There are emerging new details on the rescue of Captain Phillips . According to the Washington Post, the Captain was freed after Navy SEALs shot down three pirates on the lifeboat, which was being towed by the destroyer Bainbridge. The fourth pirate was aboard the destroyer negotiating.
Vice Adm. William E Gortney, commander of U.S. Fifth Fleet, said U.S. military snipers opened fire on the pirates within seconds after an on-scene commander determined that Phillips’ life was in “imminent danger” because one of the pirates was aiming an AK-47 at the captain’s back. President Obama had issued a standing order that the military was to act if the captain’s life was in immediate danger, Gortney said. The U.S. military snipers were positioned aboard the Bainbridge, which was towing the 18-foot lifeboat holding three of the pirates and Phillips about 25 to 30 yards away. A fourth pirate was on board the Bainbridge as part of ongoing negotiations, Gortney said.
Gortney said U.S. Navy SEALs were involved in the rescue effort, but he did not know which snipers took the shots that killed the pirates. Phillips, who was tied up in the small lifeboat, was within feet of the pirates when they were shot. In addition to carrying AK-47s, the pirates were armed with small caliber pistols, he said.
Advertisement
The Navy SEALs have been in other recent news. Marcus Luttrell, the lone survivor of a dramatic battle in Afghanistan in 2005, came home from surgery to find his pet labrador killed. A number of dogs had been killed around the neighborhood by a group which seemed to get a kick out of it. But this time they came to the wrong door.
“I could tell she tried to get away because there was a blood trail,” Luttrell recalled in a phone interview Wednesday. “When I saw she was dead, the only thing that popped into my head was, ‘I’ve got to take these guys out.’ ”
Shrouded in darkness, Luttrell, who’d just been released from the hospital after another round of surgery, crawled under a fence, skirted a ditch and sneaked up on four strangers in a sedan who apparently killed the dog on a whim. Luttrell said they were oblivious as he raised a 9 mm pistol from about 25 yards away and had one of them dead to rights.
But as the car pulled away, he didn’t fire.
Instead, he scrambled back to his pickup and launched what became a wild 40-mile chase that reached speeds of over 100 mph and crossed three counties.
“I did everything right; I didn’t do anything wrong,” he told the Houston Chronicle of the April 1 incident. “Make sure everyone knows they cold-bloodily murdered.”
Luttrell stayed on the line with a 911 emergency operator as he tried to catch the car, which was just a bit too fast for his four-door truck to overtake.
“I told them, ‘You need to get somebody out here because if I catch them I’m going to kill them,’ ” Luttrell recalled telling the operator.
The cops subsequently told the public not to try this at home. “There are at least five area dog killings in recent months that could be linked to the case, said Texas Ranger Steven Jeter. ‘It could have been worse for both parties involved,’ he said. ‘I wouldn’t advocate to the general public to do what he has done — to follow them at that rate of speed.’”
The dog incident illustrates the difference between a pirate and a sailor. Both are capable of violence. The sailor in this case was arguably capable of generating many times more raw violence than the punks who had shot his dog. Perhaps more than the punks could ever imagine. But the key distinction is that the sailor was under regular discipline and command; and his capacity for violence is under control. Even his agitation had to remain still while it was under inspection. But in the case of pirates the capacity for violence is unbridled or whimsically used for personal entertainment. It’s a difference whose importance is sometimes forgotten.
When governments tell its hard men to do things in the dark because its publics have become squeamish, it cedes the one thing that separates sailor from pirate: the authority of the King’s Justice. Pirates must first of all be met with political courage, without which the brave men of both the merchant and US navies will be deprived of their strongest defense.
So, God helps those who help themselves ?. No big decisions to mount a rescue operation, just a junior commander taking an opportunity. Well done to that officer. But what happens to that remaining pirate, will the Obama administration tie themselves in knots deciding what to do with him ?.
What will happen when the government tells its hard men to fire on civilians back home, to keep said government in power …?
NahnCee:
But will that happen? The Big O has yet to reveal his primary motivation: love of power or love of adoration. Time will tell.
