I agree with you that we were in a war alert state at the time the Hainan Star was intercepted. From what I can tell they waited too long to put a shot across her bows, letting the ship get too far inshore. At that time, they would have been perfectly justified in shelling or sinking the ship, as it was acting in an illegal fashion at a time when were being beset by enemies.
Once the women and children were spotted, they should have shifted gears, changed the rules of engagement. The observations from the FLEA agents at the scene indicates lack of due care in authorizing deadly force. As a said before, this warrants an investigation. As MDIS, do you want to have the Inspector General do it, or do want FLEA to do it. If you left it until next term, I would, because of my involvement, leave it to the next MDIS to decide whether the Inspector General should investigate, or whether it should be handed over to FLEA. The soldiers firing were in uniform, acting under orders, so this appears to be something the Inspector General would have to look into, whether FLEA does or not. It would only be if the IG seemed to be sweeping the matter under the carpet would I also want FLEA to look into it. It is a kind of double jeopardy, but not actually. If the IG brings a court martial, FLEA wouldn't be involved, except the two agents who were there, as witnesses. If the IG doesn't indict, then FLEA will have to investigate and present the evidence to the COJ to see whether there is grounds for a case. So he could get investigated twice, but only tried once, so his constitutional rights are protected.
Nothing can be determined about whether anything should go further up the chain until that initial investigation has been completed. He could have violated Navy protocols about using deadly force, in which case nothing besmirches you. He could have followed Navy protocols, but the extenuating circumstances of war alert status, nightime, and the failure of the ship to stop when ordered meant that the shootings were 'accidental', so again no blame reflects on you. Or the Navy protocols could be found to provide insufficient protections of civilians rights or contrary to international law, in which case, there was a pre-existing condition that needed to be corrected, but wasn't by any of your predecessors. Thus there would be a bit of blame, but spread among many.
