>USS Mason DDG-87 left Istanbul today. She made a 3 day visit in Istanbul returning from the Black Sea.
She had entered Black Sea on 29 September 2008. She could have stayed in the Black Sea until 19 October 2008.
During her stay in Istanbul USS Mason was surrounded by a floating barrier. This was a countermeasure against a suicidal attack type a la USS Cole.
I personally find this protection unnecessary and funny. Last month when NATO’s SNMG-1 visited Istanbul there was no such protection around USS Taylor FFG-50. Either USS Taylor is disposable compared to USS Mason or the commander of USS Taylor found the odds of a suicidal boat attack in such a target rich environment (with all ships of SNMG-1 available) small.
devrimyaylali.com 
>pretty baby gotta save its pretty ass right!?
>Yes, but what about Taylor’s astern? Isn’t pretty too?
>You think the protection a ship chooses to have is FUNNY? MY SON is out there!A female sailor from my town was killed on the USS Cole as she ate! Put yourself in MY SHOES for a day,, and see JUST HOW FUNNY this whole things is you moron.
>What I found funny was that while there was protection around USS Mason there was NO protection aroun USS Taylor? Are your sons sailing on board of USS Taylor not worth the same protection given to USS Mason?I am not going to talk about insulting other people with a different opinion behind the cloak of anonimity…
>My husband is onboard the USS Mason and there were specific REASONS why they were protected while leaving the Black Sea. USS Taylor was not in any danger just by sitting there. Protection was necessary to prevent another USS Cole disaster. If the Navy would have thought there was a danger to the Taylor, trust me, they would have been protected.
>@Rachelle,Thank you for your comment. I am sure that there was a reason why USS Mason was protected by a floating barrier.