In Prison in St Lucia

[Allio]

so going back a couple of stages. are you saying that a non-national, visiting in the US, who is a flight risk (no home or address in country, transient lifestyle, read: cruiser) would be released on his own recognisance, or to bail, under similar charges?

[hellosailor]

Gitmo:
Come come now, Gitmo, despite the horror tales, in many ways is proof of generosity. Most of the folks who are there come from places that have not been signatories to the Geneva conventions or other binding treaties. As such, by all international law they don't have much in the way of rights.

Nations have not done a great deal work preparing for combatants without a formal and traditional sovereign power behind them.

The only reason the US uses Gitmo, is because AlQueda won the war on 9/11.

Other nations have their own versions of Gitmo. Devil's Island was certainly no better. Gitmo is "different" only in that it offers the ultimate in security, it is surrounded by a rather formidable moat, which pretty much discourages anyone from trying to break in or out.

Illegal arrests? Disappearances in the night? Sure. Chile, Argentina...the Spanish Inquisition, Portugal...there's a long history of that. At least in the US, we're allowed to publicly protest and debate it.

[Allio]

I now want to pull my hair out for opening this can of worms......

[Jammer Six]

Then read for what is being said, rather than what you're looking for.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Group9

Exactly. The prisons are full of people who thought they could tell a good enough, but false story, that no one would ever be able to disprove it. The criminal justice system, full of flaws as it is, is designed to eventually get as close to the truth of a matter, as is possible.

Don't count on beating it by lying, when the first people you encounter will be people who interview people who try to lie for a living.

There is a funny old saying in law enforcement. "There aren't any deaf mutes in prison." Figure it out.

Prisons are full of lots of folks who did not think ahead. Not all of them of course, but lots of low hanging fruit. To be fair to law enforcement most of the folks they come accross are not innocent and often enough come with a crime attached - and therefore they don't need to be a Sherlock Holmes or Columbo (perhaps fortunately? ) to unravel the story sufficient to then head folks off into the rest of legal system (and off their desk!).

Anyway, a bit of thread drift - remind me how that being totally honest thing is working out for Eric .

[ElGatoGordo]

Originally Posted by Allio

so going back a couple of stages. are you saying that a non-national, visiting in the US, who is a flight risk (no home or address in country, transient lifestyle, read: cruiser) would be released on his own recognisance, or to bail, under similar charges?

Hey I'm the guy who just wants facts, I have zero opinion on this thread's subject. But your theoretical cruiser WOULD have a hearing in a reasonable time to at least openly DETERMINE if he were a flight risk.

And if held, it would be in a Country Club prison with 3 square meals and cable TV. oh and don't forget the exercise yard...gotta keep that girlish figure!

[tomfl]

Not trying to defend or attack the US criminal justice system, just pointing out a lot of posts here seem to indicate a lack of knowledge about how the system works.

First off while there are speedy trial rules in the US almost no one gets a speedy trial because the first thing a lot of lawyers do is request a delay in the trial. In fact a lot of what lawyers in the US do is try and delay things a long as possible. This goes for both sides of the bench as DAs tend to always agree to a delay.

Most lawyers work under the theory that you never know what a jury will do (don't get me started on the claim that a jury in the US is made up of folks who were too dumb to get out of jury duty) so they do anything they can to avoid a jury trial.

Another thing to remember is a lot of criminal justice in the US is based on the Judge Roy Bean theory. A Texas jurist Judge Bean was famous for the story about two defendants being brought before him. One had stolen $US20 off a drunk and another had killed a man he caught cheating in a card game. The thief got the death penalty and the killer got a $US20 dollar fine. Judge Bean explained "I seen plenty of people who needed killing, but I never seen any money that needed stealing".

[Sonosailor]

I've been through St.Lucia a couple of times this cruising season, and while enjoying sundowners in view of this guy's abandoned boat, the topic comes up often. I have a rumour to report.

