Indian fishermen say U.S. Navy boat fired without warning

World Jul. 18, 2012 - 06:30AM JST ( 37 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

37 Comments

5

Tom WebbJul. 18, 2012 - 09:18AM JST

Fishing boat with three high powered out-board motors? Hard to imagine a high-speed fishing boat. After USS Cole, everyone knows to stay away from the US Navy ships. Furthermore, why go high speeding to go around this ship? Maybe lack of judgement on the fishermen and a tragedy happened?
1

nandakandamandaJul. 18, 2012 - 09:26AM JST

Sport fishing? If this boat was for hire by wealthy Emiratis, then they would expect to go to and from the fishing spot as quickly as possible. The fastest and most powerful boats will probably attract the wealthiest clients.

Whatever the rights and wrongs, this incident will now have served as a warning to others.

Such a sad accident for the people involved. RIP to your buddy, man.
-5

NeverSubmitJul. 18, 2012 - 10:26AM JST

Wouldn't it have been prudent to at least fire warning shots in the vicinity of the boat.

Sounds like a case of a trigger happy Jack Bauer wannabe cowboy.

Too bad an innocent guy died because of this recklessness.
4

Ben JackJul. 18, 2012 - 10:36AM JST

Wouldn't it have been prudent to at least fire warning shots in the vicinity of the boat.

The US Navy claims that is what they did. Perhaps it would be wise to wait until the results of the inquiry are released.
1

TheQuestionJul. 18, 2012 - 11:37AM JST

Sounds like a case of a trigger happy Jack Bauer wannabe cowboy.

Or the result of the fishing boats failure to recognize the warnings and the sailors on a ship full of fuel not wanting to be part of the USS Cole Part II. That's the story that the US navy told, now we wait for the investigation to conclude.
1

Elbuda MexicanoJul. 18, 2012 - 12:20PM JST

India fights against terrorism every day so they should understand the pressure the USA navy is under and have a propaganda campaign saying the USA is India's only true friend and keep these dim wit fishermen away from the American navy, IMHO.
3

Elbuda MexicanoJul. 18, 2012 - 12:23PM JST

If the American were as evil as alqaeda wants us us to believe the navy could have killed off everyone Of these fishermen, blown up their boat, pretended like nothing ever happened and washed its hands clean Of this entire incident, right??
1

Bgood41Jul. 18, 2012 - 12:35PM JST

There is a protocol to be observed by both, U.S navy and fishermen. Are they Indian Muslims? high three power boat motors? good fishing ground around navy ship? It is better to be safe than sorry, and we will see the details soon.
3

nandakandamandaJul. 18, 2012 - 12:41PM JST

My guess is that the truth is somewhere in between.

This boat probably goes in and out of port every day, and with three outboards at full throttle, the long way round must use a lot of fuel. They are probably used to skimming around larger ships and probably routinely ignore warnings.

After the fact they are hardly going to admit hearing any warnings, are they? Plus if there is compensation to be had, ...
1

nandakandamandaJul. 18, 2012 - 12:44PM JST

What does this quote from one of them tell you?

"We were speeding up to try and go around them"
1

nandakandamandaJul. 18, 2012 - 12:47PM JST

It tells me that they came too close and after repeated warnings suddenly realized they were in danger and tried to use their power to get away. Miscalculation? A game of something that went wrong?
-6

JohhnyGlitterballJul. 18, 2012 - 12:50PM JST

More trigger happy Americans killing innocents and some justify it!
2

lostrune2Jul. 18, 2012 - 12:59PM JST

Sounds like the Indian fishermen's bad judgement of which course of action to take. Don't speed up trying to go around an armed ship - it makes you look like you're speeding up to get close for an explosion. It's like speeding up to run around a cop in a dangerous neighborhood - what's the cop supposed to think? Let the big ship pass first - what's a few minutes to spare waiting just to be safe? Just a stupid judgement done because people are always in a hurry.
-4

CletusJul. 18, 2012 - 01:23PM JST

nandakandamanda

What does this quote from one of them tell you? "We were speeding up to try and go around them"

It tells you that they were speeding up to go around a slower vessel. The USN ship was by their own admission doing a mere 2-3 knots (very slow) and the fishing boat was doing 20+knots and is much more manouverable so they were merely using their speed to get around the bigger slower vessel. And get into port quicker.

