Legal Stuff

[Snore]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

In fact I don't see the name. What ship is it?

She is the Cole after her repairs.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by Snore

She is the Cole after her repairs.

WOW. Thanks.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Sorry, but IMO you have put forth a fallacious argument. Sometimes we go to extremes. President Lincoln used some Draconian measures, but they were lifted when the War was over, and he saved the country.

LOLOL.... bet the Confederacy would be claiming the same today if they had won...

[hellosailor]

"persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
Well now, Lost, I suggest you might write an old-fashioned paper letter and post it by that federally sanctioned corporate monopoly, the USPS, to our duly appointed Attorney General of the United States, and ask him how cars and horse carriages qualify as "effects" but aquacars and houseboats and plain boats do not.
I'm sure that the AG can explain it to you, I certainly can't.

But of course, since al-Qaeda won the war, life here in the Colonies just hasn't been all that it used to be. Prior to that, you might have been required to arrest anyone who attempted to perform an illegal search. It used to be a citizen's duty to do that.

[John A]

Naw hellosailor, contact your congressman'woman for the correct answer. You did select him/her to look out for your best interest didn't yoy?.

[hellosailor]

Your CongressCritter can't or won't tell you, they'll defer questions about legal standards to the AG's office.

[Rakuflames]

Originally Posted by boatman61

LOLOL.... bet the Confederacy would be claiming the same today if they had won...

Yes. It's called war. The tactics aren't always pretty.

[John A]

My Senator's website has different categories that one can select online for concerns about things that go on within the Federal Government, one can also detail those concerns to her and she DOES get back to me with her findings. Sorry your State selected a dunce.

The lady in the House of Reps. tries but....she's all party line.

I get several emails from the Whitehouse a week, some I send my comments to.

Attend town hall meetings go to their local offices. Ask questions, demand answers.

If someone says something on TV that you'd like more info on, do a google search for dozens of differing opinions.

[Khagan1227]

First a few facts:
1. The last 5 terrorist acts with a large loss of life involving bombs or weapons of mass destruction made against the U.S., have been by pressure cooker, commercial airliner(s) (9/11),truck (OK City), truck (WTC), bomb on airliner (Pan AM 103). None involved a boat, with the exception of the first, and only because one of the bombers hid out in a boat.

We have a government that has NO problem tracking who you call, how long you talk and where you are when making the call. Then tries to justify it by saying it is for "public safety".

The same government that gropes women and children at airports, but ignores people of a certain religious background that have been responsible for 90% of the terrorist acts against the U.S. (and other like minded countries) in the last 20 years, because they are worried about racial profiling. Where is the concern for "public safety"?

I understand why the police can stop a truck on a highway and make a safety inspection. That police stop protects the other people on the road against a much larger vehicle that can and does carry hazardous materials. I don't see how searching my boat, in a slip, in a marina, in the middle of the night carrying automatic weapons to perform a "safety" inspection protects the public at large.

The point here being, Title 14 was intended to stop smuggling 200 years ago, not terrorists attacking the U.S. Any serious terrorist would find it much easier to cross either border, north or south, than to try to smuggle bombs in the U.S. via boat (there is a big ocean on both coasts that acts as a pretty good buffer). The ability of the Coast Guard to board and inspect a vessel at anytime, is no less of a violation of the 4th amendment than a warrantless search of a land based dwelling. We would be better served allowing the ICC to stop and search semi-tractor trailers without a warrant.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if a police officer comes to the door of a land based home without a warrant for my arrest or a search warrant, I am under NO legal obligation to open the door, or even speak with him. The same should hold true for my home on the water.

[ElGatoGordo]

Oh brother. In your Marina? At night? Can you prove this? Sounds like mindless hyperbole to me.

<seriously rolling eyes>

[sailorboy1]

when it comes right down to it if LEOs with guns approach my boat and request a boarding, and they have guns, I'm letting them!!!!!!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Those who study logic would call that the fallacy of the slippery slope. We have had this Constitution since 1783 (? close to that) and have not had this happen. That's because of our system of checks and balances. It is the Supreme Court who has set the limiting boundaries that have prevented such a prediction for over 2 centuries. .

Freedoms ARE restricted in a governed society. Eliminate that and you have anarchy, which is not freedom at all. Anarchy is completely unprotected rights and only the ones you can force others to accept on your behalf.

Sorry, but IMO you have put forth a fallacious argument. Sometimes we go to extremes. President Lincoln used some Draconian measures, but they were lifted when the War was over, and he saved the country.

Sorry , its not a slippery slope argument , I would argue that events in the US have generated a reaction that is out of proportion to the effects , and such reaction has justified the introduction of increasing draconian laws. In my experience from living in the US in the 80s , it is now , paradoxically safer then ever before , yet more fearful then ever before. That's a sad situation and suggests that "danger" rhetoric is being used to sweep away freedoms that were once taken for granted.

If one studies history , there are many examples where nations used " foreigner fear" to begin a slow , somewhat hidden slide towards despotism , the UK nearly succumbed to it in the interwar years.

I am not being pejorative in my use of the term despotism , I don't mean the obvious extreme cases , but a trend towards increasing central rule, a targeting of particular minorities , reduced civil freedoms , increasing security presence , overt policing measures etc.

a bit of anarchy , every now and then is healthy for society , ask the French , a civil society that doesn't allow itself to be wrapped in jingoism and uncritical patriotism is also healthy.

But the greatest example of a free, open society , is that it excepts a degree of pain , suffering and death , by those that seek to exploit such openness , yet remains open and free and treads very very carefully in introducing yet another " security" measure

I don't address these points specifically to the US , as it shares such trends , as much as it sets such trends with other countries.

Dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by CaptForce

My wife and I have completed about 42 years of livingaboard and actively cruising mostly in US waters. We have not yet been boarded by the Coast Guard, but if that day comes, we will be in compliance, grateful for their service and not inconvenienced by their tasks. I had the opportunity to pass behind this vessel not too long ago near Norfolk.....




If you can read the name; then, you likely understand that there are reasons to inspect boats beyond just checking safety gear.

Exactly my point previous , an attack in a foreign port really does not justify an increase in domestic security measures. Rather then creating a fortress mentality , where each attack results in more defence ( read less personal freedoms and more overt security ) , and more overt aggressive responses , resulting in more attacks on " soft targets" etc etc .

ultimately this " race" results in exactly the civil society , such perpetrators wish to force, they want to create spectaculars that force the security services hands, they want joe public grumbling everytime he or she gets on a plane , geta " safety inspection" , or gets frisked as a security measure , why , because it tends to force leaders to address the issues rather then simply increase military reactions

All these situations need dialogue , complex messy, and often unpleasant dialogue , but the resolution of asymmetric conflicts ( and hopefully the removal of security measures) can not be achieved by military means , but by such dialogue, no more then the UK found in Northern Ireland or the current negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan demonstrate

Personally I would prefer the risk of being extinguished in a public space , even though that risk is small, then the introduction of certain recent " security measures"

Dave

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

But the greatest example of a free, open society , is that it excepts a degree of pain , suffering and death , by those that seek to exploit such openness , yet remains open and free and treads very very carefully in introducing yet another " security" measure

+1

Not specific to the USA, but would take a brave (and politically suicidal!) Politician to say that the odd bout of dead people and blown up stuff is the price of being free........and that overall for a society it really does not matter........so suck it up.

[SV MAKAI]

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn