Official: Captain Richard Phillips Freed

April 12th, 2009 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

richard phillips freed

The Associated Press reports that a senior intelligence official says that captain Richard Phillips was freed unharmed earlier today. U.S. marines attacked the pirates holding the captain, killed three of the four, and freed the American hostage.

Phillips was safely brought aboard of a U.S. warship nearby.

Earlier today, A government official and others in Somali with knowledge of the situation said negotiations about Phillips’ release broke down. The pirates demanded $2 million in ransom. The U.S. could not agree to such a deal, for paying it once means you will have to pay it again. Crime cannot be rewarded, let alone encouraged.

The American operation came a day after French marines took on other pirates who had hijacked a French ship. The French assault was reasonably successful: three hostages were freed, one sadly died, two pirates were killed. That was not a fantastic result, but it was not horrible either.

U.S. marines did an even better job. The hostage was freed, three of the four pirates were killed, the other wounded. A better result was not possible.

The news is fantastic news for Phillips, the navy, everybody who cares about fate of innocent human beings, and, of course, for President Barack Obama, who was criticized in recent days for a perceived “failure to act.” If the operation had gone wrong, Obama would have been in trouble. Now, however, he appears reasonable yet decisive; tough and capable.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Michael Merritt
    April 12th, 2009 at 20:40
    Reply | Quote | #1

    This is great news!

  2. Tully
    April 12th, 2009 at 20:52
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead! (“Both” is also acceptable.)

    Sounds like they suckered them in close for “negotiation” and prepared and hoped for opportunities, which duly presented themselves.

    Those pirates should have read the Navy Jackhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Navy_Jack on the Bainbridge. It’s not there just for decoration.

  3. marc
    April 12th, 2009 at 21:48
    Reply | Quote | #3

    Second Michael M’s sentiment – good news!

    Even if the op had gone south, it would still have been better for Obama to have acted than to have done nothing.

    I’m glad we don’t have to have that discussion, tho.

  4. Garland
    April 13th, 2009 at 11:02
    Reply | Quote | #4

    Yup, this is all good news. Pretty sad that people capable of moral lives turned into kidnappers, thieves, thugs and worse but that’s just the flexibility and malleability of the human mind.

  5. Dale
    April 13th, 2009 at 11:54
    Reply | Quote | #5

    Decisive? The bloke jumped into the water for the second time… and only then did the marines shoot the pirates, acting under their own initiative.

    The fact is, it’s pathetic that the Navy was told to wait so long. And they were not told to stop waiting either.

  6. C Stanley
    April 13th, 2009 at 12:38
    Reply | Quote | #6

    Well done- kudos all around to the Navy Seals and to their Commander in Chief, and to the heroic actions of the Captain.

  7. Obvious
    April 16th, 2009 at 18:07
    Reply | Quote | #7

    US Marines were on the other ship that had not arrived yet. The pirates were killed by US Navy SEAL snipers (entirely different from Marines). Nice fact checking.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.