Back in my day, we used to blame individuals for individual actions that were against the law.  Why are you blaming the entire navy?

Oh, spare me the violin, Bahu.  What tripe.  In international waters every ship has the right to defend itself from threats.  The next boat that does the same thing should also get blown out of the water.  Of course, our PC/wimp 'leaders' will cower & pander.  And the commander who made the decision to be sure his crew was safe will be the one who suffers thanks to the likes of you.  Your arrogant armchair quarterbacking is highly distasteful, being generous.  The Italian business has nothing to do with this episode, BTW.

Your posts are usually insightful but this one is obviously not one that was very well researched. First off it should be obvious that if anything, the fishing vessel was mistaken for a potential terrorism threat not the typical pirate activity you seem to think in your post. Also this was not a search and seizure activity as you suggest. The Rappahannock is an MSC supply tanker. It is used for underway replenishment and is manned by mostly a civilian crew. It does also have military personnel on board for logistics and security support. That being said the captain of this vessel is a civilian merchant mariner not a military officer and the incident may have been legitimate however was probably due to  a lack of good judgement or good decision making by the CIVILIAN Captain of the vessel. Hard to say and the actually circumstances of the case may never be made available for public consumption. The fishing boat reportedly did not have a radio which may have been a problem but I have not seen any information as to whether the Rappahannock was in a situation having enough sea room to take evasive action. Sounds like an edgy inexperienced Captain to me. I've sailed with quite a few in recent years.  Total speculation from my point of view but knowing that the vessel is actually under the command of a civilian crew should give you pause before rushing to judgement on an issue for which you have absolutely no understanding.

I can agree with you if there s any evidence to even remotely suggest that USS Rappanhannock was being attacked by the fishermen. Even the US administratyion agree that there was no provocation. So there is need to expalain the loss of life.

Smmothseas, has a point but I think he shits theblame to the civilian captain. The exact staus of the ship and its location is still under dispute. Even conceding that the captain was inexperienced and edgy, how can one condone the slaying of a fisherman. You say that the boat did not have a radio and even if it did chances are that the fisheman would not have understood the signals or protocol from the American ship. I think this attitude of the USA shoot first and sort out the mess later is wrong and politically disastrous.

Nobody condones the slaying of innocent fisherman. For whatever reason the Capt. of the ship thought that he might be experiencing something of the sort that the U.S.S. Cole experienced. That is why I "suspect" that the captain made a very poor decision. Its called human error which in this case was more than likely due to poor judgement and inexperience. What you did was blame the Navy and the U.S Secretary of State which to be honest shows your ignorance of the situation. This is not a display of shoot first and clean up the matter later. I guarantee you this is most likely a case of individual human error and would guess that the Capt will more than likely be relieved of his command. 

That is correct and that is why one would have to know if the ship had enough sea room in the first place to maneuver or if the ship did maneuver but the fishing vessel also maneuvered to keep closing its range with the tanker. Most fishing boats don't answer the radio, even if they do speak English and other than warning shots there are no other signals so after trying to raise someone on the radio the protocol is to maneuver away if there is appropriate sea room...which is the crucial information that has not been reported and most likely won't be not only for security reasons but also legal reasons.

Of course I do...Who do you think was in charge? They were in a situation that happens on a regular basis and develops rather quickly. They don't pick up the bat phone to call Hillary or Barrack to make the decisions.

Like what a hole in the side of the side of ship after an explosion? You think it looked bad on the Cole imagine what it looks like when you have a tanker carrying several grades of fuel oil. Since the Cole incident the protocol has been updated to include similar situations not just days of lore which did not account for suicide bombing.

Smoothseas: There are certain murky areas in this:

1 Dubai now claims that the incident took place in its territorial waters. The GPS data from the US ship will clear up the dispute over jurisdiction,

2There is also the issue of provocation and propotionate reponse. USS Cole was attacked but the fishing boat did not engage in any provocative manouvre.

3 If there is action like the one you say then let us wait and see.

And the results of the Cole incident shows in some situations the initial act of provocation is sometimes too late. All military vessels use protocols that include security zones surrounding their vessels.  This includes not just the US military. In general you try to establish radio contact at certain ranges, then maneuver away at certain ranges, use warning shots at certain ranges and then engage as a last resort at relatively close ranges. Whether the capt followed the protocol or not  has not been answered and may never be.

As far as jurisdiction that simply makes it a political issue. Even though the ship is civilian crewed it is owned and operated by the US Navy, so ultimately the issue may fall within the realm of any treaties or agreements that are in effect. My guess is that they will hang the captain out to dry if it looks like he was negligent or didn't follow protocol and apologize and not much more.

Which is probably what you should have done from the start instead of posting clueless negative opinions about people who had absolutely nothing to do with the incident. Do you really expect the Secretary of State to know exactly what happened within a day? Its not like she's not a bit busy right now on a trip which I suspect has to do mostly with what is happening in Syria. It takes more than just a phone call to investigate this kind of thing and get to the truth of it all. Whether the actual truth is put out for public consumption or not is whole other question.

If you were a fish, you wouldn't say they were innocent.

If you are warned that your actions will result in harm, and do them anyway, you have only yourself to blame.

Remember the Cole.

Wevare dealing with fishermen who do not know, understand or comprehend anything the aus naval personnel may say.

Ignorance just doesn't qualify as a defense here, I'm afraid.