Somali pirates once again attack Maersk Alabama

From wire and Pilot reports

NAIROBI, Kenya

This time the Maersk Alabama was ready. This time it did what a multinational naval force couldn't. Guards used guns and a sound blaster Wednesday to repel the second pirate attack on the U.S.-flagged ship in seven months.

But while the effort was hailed by one naval commander as "a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action" to prevent being attacked, it highlighted a growing schism over how ships traveling pirate-infested waters should deal with the problem.

The U.N.'s maritime agency warns against putting arms on ships, although that is increasingly the case amid unrelenting hijacking attempts by young and impoverished Somalis seeking multimillion-dollar pay offs.

The Navy advocates armed security forces on ships.

"Somali pirates understand one thing and only one thing, and that's force," said Capt. Joseph Murphy, a professor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy and the father of a sailor aboard the Maersk Alabama in April the first time it was hijacked.

Then, pirates took ship captain Richard Phillips hostage, holding him at gunpoint in a lifeboat for five days. Navy SEAL sharpshooters aboard the Norfolk-based destroyer Bainbridge freed him while killing three pirates.

This time, the ship had weapons on board.

Four pirates in a skiff had approached the Maersk Alabama on Wednesday, firing with automatic weapons from about 300 yards away, a statement from the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain said. The ship responded with evasive maneuvers, small-arms fire and a Long Range Acoustic Device, which emits a piercing, high-decibel sound intended to deter attackers.

A self-proclaimed pirate speaking from the Somali pirate town of Haradhere said that colleagues at sea had called 2-1/2 hours after the attack began.

"They told us that they got in trouble with an American ship, then we lost them," said the man, who gave his name as Abdi Nor.

A U.S. Navy P-3 surveillance aircraft monitored the Maersk Alabama as it headed for the Kenyan port town of Mombasa, said Lt. Nathan Christensen, spokesman for the 5th Fleet.

Kimberly Rochford, the wife of the Maersk Alabama's captain, Paul

Rochford of Barrington, R.I., told WBZ-AM radio in Boston that she is happy there were weapons on board this time.

"It probably surprised the pirates. They were probably shocked," she said. "I'm really happy at least it didn't turn out like the last time."

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet, praised the owners of the Maersk Alabama for following the Navy's advice and putting armed security teams on board their ships.

"They've made themselves a very hard target," Gortney said. "The pirates made a bad choice."

"This is a great example of how merchant mariners can take proactive action," he said.

Given the great expanse of the Somali basin, which is larger than the entire East Coast of the United States, ship owners can't expect naval vessels to come to their rescue every time, Gortney said.

"It's a vast amount of sea-space," he said. "We just don't have the resources available to cover all of this area." In this case, he said, the nearest naval vessel was probably hundreds of miles away.

As far as he is aware, Gortney said, this was the first time that a major shipping line has repelled a pirate attack with an armed security team.

He acknowledged that there is still a debate in the shipping industry over whether armed teams are a good idea. The Navy's view, he said, is that "if you value your cargo, you need that last line of defense."

Some crewmen who were aboard the Maersk Alabama when it was attacked in April complained Monday that Norfolk-based Maersk Line Ltd. did not heed a request to rename, repaint or reroute the ship after the first attack.

Ex-crewmen John Cronan and Shane Murphy said in separate interviews Wednesday that they feared and anticipated another attack after the ordeal in April.

"Obviously she's a hot target," said Cronan, of suburban Philadelphia. "The bad guys were laying in wait for her."

Cronan and several other crew members have filed suit in Texas against Maersk Line Ltd. and Waterman Steamship Corp., alleging that the companies were negligent in sending the ship into known pirate territory with inadequate protection.

The men are seeking compensation for physical and psychological damage they say they suffered during the spring hijacking, and for loss of income.

Maersk Line Ltd. spokesman Kevin Speers said that Maersk has instituted a layered defense system to stop pirates and that Wednesday's thwarted attack shows it's working.

"What we've tried to do is focus on real measures that are going to provide significant increases in the security of the ship," Speers said. "I don't believe changing the name provides a significant security to the people on the ship."

Officials at Waterman Steamship, a company based in Mobile, Ala., that supplies crew members to Maersk, declined to comment.

This story was compiled from reports by The Associated Press and Pilot writer Bill Sizemore.