But what happens to that remaining pirate…
I’m equally interested in what happens to the CO of the Bainbridge, Commader Frank Castellano (who’s not really a junior commander – he’s got nearly 20 years experience as a naval officer). I imagine he was in line for promotion to Captain soon. If he is promoted and given a good assignment, we can assume that Obama isn’t unhappy with how this turned out.
If he retires shortly, or is passed over for promotion and put in charge of weather balloons on Kiska, we can make other assumptions.
I hope that Obama did indeed authorize this. Not that I enjoy giving him credit for anything, but we are better off if he is at least marginally competent and marginally interested in defending the nation.
When government tells its hard men to do things in the dark because its public has become squeamish, it perhaps does so because it has already ceded the public relations battle to the so-called media elites.
But that game is already changing, as evidenced in some part by the nearly universal attitude of praise for those who in this case did pull the trigger.
I hope that Obama did indeed authorize this. Not that I enjoy giving him credit for anything, but we are better off if he is at least marginally competent and marginally interested in defending the nation.
I think this is right. Obama is who he shows himself to be. There are many things he has done which people have disapproved of, but there will probably be some things he does which the public will genuinely approve of. To a certain degree this is positive and negative reinforcement. If the President got equally blamed for doing both good and bad things, then there would be no reinforcement effect.
“President Obama had issued a standing order that the military was to act if the captain’s life was in immediate danger, Gortney said.” So what does this tell us? That even if the SEALS had the opportunity to free Phillips they were to hold fire as long as the pirates were willing to make nice. Captain Phillips’ life was in danger every second he was being held prisoner while the United States Navy went through the motions of “negotiating” with these barbarians. Now let’s watch the legal gyrations involving the surviving pirate. Ten bucks a flock of “human rights lawyers” volunteer to defend him.
Let me push my argument on the last thread farther with a hypothetical. Let us say that the United States dispensed with the legal fiction that Somalia was a normal state with a functioning government possessing the attributes of sovereignty, including defined borders, a monopoly on violence and effective governance. At this time the United States holds that every land territory on earth outside of Antarctica, which is governed as is the Moon by a special treaty status, is part of some functioning nation state. Until fairly recent times there were three categories of territory and the inhabitants of them each were under a different status.
First were the Westphalian Nation States, responsible for their own conduct and that of their citizens. These included the European Empires, the United States, The Ottoman Empire (despite acknowledged problems) Japan, China (more problems) and Latin American countries (occasional problems.) Second were the dependancies, protectorates or colonies of the nations in the first category. To varying degrees the senior partner assumed responsibility for the conduct of these territories and of their inhabitants in international relations. For example, if a native of an Indian Princely State in treaty relationship with the British Crown got arrested in Berlin then the British embassy would see that certain basic rights were observed. The United States would I believe have been in a similar position for a member of an Native American Indian tribe before all Native American were granted citizenship. Third were wild and unclaimed territories inhabited by savages or aborigines who were outside the law of nations. There have not been any such territories that I am aware of since Africa was divided up at the Berlin Conference of 1884.
So if the United States declared that we held that Somalia had reverted to the status of unexplored Africa of 125 years ago what would change? For one thing it would change the status of Somalis who encounter the military or legal agents of another country. Right now if a Somali is in the United States they are either here pursuant to their being admitted with a visa or they are on temporary parole or they entered without inspection (EWI) but even in the last case they have some limited rights. Those rights are partly in US domestic law but also because both the United States and Somalia are signatories to treaties in which we agree to treat each others nationals with a certain level of courtesy. Right now if a police officer found a Somali in Minneapolis standing over a body with a gun in his hand the officer would be expected to politely disarm and apprehend the individual and then respond to his request for aide by putting him in touch with his country’s diplomats. In fact it is now almost unheard of for a law enforcement officer to inquire as to whether a suspect is legally in the United States. If the suspect was from a country whose government we did not have relations with, like Iran or North Korea, they would still have rights and some access to a diplomat who would act in their interest. If Somalia, or some other place, was considered truly lawless then that would change. In theory the officer could determine that they had entered without inspection and that would place the alien in the status of being an invading enemy combatant who was out of uniform and therefore not subject to the protections of the Geneva Protocols. The officer could then in theory kill the alien but it would probably not be a career enhancing move.