The UAE police and even private security firms in the region have said it looks like the USN overreacted in this case, but l guess we will have to wait for the official report. Considering the USN and UAE reports already differ by many Km's on were the incident even occured should make for interesting reading.
1

nandakandamandaJul. 18, 2012 - 02:23PM JST

Cletus, good answer and believable too.
-6

NeverSubmitJul. 18, 2012 - 03:50PM JST

In most countries, the legal standard for lethal force is extremely high, and rightfully so. In order to use lethal force you must be able to prove that your life was clearly and irrefutably in danger.

The story above is nowhere near that standard. Just because you think that maybe possibly somebody might have an intention of hurting is not enough to apply lethal force.

Why isn't the US navy releasing information about the distance between the two ships?

Regardless. This is murder.
5

Ben JackJul. 18, 2012 - 04:08PM JST

In most countries, the legal standard for lethal force is extremely high, and rightfully so.

What is the situation of the legal situation you are referring to?

In order to use lethal force you must be able to prove that your life was clearly and irrefutably in danger.

Again, without knowing what specific situation you are referring, it is hard to agree or disagree with your opinion. However, I believe the standard is more like 'feeling your life is clearly in danger'.

Why isn't the US navy releasing information about the distance between the two ships?

Maybe, just possilby, they are still investigating the incident?

Regardless. This is murder.

?? Regardless of the facts? I still think it is better to wait and see what the investigations reveal.
-6

CletusJul. 18, 2012 - 04:50PM JST

Ben Jack

"In most countries, the legal standard for lethal force is extremely high, and rightfully so." What is the situation of the legal situation you are referring to?

I think you will find that the poster is referring to the legal standard for killing a person. You know you just cant go around killing people for the sake of it.

"Why isn't the US navy releasing information about the distance between the two ships?" Maybe, just possilby, they are still investigating the incident?

They have released details there was about 100 meters between the 2 vessels if you believe the USN. But then again this is the same USN that puts the location of the incident in international waters about 20 km from were the UAE officials say it actually took place. So really how much stock can you put in the USN statements

"Regardless. This is murder." ?? Regardless of the facts? I still think it is better to wait and see what the investigations reveal.

Funny the UAE is disputing the USN "facts" the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts". Even the heads of other private security firms in the region say the USN response was inappropriate..... I guess we should wait on the USN to come up with its "facts" though....
5

Ben JackJul. 18, 2012 - 05:16PM JST

I think you will find that the poster is referring to the legal standard for killing a person. You know you just cant go around killing people for the sake of it.

I understood Never Submit was referring to the legal standard for killing a person. However, the standard depends on the situation involved. As such, my response above still stands, as does my question to the poster.

So really how much stock can you put in the USN statements

As much as you can put in the UAE officials, I would surmise. Why would you think one is more reliable without yet knowing the full story?

Funny the UAE is disputing the USN "facts" the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts". Even the heads of other private security firms in the region say the USN response was inappropriate..... I guess we should wait on the USN to come up with its "facts" though....

I am still not quite sure why you have already decided (which it clearly seems that you have done) that the USN was at fault when the India ambassador is willing to wait until the investigations are finished. Do you have some information the Indian ambassador does not? You should pass along your information. Surely, he would want to see it.

For your edification:

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/indian-ambassador-meets-fishermen-wounded-by-us-vessel-1.1050457

The ambassador said the three injured men — K.Muthukannan, Muthumuniya Raj and Pandu Sanathan — had spoken to him. Asked about their version about the incident and whether they received any warning before the naval vessle fired at them, Lokesh said : “I visited them to check their well-being and what assistance they need from the Indian missions. Such issues are under the purview of the investigations being carried out by the UAE and the US authorities. So I did not go into such details.”

