Coast Guard Authority

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by w1651

The main theme of the thread was basically where does the Coast Guards Authority Stop!
According to a few if you fly the Brazilian and not a US flag then you are not boarded. Theoretically!

If the USCG wants to stop ANY vessel...they just get the state dept. to ask the country of flag to authorize a "statement of no objection" to board that vessel. Most of the time it works pretty well...sometimes it takes a long time to get or it sometimes is denied.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Thank you...it's nice to know people with the right perspective...to many anti-authoritarians in this forum with NO clue.

First of all, I do think on the whole, the USCG does a good job and is viewed by most as doing a good job.

Inside of US territorial waters, please, do what you are mandated to do and you have my full support, as I am a guest and visitor there. You keeping the US safe helps keep me safe when I am there.

However, outside of US territorial waters, I have a huge issue if they attempt to board me as a Canadian flagged boat.

Would I resist? Of course not... might is right is the saying, correct?

Would I have a discussion with my Canadian government about it subsequently?

You bet! And I know how and with whom to follow up with to ensure a response is made.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Thank you...it's nice to know people with the right perspective...to many anti-authoritarians in this forum with NO clue.

If there was such a thing as an "agnostic-authoritarian" that would be me. I don't care what they do with the bad guys or "pissing-in-a-pot rights-authoritarians."
- - Cruising is so great overall that minor interruptions by pleasant or unpleasant encounters with authorities is no more than a mosquito bite in comparison.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by avb3

First of all, I do think on the whole, the USCG does a good job and is viewed by most as doing a good job.

Inside of US territorial waters, please, do what you are mandated to do and you have my full support, as I am a guest and visitor there. You keeping the US safe helps keep me safe when I am there.

However, outside of US territorial waters, I have a huge issue if they attempt to board me as a Canadian flagged boat.

Would I resist? Of course not... might is right is the saying, correct?

Would I have a discussion with my Canadian government about it subsequently?


You bet! And I know how and with whom to follow up with to ensure a response is made.

Good luck arguing with your Government...and in international waters...thank you know who that there are countries out there that give enough of a damn to see and possibly correct evil beyond their borders. I have to say my hat's off to the Canadiens for the last century for all the help they have provided in doing just that.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by osirissail

If there was such a thing as an "agnostic-authoritarian" that would be me. I don't care what they do with the bad guys or "pissing-in-a-pot rights-authoritarians."
- - Cruising is so great overall that minor interruptions by pleasant or unpleasant encounters with authorities is no more than a mosquito bite in comparison.

bingo....

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The alternative being to "give up". I suspect most would agree that the attempt (at minimizing drug imports to the U.S.) is a worthwhile pastime.

Last time I saw an interview with the DEA they estimated they were stopping maybe 10-20%. USCG I believe says the same.

Doesn't sound much like minimizing anything to me.

Like I said, any school kid can get any kind of drug they want. That to me says the current policy is not working at all.

I never said give up. I think it is obvioius that the current policy has failed and in fact has made the situation worse, so let's try something different.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Good luck arguing with your Government...and in international waters...thank you know who that there are countries out there that give enough of a damn to see and possibly correct evil beyond their borders. I have to say my hat's off to the Canadiens for the last century for all the help they have provided in doing just that.

It is interesting that the US has signed, but not ratified, the Law of the Seas Convention.

Any one know why? It may have some impact on this discussion.

[Astrid]

I have been stopped several times by the USGC, even though Canadian and flying Canadian colours, and to be honest, they were not at all bad experiences. I would much rather be stopped by them in or near US waters than by some modern day equivalent of Edward Teach or Henry Morgan.

[dinosaur]

avb3, i am actually not familiar with the laws of the seas act you're talking about. i'd like to hear about it.

i'm going to put a vote in right now that we keep this on a discussion level and not a brawling level. it's too easy to get pissed. then the thread gets closed and we have to up our post count by welcoming people in the meet'n'greet forum... nobody wants that.

i'm going to say that the only negative experience i have had with a CG person has been on land, ironically. so i have no idea what it's like to be stopped/questioned/boarded by one on the water. i have to imagine it is slightly more pleasant than being stopped by a police officer on land, since i doubt the CG has a speeding ticket quota to keep. reguardless, they are an enforcement department so you're going to have the "just give me a reason" type mixed in there somewhere. all the more reason to not give anyone any reasons.

having different formations of CG and naval groups out on the water definitely helps trim back things like piracy, which i'm sure most people will agree is a larger nuisance than playing question and answer. however the majority of help that people need from the CG is in the form of rescue due to medical incidents or boat mishaps. something that a non-militarized search and rescue department could handle just fine. we want there to be help on the water, we want our water ways to be safe for cruising, but we don't want to be bullied. it's a tough situation.

[olepedersen]

Be Glad we got them .I am not a us citiseN. I have been boarded several times,they were courteus, professional,protecting us all. once a C.G. Plane warned me to stay
away from Tortuga island in Haiti as there was a coup in progress,and small arms fire could be heard. Oh yea how many people get rescued , they do a great job. Ole

[avb3]

Originally Posted by dinosaur

avb3, i am actually not familiar with the laws of the seas act you're talking about. i'd like to hear about it.