A couple of things occur to me.
Luttrell’s spring is wound a bit tight.
Why should it take an order or even “permission” from the Commander in Chief to deal with pirates on the high seas?
Why do we allow some two bit thugs from a dysfunctional travesty of a country to prowl the high seas as if there should be a presumption of reason?
If you find a speedboat full of armed cut throats in international waters they are not out there sightseeing.
Those are adequate grounds to kill them all immediately.
Nahncee don’t be ridiculous. I spent three years in what is now called Rangers. We can tell the difference between bad guys, especially foreign ones and American citizens.
No dumbo has ever become qualified in Special Forces or Seals or Rangers, and no woman either.
These guys are very intelligent, very competent and very independent minded. Everyone I ever operated with or know revers the Constitution and America’s traditional values.
Just because they are technically capable doesn’t mean they are a threat to America or Americans.
As for the ATF and the FBI and other such Federal armed agencies I am a bit more sceptical. Think Waco.
Nahncee,
It is one thing to criticize actions the government takes or to criticize the fitness of members of the government based on information about their past conduct or associations and quite another to either speculate about members of the armed forces engaging in domestic terrorism and murder or the public doing the same to members of the government. All of this is coming from you ex cathedra and is based on no evidence. Take it from someone who is no fan of Barack Obama, you do efforts to craft an opposition to his policies no favor by engaging in speculations about violence that are connected to no actual facts. At least with Janet Reno we had her abuse of force to criticize but so far we have plenty of reason to work against Obama and no good reason to talk about violence by anybody.
Please. It is quite likely that Obama issued a standing order forbidding any military action or use of force in all events.
A man does not value talk and negotiations all his life and then turn around because he’s President. Certainly not a man who made it a point to dress in Somali robes while in Kenya, as shown by one Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
It’s more likely that the “order” was issued post- rather pre- incident, and the men involved violated direct orders. I’m sure they will face clandestine punishment.
NOW the public sees military action and decisive killing of enemies as the solution to these problems. No need for a National Shaman and Lightworker. It’s the anti-Obama stuff raised to the hundreth power.
Expect heads to roll in the Navy for the rescue. You don’t think Obama, Susan Power, and the rest will back down over this do you?
It’s quite likely the remaining pirate will be released in the US, given Welfare, and a full apology by Obama.
One more thing, the incident with the sole survivor of the Navy SEAL team and his dog? Since the race/ethnicity of the men involved were not reported, it’s safe to say they were either Black, Hispanic, or Muslim.
Since the job of the media is to suppress un-PC news. This rule of thumb is both depressing and true.
whiskey,
Where is all this coming from? You are making statements about what you assume the orders were that are completely unconnected to whatever is being reported. It is one thing to speculate about a man’s prejudices and motives and how you fear he will act and another to refuse to accept that at the simplest level the Navy used standard hostage rescue procedures here. It was pretty much the same as it would have been under Reagan. Obama and Holder might screw up the trial of the prisoner but it is a good idea to change a theory when new information becomes available. Think about Occam’s Razor, otherwise known as the Keep It Simple System, and the scientific method.
GO NAVY!!!! An outstanding job!!!
And this comes from an ex-Coastguardsman, so you know I must really mean it. (The Coast Guard and Navy are intense but friendly rivals.)
I’m with you, Bob Murphy, on those insights. I highly doubt that many of our military would willingly become part of a praetorian guard used to put down a rebellion, if they knew that the fight was just and based upon sound principles rather than just a power grab.
I think pirates and terrorists being treated as criminals who should be dealt with by law enforcement is ridiculous and farcical. If it is asinine at home to expect the police to be at your residence or business at the moment you are in great danger, imagine the absurdity of thinking the FBI can police the world’s oceans.
I’m reading two books right now:
“The Founders’ Second Amendment” by Stephen Halbrook and “Liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin
In both books frequent reference is made to natural law and natural rights. The right of free men to be armed against those who would interfere with their natural rights is an old, honorable, and, I believe, correct tradition. Being confronted by those who would rob us of life and property, we must be allowed to exercise our natural rights to self-defense.