He said the government of India had been informed that the UAE and the US authorities are investigating the incident. “We have requested them to share the details of the investigations with us,” he said. Asked about any initial feedback from the UAE and the US about the investigations, he said : “Today is just the first day after the incident and it may take little bit more time to get any feedback.”
1

Ben JackJul. 18, 2012 - 05:24PM JST

Cletus,

Could you point me in the direction of information showing the Indian ambassador disputes what you call USN facts? I have only found articles of the Indian ambassador stating that the Indian fishermen said they received no warnings. That is the fishermen disputing the USN. That is quite different than suggesting the ambassador himself disputes the United States Navy.
-4

CletusJul. 18, 2012 - 05:33PM JST

Ben Jack

'So really how much stock can you put in the USN statements" As much as you can put in the UAE officials, I would surmise. Why would you think one is more reliable without yet knowing the full story?

Lets see. The USN claims it happened in international waters (convenient) the UAE says it took place 20 km away just off its coast. The USN says it was justified, the UAE has said it was not justified. But l guess expecting you to believe a mid east country over the mighty USN is a bit much to ask.

For your edification: http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/uae/emergencies/indian-ambassador-meets-fishermen-wounded-by-us-vessel-1.1050457

Wow, quoting day old news reports. Slipping there Ben.

Here is one for your edification:

"UAE Official says US firing was a mistake",

It seems a day after your quote UAE officials are disputing the US version and have even said that the fishing boat did not veer off course or approach the USN ship in a dangerous manner.
-4

CletusJul. 18, 2012 - 05:39PM JST

Ben Jack

Could you point me in the direction of information showing the Indian ambassador disputes what you call USN facts? I have only found articles of the Indian ambassador stating that the Indian fishermen said they received no warnings. That is the fishermen disputing the USN. That is quite different than suggesting the ambassador himself disputes the United States Navy.

Well lets see, the Indians have formally requested that the UAE file an official case against the USN over the incident. I would say that in itself shows that they disagree with the US version now wouldnt you?
1

Ben JackJul. 18, 2012 - 06:20PM JST

But l guess expecting you to believe a mid east country over the mighty USN is a bit much to ask.

Hardly, I think both are equally trustworthy as far as any authority can be expected to be anyway.

Wow, quoting day old news reports.

Ummm, the article was to reference the Indian ambassador's reaction, which is sadly seems you misrepresented. Remember, you claimed the Indian ambassador disputed the USN's version and the ambassador has done no such thing. The ambassador clearly said he was not willing to specifically comment on the incident details and was waiting for details of both investigations. It seems you jumped the gun when you claimed the ambassador disputed USN's version of events. It seems like you still are? Why would you feel the need to do that?

"UE Official says US firing was a mistake",

Wonder. When the UAE official becomes the Indian ambassador, his statement will support your claim that the Indian ambassador disputes the USN's version. Until then, I am still waiting for specific information supporting your claim.

I would say that in itself shows that they disagree with the US version now wouldnt you?

Ummm, the Indian ambassador formally requested that both the UAE and the USN investigate and inform him of the results. That is nothing at all like 'disputing the US version'.

Care to try again? I'll be just as specific as you were:

You wrote:

the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts

Show me anywhere where this is specifically stated. No "let's see"s. Just show me something specific, or you can admit you jumped the gun. Your choice.
-2

NessieJul. 18, 2012 - 07:15PM JST

Are they Indian Muslims?

Irrelevant.
2

USNinJapan2Jul. 18, 2012 - 11:29PM JST

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/documents/usns-rappahannock-shooting-incident

Again, here is the US Navy's version of what happened. To refute it you need equally detailed account to the contrary, which so far hasn't surfaced. You don't need to speculate about the Navy's version because it's here in black and white, which means all the speculation at this point is centered on the other side, the Indian fishermen's side of the story. If the events unfolded according to the linked Navy's version than the Rappahannock's security detail were absolutely justified in opening fire. I'd love to entertain the alternative scenario if anyone can produce it.
-1

YuriOtaniJul. 19, 2012 - 12:08AM JST

Think it could of been a "dry run" for an attack in the future. I do believe they were fishermen and wanted das big fish! About the "fishermen" of course they say the things they say. They were "innocent" and the blah blah. Support the USN on this until they are proven wrong but the masses say they have to be proven 100 percent right. Then they still will not accept the truth.
0

avengerJul. 19, 2012 - 01:49AM JST

if he got in the legs with .50 cal he is lucky to have any legs
1

YuriOtaniJul. 19, 2012 - 04:16AM JST

USNinJapan2, looking at the data would of told my people to sink it. It was too close for me. A dry run is used to gauge response from a potential target. Of course the people on board are picked carefully to make the Americans look bad.
-2

CletusJul. 19, 2012 - 07:49AM JST

Ben Jack

Ummm, the article was to reference the Indian ambassador's reaction, which is sadly seems you misrepresented. Remember, you claimed the Indian ambassador disputed the USN's version and the ambassador has done no such thing. The ambassador clearly said he was not willing to specifically comment on the incident details and was waiting for details of both investigations. It seems you jumped the gun when you claimed the ambassador disputed USN's version of events. It seems like you still are? Why would you feel the need to do that?

