Coast Guard/DEA boardings

[Jim Cate]

Either way, US federal law still applies to all US documented vessels, no matter where they are.

I agree, but must point out that this does not exempt the vessel from being subject to local law when in foreign territorial waters... with the exception of the above mentioned areas of safety regs, etc.

Jim

[Boatswain2PA]

Originally Posted by SURV69

Thinking about it ... congress passing a law stating the Coast Guard can search ... without cause ANY U.S. "documented", ship(which, I'm sure that licensing is also a form of "documentation") ... .....

I wonder if the law is a "catch-all", law, cause at the moment no Coast Guard ship is going to stop and board and American, or anyone else's ship in another country's soveriegn(sp) space, without that county's permission, or because we've just invaded that country.

There is no law, at all, period, that says the CG can "search without cause". The constitution trumps everything. The CG can inspect for regulated items. The CG (and any LE agency) can search with a warrant, or with probable cause and exigent circumstances.

Yes, the law is a catchall that gives federal jurisdiction over US vessels anywhere. As an extreme example of this, if you watch the recent movie "The Martian", the astronaut talks about how, since he is on a US vessel he is, even on Mars, subject to federal law and the Coast Guard has authority over him. Ridiculous as it is, its true.

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

I agree, but must point out that this does not exempt the vessel from being subject to local law when in foreign territorial waters... with the exception of the above mentioned areas of safety regs.

Correct.

[Hearts Content]

Intolerance, how freedom dies.

Originally Posted by rwidman

A lot of anti government stuff has been posted here including some downright hatred.


We have a lot of freedoms in the USA and one of these is the freedom to leave and live somewhere else.


Don't let the transom hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Boatswain2PA

It means a bit more than that.

Correct that "the government of another country can prevent the USCG from boarding if the vessel is in the other country's water."

But federal law still applies on US documented vessels, even in foreign territorial waters. Two hypotheticals: First, in the unlikely even that a federal officer is on a US documented vessel in foreign territorial waters, they could enforce federal law. Second, if a federal crime was committed on a US documented vessel in foreign territorial waters....when that vessel left the foreign territorial waters and entered the high seas (or US waters) then the USCG (or other federal agencies) could then impose their jurisdiction..

Either way, US federal law still applies to all US documented vessels, no matter where they are.

Your entitled to your opinion ( just getting in first ) now lets just go with you being correct. 'IF' you are correct (and Jim is too), then there must be some form of legislation somewhere that backs you up with this claim? And please don't just quote some 300 section piece of legislation without indicating what your referring too.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Your entitled to your opinion ( just getting in first ) now lets just go with you being correct. 'IF' you are correct (and Jim is too), then there must be some form of legislation somewhere that backs you up with this claim? And please don't just quote some 300 section piece of legislation without indicating what your referring too.

The problem with quoting any law is that the citation would be out of context of regulatory or judicial interpretation. Kind of like if the law said "skippers wearing a red dress shirt....blah-blah" your logic would still not be enough to interpret it if you did not know that one court may have said that a Chinese flag wrapped around one's self constitutes "red dress shirt". Or another that a pink or red polka dot dress is also a "red shirt". Or even one red spot on an otherwise white shirt makes that shirt also red. Or that a T-shirt qualifies as a dress shirt. Etc, etc. Our courts tend to go over the cliff to pervert those simple definitions into thousands of pages of "interpretations".

After all look at the ways individual states or cities interpret, misinterpret and re-interpret a simple phrase of the Second Amendment - " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And of the 50 states only Vermont has it correct or near so - no permits required as permitting means that something is not "as of right". While NYC or Chicago not to mention the Federal government with their numerous weapons bans and permit/registration schemes act as though this Amendment was never enacted.

PS Least I be accused of being pro-gun I am not. I am pro-Constitution and believe that if we want less weapons among our civilian population we must first amend the Constitution to achieve this, not to subvert it as, IMO, the ends never justify the means.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

The problem with quoting any law is that the citation would be out of context of regulatory or judicial interpretation. Kind of like if the law said "skippers wearing a red dress shirt....blah-blah" your logic would still not be enough to interpret it if you did not know that one court may have said that a Chinese flag wrapped around one's self constitutes "red dress shirt". Or another that a pink or red polka dot dress is also a "red shirt". Or even one red spot on an otherwise white shirt makes that shirt also red. Or that a T-shirt qualifies as a dress shirt. Etc, etc. Our courts tend to go over the cliff to pervert those simple definitions into thousands of pages of "interpretations".