Pirates/brigands/bandits and terrorists, regardless of where they traverse, should be cut down like the mortal threats they are. The “law enforcement” mentality that is so popular right now among the policy elites and segments of the population, is the wrong way to go. It creates space for the evildoers to work their will against us.
Kill them all. Let God sort ‘em out.
The order was to shoot *if the captain’s life was in imminent danger.* Which is the same as saying *not* to shoot if his life is *not* in imminent danger.
Obama and his crew knew that if the captain was killed by the pirates it would be a political disaster for them. They could not let that happen, but they still don’t want to use any force if at all possible. They dodged a bullet on this one; the can is kicked down the road a bit.
Not too far though, because the pirates are not at all cowed. If anything they will become more aggressive.
Carter didn’t become a laughingstock overnight, it took a few years. With Mickey Kaus’s Feiler Faster theory, the political climate changes much faster with the new media. In three to six months Obama is likely to be where Carter was in January ’81.
1. KimW:
So, God helps those who help themselves ?
/////////////
Question: “God helps those who help themselves – is it in the Bible?”
Answer: “God helps those who help themselves” is probably the most often quoted phrase that is not found in the Bible. This is actually a quote from Ben Franklin and it appeared in Poor Richard’s Almanac in 1757. In fact the Bible teaches the opposite. God helps the helpless! Isaiah 25:4 declares, “For You have been a defense for the helpless, a defense for the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shade from the heat…” Romans 5:6 tells us, “For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.”
I don’t think today’s events do anything but enhance Obama’s prestige, on either the Right or the Left. The favorable outcome saves him, for now, the comparison to Jimminy Carter.
The interesting thing will be to see whether or not he builds on this success.
Hat’s off to the Navy Seals for a job well done. Putting aside Obama and his motivations for a moment, we should give thanks where it is due. The guys who pulled the triggers are the real heros here. This action will introduce a new and unpleasant variable into the pirate’s thinking that was not there just a few hours ago. This is a very good thing.
When the Texas Ranger came to arrest the punks that Marcus Luttrell had run into a ditch, one of them said
“When we get out we are coming for you. We know where you live.”
Then Luttrell turned to the Ranger and said “Do you know who I am?” The Ranger said that he did. And Luttrell replied “Then tell them that I would not have just killed them. I would have taken them into my basement and tortured them for days.”
Dasy was named after the men lost on that mission, the letters of the dog’s name coming from the men’s names.
Wound too tight? I would have killed them. There would have been no chase. Even without his experience and what the dog represented to him, I would have killed them. I would like to think that I would have done it quickly, mercifully, but I would have killed them. No question. They deserved it. They needed killin’. They still do.
Whiskey:
I heard the names. The dog killing punks were Hispanic.
#12 Whiskey,
Sorry, at least one was Anglo.
http://patdollard.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/dogkillernumber.jpg
We had a BOLO out for this one of the group who was wanted for it. He turned himself in because apparently every veteran in the country who heard about it wanted a piece of him. And there are a lot of veterans in Texas.
Barking Moonbats, Leftists, pro-Enemy pacifists, and plain old sociopathic scum come in all colors, ethnicities, and genders.
Subotai Bahadur
Wretchard @ 6
I agree and would add that sometimes positive reinforcement from an unexpected source is even more effective than from the usual, expected sources.
Best wishes and Happy Easter,
Jim
LifeoftheMind:
I base my assumptions on Obama’s background, his books he authored, the people he chose for his team, and reporting on “deep background” from the Washington Post about how the Obama team has refused to authorize force in and around the Horn of Africa to the great frustration of the Military.
The man campaigned and won on the promise to be the international Shaman, the Lightworker. And Lightworkers don’t authorize military force.
Indeed, the “authorization” reported that the SEALs and Navy people had the ability to use deadly force IF the Captain was in life-threatening danger is very curious.
Why not let the military use whatever and any force needed? Without Obama’s micro-managing from afar.
re: Bob Murphy
Luttrell’s spring is wound a bit tight.
Yep, but given his background and the situation, he’s a little bit entitled. If armed guys were standing at the gate to my ranch over the body of my pet dog that they’d just killed, I’m not sure what I would have done, either.