Now, please understand that I only read the first 17 pages of this thread before I couldn't stand it any longer, so maybe the following was reported. I also must apologize for spreading rumours, but even if it is not true, it does suggest what could also be an unreported fact that might have eliminated over half the posts.

Here goes:

The widely held belief of the cruisers who enjoy Rodney Bay, St. Lucia year after year is that the dead man's wife was on the boat at the time of the visit.

Terrible of me to report that rumour, but it does seem appropriate to share it. Was it posted in the portion of the threads I passed up?

[Sonosailor]

I can also report that the dog is on board all alone, and that the Customs launch visits once every day or so to feed it. I do not know all the facts, but I feel most strongly for the dog, spending so much time alone on that boat. Still, he is being better treated than many of the pets in these islands, I guess.

Surely the dog is innocent.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

Oh please. Last sentence is nonsense, your previous diatribe bellies you. We honestly don't want you... Please go to the better place you obviously believe is there... They need you badly!

Can we get back to the thread? When a foreign cruiser is imprisoned for this long in the u.s. without even a hearing we can beat up on the US then! Oh and watch the public outcry cause the DA to poop or get off the pot!

Thats telling'um Fat Cat!

[Group9]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Prisons are full of lots of folks who did not think ahead. Not all of them of course, but lots of low hanging fruit. To be fair to law enforcement most of the folks they come accross are not innocent and often enough come with a crime attached - and therefore they don't need to be a Sherlock Holmes or Columbo (perhaps fortunately? ) to unravel the story sufficient to then head folks off into the rest of legal system (and off their desk!).

Anyway, a bit of thread drift - remind me how that being totally honest thing is working out for Eric .

I'm still waiting to find a guilty man in prison.

[minaret]

Originally Posted by Sonosailor

I can also report that the dog is on board all alone, and that the Customs launch visits once every day or so to feed it. I do not know all the facts, but I feel most strongly for the dog, spending so much time alone on that boat. Still, he is being better treated than many of the pets in these islands, I guess.

Surely the dog is innocent.

The family has visited several times and they didn't take care of his dog? After all this time?!

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by ElGatoGordo

Can you site the evidence of a foreign cruiser being held in Gitmo? Now, foreign fighters of the battle field yes... Different subject, but carry on.... You're making quite the fool of yourself :-)

Oops you're too slow! Hehehe

Now, Now, there are no "fighters" in Gitmo, as that would be a contravention of the Geneva convention, and we couldnt have that could we, They are all enemy combatants. Keep with the program.!!!

Dave

[hellosailor]

"But your theoretical cruiser WOULD have a hearing in a reasonable time to at least openly DETERMINE if he were a flight risk. "

Ah, Gordo? Are you perhaps overlooking the obvious here?

A CRUISER, someone who is an admitted VAGRANT residing ON A VESSEL which moves around with ease? Can only be defined as a flight risk. The guy is living on a means of transportation, has been moving around, is intending to move further around...I can't see a better definition of a flight risk, no debate needed by the courts anywhere.

Now, if it was a land-owner, someone with long-term roots in a fixed community and assets that were not portable ? You might debate the flight risk, the cost of abandoning it all and fleeing. But someone on a boat? They're already in motion, and if they've got any brains, damned straight they should have pulled anchor and left before the police ever came around to enquire!

[hellosailor]

"a contravention of the Geneva convention"

Dave, maybe I've been misinformed, but my understanding is that the Geneva Conventions (plural) bind the signatories, and only the signatories, and only with regard to wars. Which are formally declared by the signatories.

Since the US hasn't been formally at war since WW2, the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Since the Jihadi Imams and their ilk are not sovereigns, are not signatories, and cannot declare war in any traditional sense because of this, again the Conventions don't apply.

Bottom line? If they want the protections available under "the rules", first they have to sign them and comply with them. Homicide bombers and hijackings won't be allowed under those rules. Decisions, decisions...