemed relieved — even “exceptionally calm” — when they were told their senior commander was cooling his heels in a Navy brig.

...

[livius]

You’re advocating that everybody tailor their lives to thugs. They were actually not in that dangerous a place and they had sailed there before. These pirates now go as far as 600 miles out to sea - because they’ve been emboldened by people with attitudes like yours.

[bvw]

Yes, that’s the story of the rescue two years ago that I remember too.

The lonely hero of all America remains today one Terry Lakin, a Colonel and Surgeon. THE ONLY MAN IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE THE BLOODY FRAUD OBAMA.

[BluH2o]

I will try to be very patient with you livius ... I’m an experienced off shore sailor. I’ve made two trans-Atlantics on a 15 meter yacht, actually eight trans-Atlantics if you count my six crossings on U.S. Navy vessels. I’ve sailed off shore to Bermuda from the U.S. in the Newport - Bermuda race as well. Not to mention extensive coastal sailing, primarily off the U.S. east coast.
The crew of the Quest had not sailed in these waters before, there decision to go it alone (breaking away from the flotilla arranged by fellow yachtsmen traveling the same dangerous waters for security purposes) was shear folly. Stupidity has consequences and they payed the price with their lives.

[thile44]

Is not the simplest most cost effective solution to blockade the ports that the pirates operate from and arrest or sink any boats that cross a predetermined area. Deny the access to targets, simple and effective.

[The Pack Knight]

Lastly, I wonder how many of the people commenting have spent even a few days on the open seas. There seems to be a prevailing opinion that the US Navy could have diffused this situation with a couple super-double-top-secret SEAL insertions that surely would have happened absent the intervention of the FBI and Obama himself. It's patently absurd.

We're talking about boarding a stand-off vessel in open waters while at the same time, four hostages literally have automatic weapons trained on their heads. The FBI played the only card they had - negotiation. And, it was right to pick the FBI to play that card, because ship captains aren't trained to negotiate with hostage takers. Now, whether that card was played appropriately or not, is for others to decide. I'm not a hostage negotiator, nor was I there. But given the tactical situation, talking was the only realistic option at that time.

That's an excellent point that a lot of people are ignoring. It brings up a historical question I've been curious about lately: Has there ever been a actual successful opposed boarding of a ship on the high seas in the face of armed resistance since World War II, or even since the 19th century? I personally am not aware even of an attempt (other than some inept ones by pirates), much less a successful one. While Seal Team Six and other groups have certainly planned and trained for such an operation, that's obviously very different than actually doing it.

[OldDeckHand]

"Has there ever been a actual successful opposed boarding of a ship on the high seas in the face of armed resistance since World War II, or even since the 19th century? "

Oh yeah. In these very waters, and in the last 12-months. The French just did it a few weeks ago. What's problematic is those vessels were large container ships or oil tankers. This was a 60-ft sailing yacht, that provided our special operators no room to maneuver. Scale, in this instance, would have worked very much against the aggressors.

[The Pack Knight]

Ah, ok. I'd heard about those captures, but I wasn't certain whether the French faced active resistance or whether they just caught the pirates napping. I certainly knew of some other famous hostile boardings over the last several decades, but they were mostly events like the Pueblo Incident where no real defense was mounted.

I'd mostly been thinking about this issue in connection with the Iranian ships in the eastern Med. Specifically, I was considering the scenario whereby the Iranian warships would be used to escort another "relief flotilla" to Gaza, with the flotilla loaded with both volunteer Westerners as human shields and "volunteer marines" such as Iran threatened to send last summer.

I figured that it would be almost impossible for the Israelis to attempt to board the flotilla ships due to the early warning provided by the warships. Even Alvand's rudimentary AA capabilities would have to be neutralized before any assault could be attempted, and her destruction would give a pretty clear signal to the "volunteer marines" that it's time to drop their [edit] and grab their socks. That would probably have forced the Israelis to either sink the flotilla ships, human shields and all, or let them put in at Gaza - a definite Sophie's Choice for Israel.

[PapaBear3625]

Read my response again and focus on the part where they deliberately left the relative safety of the small flotilla that had been organized (by fellow yachtsmen) to ensure some degree of a safe passage thru these dangerous waters. That was incredibly stupid on their part,

Were any of the vessels in the flotilla armed? If not, what's the point?

Old Russian saying: "what does the wolf care how many sheep there be?"

[PapaBear3625]

The real, underlying problem is that we are treating the piracy as crime, rather than as acts of war by Somalis against the rest of the world.

[AnonymousConservative]

I agree with your points. I don’t think people are complaining about that fact a raid wasn’t immediately launched. Rather, I think the concern is that Domestic LE may have been put in charge. Clearly an FBI agent handpicked by Holder will have a grossly different approach from the nearest Military commander. (look at how the Border Patrol Leadership let one of their tactical officers bleed out, while they helo’d a drug cartel killer to a hospital. Not something common in the military.) BTW, if the Navy Captain was in full operational control, I’ve got no complaints here.

What you are seeing here is that we all know Liberals are a flavor fo traitor. In any conflict, they seek to resolve it with our enemies’ interests in mind. We prefer a more loyal approach, designed to favor our own interests at the expense of our enemiess’.

Since Obama is in charge, and LE is invovled, most (myself included) are worried (possibly correctly) that the Liberals and Obama intervened after last time to more effectively hogtie the military commander on scene to favor our enemies, and Americans died because of it. It wouldn’t be the first time.

You are right, though. There wasn’t really a good raid option.

You don’t know if it is practical to pump Isoflurane, or some other airborne anesthesia into a craft and put everyone out, do you? I know the Russians failed in that theater with the Chechens, but that seemed more due to a lack of medical support for hostages afterward.

Seems we really should develop the capability, if it is possible.