I don’t know what personal torments he faces after hours. I’ve read his book and other media accounts with quotes from him. For a while I feared he was self-promoting, but now am pretty sure that he’s just a warrior-hero trying to deal with a lot of pretty ugly history. (I hope some SEAL vets get together with him help him adjust.) He admits that he’s having some issues. The dog-killer idiots didn’t much help.
re: reply to Nahncee – “I spent three years in what is now called Rangers. We can tell the difference between bad guys, especially foreign ones and American citizens.”
Agreed. Absolutely spot on.
The crap most Americans think they “know” about U.S. Military SPECOPS is the rubbish put out by Hollywood leftists via propaganda films. American military men take an oath to the nation to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and unlike most average Americans with a public school education, we know what’s in the document. SEALS aren’t “merc’s”, and the continuous run of films with story lines about ex-U.S. Military operators becoming mercenaries or super-criminals is a figment of the left’s perverted imagination. Guys who put their lives on the line for America for low pay and little public recognition aren’t going to sell out to criminals, foreign powers, or extra-constitutional political movements.
While I think Obama is a disaster for America (to put it lightly), it’s essential that we NOT become like the nitwits running the political left – we need to remain intellectually honest. I am sure that Obama made the call on this operation, or at least delegated sufficient authority to the scene commander that he could make the call. Two cheers for him. Now that the band aid has been applied, what will he do to resolve the larger question of Piracy. Piracy a close cousin to Terrorism, but oops, there is no longer such a thing now that Obama is President. Piracy is part of the “Overseas Contingency Operations” of the U.S. Military. Problem with that is contingencies are handled as one-off events, versus a “war” or “campaign” which requires a long term commitment (not to mention a plan). If Obama does not commit to a military led anti-piracy campaign, we’ll soon face the same situation with an American flagged ship or (American crew on a foreign flagged ship) held hostage by Somali pirates.
No mistake either, this incident will prompt the public to believe that military force rather than Lightworker speeches is the way to solve terrorism.
Recall how Captain Phillips was saved:
1. He used his own initiative and courage.
2. The SEALs shot the hell out of the pirates.
There were no speeches, “respect” and “I will stand with the Muslims” orations from the Lightworker who was totally silent. Though seemingly micromanaging the rules of engagement.
This is not good for the Lightworker’s program of peace through talk.
NOW Obama Administration officials are “worrying” according to the Washington Post that “other” pirates might “escalate” and harm other hostages, of whom there are about 250 scattered throughout Somalia. Use of force against Somalia and it’s people has been ruled out according to the Washington Post.
Less than 24 hours will pass before the US is accused of using ‘disproportionate force’ (eye-roll), and some will start demanding what evidence there is that these three pirates had any intent to injure or kill the captain.
Logically, they will have a point. Why would the pirates move to shoot the captain while they were apparently successfully negotiating for a ransom, and surrounded by armed men?
This just goes to show how irrelevant all the talk of ‘rights’ is. The simple fact is that if we let pirates get away unmolested then a lot more people will be hijacked, and in the end quite a few of them will die. Our task is precisely to molest these pirates, in a decisive and demonstrative fashion. Fortunately our Navy personnel on the spot appear to have understood this.
“I spent three years in what is now called Rangers. We can tell the difference between bad guys, especially foreign ones and American citizens.”
Agreed. Absolutely spot on.
To be totally clear, I have absolute faith in our military and the people who make it up. I do not, however, have any faith whatsoever in Obama and his followers. I think it’s totally possible that when the revolution gets that far, he’ll call out the National Guard or whoever else is around and sworn to follow his orders and order them to face down American citizens.
Think Kent State.
At that point, our military had better have already thought through how they will react should such an order come from their Constitutionally elected (and bought & paid for) Commander in Chief.
@25 OS: Since we are referring to military oaths, we should note the difference between enlisted and commissioned oaths.
As an aside, having taught Military Ethics for several years to officers in a graduate degree program, I never found one who had more than the average citizen’s grasp of constitutional law. My read is that when given a choice between “defending the constitution” and ‘obeying orders,’ they would overwhelmingly choose the later as the safer course.
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)