I found the answer here.

Apparently both Bush and Obama support the ratification, but there are elements in the US Senate that feel it hinders US sovereignty.

I'm not going to regurgitate the pro's and con's of the debate that is linked above, but it seems there are a few vocal senators who are keeping the ratification from happening, arguing national sovereignty. It would seem to me if both the Bush and Obama administrations, plus the testimony of senior Pentagon officials urge ratification, that those arguments are weak.

reguardless, they are an enforcement department so you're going to have the "just give me a reason" type mixed in there somewhere. all the more reason to not give anyone any reasons.

And I suspect those are the types one may meet in international waters. I also suspect the vast majority are very professional in their actions.

From the Canadian government website about the convention the following synopsis:

D. Fundamental Principles of the LOSC

Three fundamental principles pervade the LOSC. The first principle is that States have some sovereign rights to some portion of the sea adjacent to their sea coastline. The second principle limits the first; it says that some portion of the sea, the seafloor and the sea-bed are shared as part of the "common heritage of mankind." The final principle is that concomitant with States' rights are States' obligations to preserve the seas and accommodate the needs of other States.

[Butler]

Maybe this sets this thread adrift but I can't resist.
USCG here 1971 to 1975 patroling for foreign and domestic violations of international fisheries agreements and domestic fisheries laws in support of sustainable fisheries policies, and facilitating wildlife conservation efforts as well as international diplomacy meetings during the Cold War AND most importantly saving the lives of 27 fishermen in two years of patroling the waters of Alaska throughout the Bering Sea and the gulf of Alaska and 18 mos on lake Erie where we saved the lives of at least a dozen recreational boaters.

I am sorry that in more recent years the Guard has been sadled with enforcement of a deeply flawed even misguided war on drugs and a flawed Homeland security program. There are those at all levels of the USCG who are not neccessarily happy about this recent emphasis on some enforcement components. I read somewhere just after our last presidential elections of a new regional commander who stated very piublicly that he was anxious to ensure that the USCG return it's primary focus to it's more traditional primary role of saving lives. Since then we here in SoCal have seen a definate improvement in Coastie attitudes in executing boardings.

During WWII among other things, we patrolled the coast to stop an enemy comming ashore and we drove the landing craft on D-Day, during Viet Nam we ran patrol boats in the Mekong. The history of the Guard shows an orgnization that was always asked to adjust it's mission according to the nations needs and policies (flawed or not) but then we have always in the past returned our focus to our primsary mission: saving lives.

Can this flexibility be allowed to continue? I dunno since the Guard was shifted from the Dept. of Transportation to the Dept. of Homeland Security under our last Pres. I do believe that many Coasties would like nothing better than to be more like the fire department than the police department.
Any Coasties out there who care to comment?

[avb3]

Also relevant and informative is the following, again from the Canadian government website:

C. State Jurisdiction aboard Ships at Sea

State jurisdiction can be roughly divided into two species: legislation and enforcement. In many shipping situations this becomes more complicated, for there are two States involved: the State representing the ship's nationality (flag State) and the State with jurisdiction over the waters in which the ship floats (coastal State). Ships are nationals of the State in which they are registered; or, in maritime jargon, ships are nationals of the nation whose flag they fly.

1. Flag State Jurisdiction

Flag States may exercise legislative jurisdiction over their ships wherever they may be. Usually this entails regulating social, employment, safety and technical matters aboard the ship; the last of which, the LOSC says, must conform to international standards. Concomitant with legislative authority is the flag State's international responsibility for the actions of its ships.

Flag States, however, may enforce their jurisdiction only when their ships are within their TS, EEZ or on the HS. To attempt to enforce this jurisdiction within waters belonging to another State would be an infringement of that State's right of sovereignty.

2. Coastal State Jurisdiction

Ships passing through waters within the jurisdiction of coastal States provide opportunities for potential conflicts of jurisdiction. For instance, the flag State may set pollution control regulations for its ships, but these may simultaneously come within the purview of the pollution control regulations of the coastal State, when in that State's waters.

Although ships at sea have a right of innocent passage within a TS, this passage must be undertaken in accordance with any relevant laws of the coastal State. Coastal States have the legislative jurisdiction to pass laws that apply to foreign ships within their TS pertaining, inter alia, to: safety of navigation, regulation of maritime traffic, sanitation, and protection of cables and pipelines. Enforcement jurisdiction relates primarily to breaches of sanitary laws and is discussed below in the enforcement chapter of the Maritime Pollution section.

[dinosaur]

Originally Posted by Butler

Can this flexibility be allowed to continue? I dunno since the Guard was shifted from the Dept. of Transportation to the Dept. of Homeland Security under our last Pres. I do believe that many Coasties would like nothing better than to be more like the fire department than the police department.
Any Coasties out there who care to comment?

very well put Butler! not just this paragraph but the entirety of your post.

that's the spirit of the issue i was trying to convey...

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by lorenzo b

Am I really looking at two white obese gringos waving a full beer in my face telling me to move? I grew up in NYC and I don't allow people to speak to me like that.

LOL...what???