Coast Guard/DEA boardings

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by chuckr

On our last trip down the East Coast from the Cheapeake Bay to Miami to jump off to Mexico we were boarded off Florida by Homeland Security. They made us slow down and came aboard - one guy stood in the cockpit with his had on this gun while another went down below alone - we were not allowed to go with him and he rummaged around and then they left -
We have been inspected in multiple foreign ports and each and every time the inspectors insist someone be with them full time and at time there were 2 of them and would not move until they had someone with them.
Only in the USA do the officials feel they can wander around your boat by themselves -

Very foolish of them. Leave them selves way open to allegations of stealing for a start.

[surfprimal]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Whilst im aware that the US CG can search a US vessel even outside the USA, i seriously doubt they would have ANY authority in another soverign nation

Lets use Australia for example. Under what authority would ANY US law enforement authority have over its citizens in Australia?

And you would be wrong. 14 USC 89. see previous post a couple pages back.

[dwedeking2]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Very foolish of them. Leave them selves way open to allegations of stealing for a start.

I'm thinking the US homeland security doesn't care if you think they stole something. TSA has proven to be thieves and we expand the service.

[Rustic Charm]

Which post

[Lepke]

The CG and Homeland search lots of boats to discourage smugglers and terrorists from using small boats for their purposes. When I was a commercial fisherman on the US West Coast, it was common for drug smugglers to board boats sailing alone. Kill the occupants, load drugs and sail the boat on to a remote beach for unloading. It seemed to happen about once a month. Later after many more CG boardings, the problem seemed to go away.
I've been boarded many times. The people (CG, Fisheries, Customs, etc.) have always been professional. I feel it's the price I pay for the CG being around for emergencies. Remember they go out in all kinds of weather at the risk of their lives to rescue dummies that should have known better.

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Which post

#31.


If you want to continue your thought experiment on Australia ... let's say the US authorities (US DEA for example) had tracked a US-flagged cruiser across the Pacific to Australia with well grounded suspicion that the vessel was carrying heroin. Let's further say that a USCG vessel was in Aus waters. Then all that would be needed is for the US govt to talk to the Aus govt and induce the Aus govt to ask the US govt for assistance. Then the USCG could board the US-flagged vessel in Aus waters and be compliant with US and Aus legal codes.


Think that is far-fetched? Think back on Aus political history and how Aus was "invited" into both the Iraqi adventure and the Vietnam adventure. And consider well the mess that the Aus Dept of Defence and the spook agencies have created with their incompetent assessments of the strategic risks associated with the Port of Darwin.

[IslandHopper]

That's correct, but I don't think RC was responding to a Sovereign State giving the USCG permission to conduct boarding's/arrests in there home waters, I think it was to the blanket statement "If your are documented in America, they could board you on a Chinese inland lake." which in it's self is incorrect, they could only do so with the permission/cooperation of the Sovereign State in question. (And with the current situation between the US/China in the South China Sea, I doubt the USCG would get much cooperation lol)

There is no way (legally) the USCG could just waltz into Australian waters, sail up the Burnett River and board the US Flagged SV 4 berths down from me without first going through the proper channels. As https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/89 states, "(a)
The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction" and "For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction".... Without the cooperation of the Sovereign State in question the USCG has no jurisdiction.

As for the current goings on with the Port of Darwin, that's just a cluster ****

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

#31.


If you want to continue your thought experiment on Australia ... let's say the US authorities (US DEA for example) had tracked a US-flagged cruiser across the Pacific to Australia with well grounded suspicion that the vessel was carrying heroin. Let's further say that a USCG vessel was in Aus waters. Then all that would be needed is for the US govt to talk to the Aus govt and induce the Aus govt to ask the US govt for assistance. Then the USCG could board the US-flagged vessel in Aus waters and be compliant with US and Aus legal codes.


Think that is far-fetched? Think back on Aus political history and how Aus was "invited" into both the Iraqi adventure and the Vietnam adventure. And consider well the mess that the Aus Dept of Defence and the spook agencies have created with their incompetent assessments of the strategic risks associated with the Port of Darwin.