Sorry Ben, but you accusations that l jumped the gun are slightly off target (as per usual). Please see below for the comment l was quoting:

External Affairs Minister S M Krishna termed the killing as "unfortunate" and said his ministry was in touch with its Ambassador in UAE, M K Lokesh, who has raised the issue with the UAE government. Lokesh, on his part, disputed American claims and said the survivors' account differs from that provided by the US Navy.

This quote was taken from the IndianExpress news outlet and as you can see it says the ambassador disputed the US claims. He did go on to say they would also be waiting for the outcome of the investigation. However he specifically said "disputed the American claims" just as l said. Apology accepted there.

Care to try again? I'll be just as specific as you were: You wrote: the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts Show me anywhere where this is specifically stated. No "let's see"s. Just show me something specific, or you can admit you jumped the gun. Your choice.

Ok buddy, you have been shown, now can you admit you were incorrect in your attack on me. Your choice Ben
1

Ben JackJul. 19, 2012 - 12:08PM JST

Cletus,

Nice try.

I checked out the article you referenced and it seems, as usual, you do not read the whole thing and just picked one part to attempt to cover up your jumping the gun. The ambassador has not jumped the gun, you have.

From your referenced article:

“According to the survivors, there were no warnings given to them,” Mr. Lokesh told PTI in Dubai.

As I wrote, upon inspection, the ambassador himself is not disputing the USN's account, He is relaying the fact that the fisherman dispute the account. Since we have already established this, this article does not change anything.

As to the ambassador's opinion on the matter, he had this to say in your referenced article:

“There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge,” the ambassador said.

So, it is exactly as I said it was. Again, show me where the ambassador, himself, clearly disputes the USN's account. We are all aware that he has stated that the fishermen dispute it. However, he himself clearly says above that we have to wait for the details to emerge. Of course, by 'we' I do not include you, because you clearly seem to have decided what happened and who is at fault. What I would love to know is, how do you know this when even the Indian ambassador in the very article you referenced is suggesting we need to wait for the details to emerge?

The ball is, again, back in your court. I would like you to clearly and specifically show that at the time you wrote:

the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts

that the ambassador himself was disputing USN's version of events. Or, you can admit you jumped the gun. Your choice. Unless you are making the third choice of waiting until more details come out in favor of your argument and hoping to attempt to retro-argue that that supports your claim. Sorry, that will not cut it.
-3

CletusJul. 19, 2012 - 12:59PM JST

Ben Jack

I checked out the article you referenced and it seems, as usual, you do not read the whole thing and just picked one part to attempt to cover up your jumping the gun. The ambassador has not jumped the gun, you have. From your referenced article: “According to the survivors, there were no warnings given to them,” Mr. Lokesh told PTI in Dubai.

LOL Ben, so wrong again. In the entire article the quote you just gave actually does not appear once. I quoted a newspaper that newspaper has many articles on the story and the one you plucked you quote from is an earlier article to the one l quoted OOP's there you go again quoting OLD news pieces to try and defend your critisism.

As I wrote, upon inspection, the ambassador himself is not disputing the USN's account, He is relaying the fact that the fisherman dispute the account. Since we have already established this, this article does not change anything.

Maybe if you looked at the right article that would be a good start. Now lets try again, yesterday l claimed even the Indian ambassador was disputing the USN facts. You said prove it. So l supplied the comment in the Indian media that states "Lokesh, on his part, disputed American claims". Now just so you understand it Lokesh is the Ambassador and for his part is disputing the American claims. Now my comment was the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN claims the Indian media says the ambassador is disputing the American claims. The only difference is l said USN he said American. Undastand!

