You are absolutely on crack if you honestly believe a military commander authorized that unprovoked response on a civilian target without prior approval from the POTUS.
Really? Ask SWATDOC how his unit operates under the current Rules of Engagement? Ask Chesty what his orders were during his time as a USMC sniper. MTS could tell you if he was still around. Chefbone's unit operated under this same ROE.
Better yet DT, here's probably the best post I could find on short time about this very subject.
Congratulating Obama on the rescue
My post yesterday pointed out that President Obama did not actually order a rescue attempt, he merely reaffirmed the standing authority on scene commanders had to act if lives were in imminent danger. Jonah Goldberg makes the fair point that Obama is Commander in Chief and this happened on his watch, so he should gain congratulations just as he would have been blamed had it gone poorly. I have no problem with that my beef was with the news agencies i.e. Obama cheerleaders who were spinning the event as a decisive action by the President. It wasn't. There were also reports that the President gave orders for a rescue if an opportunity presented itself, that does not appear to be true and it would have been a significant escalation from merely confirming standing orders allowing force if a death appeared imminent.
The legal standard for the use of deadly force is a legitimate fear for your life or the lives of others. That same standard is infused into all military rules of engagement (ROE) I have seen. The commander of the Bainbridge had the authority to kill the pirates at any time he felt the lives of US citizens were in imminent danger. What President Obama did was to confirm that authority. There is some question as to whether his initial orders restricted the ability of the military to intervene while the negotiations were going on. This comes from the fact that no action was taken when Phillips jumped off the lifeboat and attempted to escape. It is unknown whether there were actually restrictions placed.
The vessels in the task force were expected to be stopping piracy so their ROE would certainly have addressed the contingency of an imminent threat to US citizens and their authorization to use deadly force to prevent deaths. It is ridiculous to assume that they needed President Obama to actively affirm that before acting. Imagine a scenario where they come upon a hijacking attempt in progress and the pirates point an AK at the captain of the ship. Would we really expect them to wait and dial the phone?
Hello White House, this is Commander Smith in the Gulf of Aden can I speak to President Obama?......Yes Ma'am I realize it's 3 am....Oh hello Mrs. Obama is the President around? We have kind of an urgent situation here.....Oh, he's walking the puppy. Well could you get a message to him, we need permission to........BAKOW! Oh crap Ma'am, they shot him, never mind.
Ludicrous, I know and precisely why ROE anticipate those situations and give authority to commanders on scene. When it became a national crisis the President can review and potentially change the ROE based on what he wants to happen. If a determination is made to pursue negotiations then tighter restrictions on the local commander's authority to use deadly force could be applied. He also could have done what some reported and authorized a rescue if an opportunity presented itself. It looks like the only step he took was to allow the normal authorization for deadly force to stand, essentially doing nothing.
This is in no way reflects badly on the President. The pirates had little history of using violence against hostages and any rescue attempt is inherently difficult and dangerous. It was fortunate that the on scene commander and shooters were on the ball and on target. The reports say the pirates either fired shots on the lifeboat or appeared to be about to execute the hostage. That is certainly worth considering when thinking about negotiating in any future incidents.