>>>>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,513238,00.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"In the water....." - hopefully shark bait.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A happy ending.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30178013/?GT1=43001
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My kudos to President Obama - he did have the wherewithal to authorize the strike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Good for him and the Navy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the hostage Captain should be hailed as a Hero for what he did earlier to save his crew.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thank the Lord it is over.... and on Easter!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Anybody know why Obama had to authorise the use of force twice?
>>>>>
>>>>>My understanding is that Obama didn't have to authorize it twice but rather he was asked twice.
>>>>
>>>>In the story pointed to above, it says:
>>>>
>>>>On Saturday morning, Obama signed off on the Pentagon's request, as he had a day earlier, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently the second order was because there was more equipment and personnel available. I guess for some reason, it appears that he has to authorise the numbers of personnel and equipment to use or something equally silly.
>>>>
>>>>In a related story, it says:
>>>>WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama twice authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain who was being held by Somali pirates and whose life appeared to be at risk, administration official said after Sunday's rescue.
>>>>
>>>>The Defense Department twice asked Obama for permission to use military force to rescue Capt. Richard Phillips from a lifeboat off the Somali coast. Obama first gave permission around 8 p.m. Friday, and upgraded it at 9:20 a.m. Saturday. Officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations said the second order was to encompass more military personnel and equipment that arrived in the Indian Ocean to engage the pirates.
>>>
>>>There are different levels of authorization. He may only have authorized a 'show of force' the first time, hoping the pirates would back down. When that didn't do the trick, then they upgraded the request to use actual force if necessary or a seal team, etc...
>>
>>I realise it's just news wording, but wouldn't ... authorized the military to rescue a U.S. captain ... kind of imply using actual force if necessary?
>
>No, there are too many political repercussions that could happen during international incidents. Commander in Chief authorization is usually pretty specific and given in specific levels of authorization only. Often, the only permission for some types of actions are 'getting the pieces into place' but no 'go ahead' is given until the Commander in Chief feels that all other options have been exhausted or there is no other option due to the current situation.
>
>I 'suspect' (only a suspicion and no facts) that something occurred which prompted the seal team action. Often, there are permissions given along the lines of: 'if this happens, then you may do this' or something similar, but NOT otherwise. I'm guessing that the pirates did something to escalate the situation and the seals felt the captain's life was is imminent danger so they had to act right then. I am only guessing though and going on past situations.

Yes, but you're probably right in your analysis. I seem to recall reading that the pirates were waving their guns around and pointing them at the captain, so it's likely that the seals felt the pirates were either getting ready to shoot him, or were at the very least becoming unglued.