So, it is exactly as I said it was. Again, show me where the ambassador, himself, clearly disputes the USN's account.

Already have buddy where the media say "Lokesh, on his part, disputed American claims" Sheez l know its hard to accept your wrong but this is a direct quote from the news story saying the guy for his part disputes the claims..... Seriously

What I would love to know is, how do you know this when even the Indian ambassador in the very article you referenced is suggesting we need to wait for the details to emerge?

Buddy you didnt even manage to find the article l quoted so please!!! Yes he did say that they would wait for the investigations to be completed. That was in the sentence AFTER he is quoted as disputing the claims. So as l have previously said if you care to read they are waiting on the investigations however the ambassador has already disputed some of the facts presented by the USN. As has the UAE officials investigating the incident.

The ball is, again, back in your court. I would like you to clearly and specifically show that at the time you wrote: the Indian ambassador is disputing the USN "facts that the ambassador himself was disputing USN's version of events.

Gawd how many times does one have to point this out to you. Seriously Ben, l know its hard to accept but just face it your wrong l said something you jumped down my throat over it and l backed it with the quote and you still cant accept it.

Or, you can admit you jumped the gun. Your choice. Unless you are making the third choice of waiting until more details come out in favor of your argument and hoping to attempt to retro-argue that that supports your claim. Sorry, that will not cut it.

Ok so you think l jumped the gun. The article l quoted appeared at 12:08 pm on the 18th of July. I made my comment at 4:50pm on the 18th July a whole 4+hrs after the article appeared so maybe buddy you need to look up the definition of jumping the gun. Now lm happy to wait until all the details come out however my statement stands that the Indian ambassador has disputed the USN facts as reported in the Indian Express news outlet on the 18th July. If you do not like those facts backing up my statement l would suggest you contact the ambassador or the media outlet l quoted and take it up directly with them, either that or you can take you bat and ball and go home.
1

Ben JackJul. 19, 2012 - 01:27PM JST

In the entire article the quote you just gave actually does not appear once. I quoted a newspaper that newspaper has many articles on the story and the one you plucked you quote from is an earlier article to the one l quoted OOP's there you go again quoting OLD news pieces to try and defend your critisism.

Nope. Your article in the Indian Express is from more than 24 hours ago. Mine is from 21 hours ago. Anyway, they say the same thing.

Undastand!

Nope. You are wrong. The ambassador is being very cautious. He never ever says 'he' disputes the USN's story, which is what you claimed. He merely quotes the fishermen, which we all knew anyway. He also goes on to say:

“There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge,” the ambassador said.

Link your article to show me it does not say that. Keep in mind, your article has got to be from the same time frame as when you claimed it.

"Lokesh, on his part, disputed American claims".

The article says that, and then shows that what they meant is that he was quoting the fishermen. The proof for this, again, is when the ambassador himself is quoted as saying;

“There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge,” the ambassador said.

You need ot provide a quote of the ambassador saying he disputes the USN's version. You have not done this. This is because you cannot do this. The reason you cannot do this is because the ambassador, being an ambassador would never dispute anything until the details are revealed. So, if you were ever thinking about becoming an ambassador, you would do well to rethink that idea. You are not suited for it as you jump the gun way too quickly. You need to be much more patient, as the Indian ambassador is being.

Buddy you didnt even manage to find the article l quoted so please!!!

Really, buddy? Here you go:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ship-firing-no-warning-before-shooting-say-survivors;-pentagon-contradicts/976067/

There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge," the ambassador said.

It is right there in black and white.

Gawd how many times does one have to point this out to you

Ummm, you have provided not one quote to lead anyone at all to believe the Indian ambassador disputed the USN's version of events. I have provided a quote from your article with him saying;

There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge," the ambassador said.

What you need to do is provide a quote from the Indian ambassador saying, 'I dispute the USN's version of events.' or 'The Indian Government disputes the USN's version of events.' I will accept any similar quote from the Indian ambassador from that time frame. I will not accept the 'media's opinion' as that is not the ambassador's opinion. You see, the ambassador's opinion is reflected in his words and quotes, you know sentences with those funny little commas floating above the sentence on either side. Let's look at the ambassador's own words again, shall we?

“There are many versions of the incident. We have to wait for the details to emerge,” the ambassador said.

