I started reading through the article, and here are some pertinent points about that...
Most of all, they waited as a series of seemingly insignificant moves — from extending the pirates a rope to bringing an injured brigand onboard — improved the sharpshooters’ odds for success.
[ ... ]
A military official speaking on condition of anonymity said the sniper team had multiple opportunities to shoot, but held off, not believing Phillips was in imminent danger.
The military thought they had a crucial breakthrough on Sunday morning. The youngest pirate, who had been injured, asked the SEALs if he could come aboard the Bainbridge to make a phone call.
[ ... ]
“If the goal was just to kill these guys there were opportunities where we could have shot them,” said a military official. “This was not the outcome we wanted. We wanted those three guys to give themselves up.”
[... if there is a problem with this quote, then I’ll try to restate it myself, by rewriting it...]
Some people give Stalins propaganda writing team a run for the money...
So instead of taking the first opportunity to end this, Obama's directives prevent the SEAL team from taking the first and/or best opportunity to save the captain's life. He was only saved by the raw, amazing skill of the SEALs, able to have three snipers make nightvision head shots against targets pitching up and down in six-foot swells. Sorry, but I'd rather take the sure shot at the moment it presents itself if it is three pirate gang-bangers against a brave American captain.
Somehow, I think any sensible conservative, like Governor Palin, would have gotten this one right. When a pirate kidnaps an American citizen at gunpoint, the American is in imminent or immediate danger. The correct answer is to "resolve" the danger at the first good opportunity, and rules of engagement should reflect that fact.