[Jim Cate]

So, what IS going on in Darwin?? I seem to have missed out on that!

Jim

[IslandHopper]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

So, what IS going on in Darwin?? I seem to have missed out on that!

Jim

The port has been leased to a Chinese company.

Port of Darwin lease deal to Chinese company should be examined by foreign investment watchdog: Labor - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/wo...idge.html?_r=0

[Alan Mighty]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

That's correct, but I don't think RC was responding to a Sovereign State giving the USCG permission to conduct boarding's/arrests in there home waters, I think it was to the blanket statement "If your are documented in America, they could board you on a Chinese inland lake." which in it's self is incorrect, they could only do so with the permission/cooperation of the Sovereign State in question. (And with the current situation between the US/China in the South China Sea, I doubt the USCG would get much cooperation lol)

I like your example. Remember 1874? Or even the 1920s? USN Yangtze Patrol.

[Dsanduril]

Just for reference, the graphic shows all the places where the USCG doesn't have to ask foreign government permission (it already has it in enforcement agreements). The red stars show full bilateral agreements with automatic boarding agreement even in foreign state sovereign waters. The red stars with the arrow pointing into the Pacific include 9 Pacific island nations (Tonga, Cooks, Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu...).

[SURV69]

A few years back I read somewhere that the cadets are required to read(and learn?), a sort of creed imploring the CG to consider that when they stop an American vessel, they are stopping "free American citizens" ... it goes on to say that these "free American citizens", do not take kindly to being stopped or detained and that the CG needs to understand the spirit of the citizens they stop ... to treat them courteously and to get them back on their way as quickly as possible.

I don't know the full extent of this "creed", and I don't know where to find it

[storyinframes]

Being a foreigner on a new sailboat sailing down the ICW and coastal waters of US east coast. I have nothing but full praise for USCG. They r very professional.
Having never been in US before and then sailing there can be quite overwhelming for a guy like me. But the more I got to interact with these young men and women from coast guard; the more relaxed I felt. Deep within there was always this reassuring thought that these guys would pull me out from any situation. I had so much faith. In West Palm Beach my engine died and anchor dragged. I called for help. These USCG guys were amazingly professional. They put me at ease. Last thing I would ever think of is that they would harass me. No ways. Before departing US, I left a thankyou note and a small piece of cake for them.....

Few months down, I was anchored off Anse D'hainault in Haiti and trust me I was so scared of these locals that I wished if USCG had a base around. :-)

Sent from my SM-G925I using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by IslandHopper

That's correct, but I don't think RC was responding to a Sovereign State giving the USCG permission to conduct boarding's/arrests in there home waters, I think it was to the blanket statement "If your are documented in America, they could board you on a Chinese inland lake." which in it's self is incorrect, they could only do so with the permission/cooperation of the Sovereign State in question. (And with the current situation between the US/China in the South China Sea, I doubt the USCG would get much cooperation lol)

There is no way (legally) the USCG could just waltz into Australian waters, sail up the Burnett River and board the US Flagged SV 4 berths down from me without first going through the proper channels. As https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/14/89 states, "(a)
The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction" and "For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction".... Without the cooperation of the Sovereign State in question the USCG has no jurisdiction.

As for the current goings on with the Port of Darwin, that's just a cluster ****

Thank you Island Hopper, that's exactly what I was suggesting. As much as the yanks think they can board any old boat anywhere in the world, they can't!

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

I like your example. Remember 1874? Or even the 1920s? USN Yangtze Patrol.

From what I have just read, the Yangtze Patrol's ceased all together from 1945. It no longer is the case.

I know of only one situation in Australia where America's military can exercise some form of jurisdiction on Australian soil and that I have been told is that the Military Police from the US on Australian soil can take action against Amercian servicemen without local jurisidiction. Some sort of Federal agreement. Though I was told this back in the 90's by an Australian MP. Not sure it it's correct but that's what I was told. But, even then they need an Australian extradiction order to remove the said military person from Australia.