Now, you still have a choice. Find the quote you claim exists, but does not actually exists, or admit you jumped the gun. Your choice. Just remember, it will not cut it if you attempt to retro-argue if new facts or quotes come to light.
1

Ben JackJul. 19, 2012 - 01:28PM JST

Apologies, Google is mistaken. Upon inspection, both articles are from the same time frame.
1

Ben JackJul. 19, 2012 - 02:01PM JST

You claimed the Indian ambassador disputed the USN'S version. You cannot provide a quote supporting that claim. You were and are wrong. The ambassador clearly was careful in his public statements as would be expected. Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand that. However, I would expect you be willing to back up what you say. It seems you cannot do so. Why? Because, buddy, you jumped the gun.
-3
CletusJul. 19, 2012 - 02:22PM JST

Ben Jack

You claimed the Indian ambassador disputed the USN'S version.

Indeed l did and l stand by that statement

You cannot provide a quote supporting that claim.

I can and l have Ben. You are just choosing to ignore it. But here it is again for you:"Lokesh, on his part, disputed American claims" Now that makes 6 times l have put in a quote that states the ambassador disputes the claim, now l know that you understand english so it must just be that you dont want to admit your wrong.

You were and are wrong.

I love your definition of wrong, l make a claim, you challenge my claim, l provide evidence to back my claim up, you ignore my evidence even though you are now quoting from the same story. That says a lot about you Ben.

The ambassador clearly was careful in his public statements as would be expected. Don't worry, I do not expect you to understand that.

Ah condescending comments now. How do you know what l do and do not understand. And Ben l just realised something, you are an arrogant person who cannot stand to be wrong. This is plainly evident in every discussion you get into. You demand evidence of the person you are discussing with and when its provided you claim its not good enough for you , then you start being condescending and personally attacking the person. Much as you have here. And you also like to get the last word in to show that you "won" the argument and how big a man you really are. That shows me much about your character, stature and mindset. And as such this is my last comment to you on this topic as any further comments directed at you are a waste of my time and effort. I made a comment l stand by my comment, l backed my comment up with evidence. Evidence you followed and actually found the article l quoted from. Now at no time did l ever claim the ambassador was not going to wait for the investigation (like you are alluding too) l merely quoted a news article that states what it states in black and white (as you are so fond of saying).

However, I would expect you be willing to back up what you say. It seems you cannot do so. Why? Because, buddy, you jumped the gun.

LOL Bennie, l have backed it up numerous times now, heck you even are quoting from the same article now and from the very next sentence so you know damned well what is written. So stop trying to come off all high and mighty with me as it will not work. Now a couple of points for you. 1. Definition of jump the gun "to do something too soon, especially without thinking carefully about it". Given the article l quoted was 4 hours old and you even admit that how then is it possible to say l jumped the gun. 2. I realise that your personality does not allow you to be wrong. This is evident in every single argument you have on this site. You demand proof and when its forth coming you refuse to acknowledge it. 3. You love to get the last word in to show how manly you are so Ben here you go this is my last comment to yo on this topic lm done so its all over to you but remember whatever you write its irrelevant as l have made the comment, shown the evidence to back the comment up and just because you dont like it that means nothing to me or anyone else. 4. You need to review your approach to discussions and understand its ok to be wrong sometimes. 5. And remember this at no time dod l say that the ambassador was not going to wait for the investigation to be completed (you threw that up not me and if you claim i did say it prove it). I merely said he disputed the US version of events as they stood, a claim that l have backed up numerous times now.

Ciao
- ModeratorJul. 19, 2012 - 02:29PM JST
  
  Cletus and Ben Jack, please do not address each other any further on this thread, since neither of you is willing to be civil or tolerant of opposing views.
1

Ben JackJul. 19, 2012 - 02:50PM JST

I am going to add, I have not stated which side I believe is correct in this because all the details have not been released yet. I have said from the beginning, and the Indian ambassador agrees, that we should wait until the details are released. The ambassador merely reported what he was told by the fishermen. If he and his government feels the details show the USN's was in the wrong, you can be sure there will be quotes made by him and they will have quotation marks and it will be clear. They will not be a reporter's words, they will be his. If that happens, so be it. I have no horse in this race at all.