After all look at the ways individual states or cities interpret, misinterpret and re-interpret a simple phrase of the Second Amendment - " the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". And of the 50 states only Vermont has it correct or near so - no permits required as permitting means that something is not "as of right". While NYC or Chicago not to mention the Federal government with their numerous weapons bans and permit/registration schemes act as though this Amendment was never enacted.

PS Least I be accused of being pro-gun I am not. I am pro-Constitution and believe that if we want less weapons among our civilian population we must first amend the Constitution to achieve this, not to subvert it as, IMO, the ends never justify the means.

What

[mako]

Originally Posted by rwidman

A lot of anti government stuff has been posted here including some downright hatred.

We have a lot of freedoms in the USA and one of these is the freedom to leave and live somewhere else.

Don't let the transom hit you in the a$$ on the way out.

Wow that's some serious close-minded, ultra-left thinking.

Freedom means we have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to question our authorities our government our president. Without that we eventually fall into an authoritarian society/dictatorship.

"America - Love it or leave it" Bull. Let's instead try "America - We love it and that's why we want to change it!"

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

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

None - zero - zip - zilch - diddly squat.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Boatswain2PA

A US documented vessel is a little piece of US sovereignty wherever it goes. If a murder happens on a US documented vessel while it is plying the inland waters of China, then US law applies. .

Bugger - the US guy I arrested on the US boat for unlawful wounding many many years ago should probably sue me then. The US boats carrying US citizens prosecuted for Quarantine and Customs Breaches should probably also sue.

[skipmac]

My understanding of the law.

The USCG under US law claims jurisdiction IE the power to enforce US laws, on any documented US vessel anywhere. They may make this claim, however to enforce that jurisdiction in another country's territory without permission of that country is not going to happen, at least not without causing a major international incident.

So the USCG may "technically" have jurisdiction over that vessel but in practical terms that power cannot be exercised until the vessel is outside the jurisdiction of any other country.

Also, of course the laws of that country will apply and on a practical basis take precedence while the vessel is in their territory.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by skipmac

My understanding of the law.

The USCG under US law claims jurisdiction IE the power to enforce US laws, on any documented US vessel anywhere. They may make this claim, however to enforce that jurisdiction in another country's territory without permission of that country is not going to happen, at least not without causing a major international incident.

So the USCG may "technically" have jurisdiction over that vessel but in practical terms that power cannot be exercised until the vessel is outside the jurisdiction of any other country.

Also, of course the laws of that country will apply and on a practical basis take precedence while the vessel is in their territory.

Im not asking about 'enforcement', im simply asking for legislative proof that the U.S 'claims' jurisdiction on any US vessel anywhere?

Am i asking too much

[Emmalina]

And you think you live in a democratic country ??????

[Dsanduril]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

Im not asking about 'enforcement', im simply asking for legislative proof that the U.S 'claims' jurisdiction on any US vessel anywhere?

Am i asking too much

Can't give you legislative proof, because legislation doesn't say it in so many words. But, case law, up through the Supreme Court, does. A little snippet below, but investigate United States v. Flores 289 U.S. 137 (1933):

4. The jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases extends to crimes committed on vessels of the United States while in navigable waters within the territorial jurisdiction of foreign sovereigns. P. 289 U. S. 150.

There's lots of discussion in that case about the commission of piracy and felonies, as defined under US law, while on a US vessel in foreign sovereign waters.

In this particular case the question was of a murder, committed aboard a US flagged vessel 250 miles upriver (pretty close to your inland Chinese lake) from the sea:

By indictment found in the District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, it was charged that appellee, a citizen of the United States, murdered another citizen of the United States upon the Steamship Padnsay, an American vessel,while at anchor in the Port of Matadi, in the Belgian Congo, a place subject to the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Belgium, and that appellee, after the commission of the crime, was first brought into the Port of Philadelphia, a place within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Court. By stipulation, it was conceded, as though stated in a bill of particulars, that the Padnsay, at the time of the offense charged, was unloading, being attached to the shore by cables at a point 250 miles inland from the mouth of the Congo river.

[SURV69]

Boatswain2PA... as you say ...

There is no law, at all, period, that says the CG can "search without cause".

But sometimes it takes a long long to find a Supreme Court that will adhere strictly to the Constitution ...

The screwy thing is if a future Supreme court rules that no-cause stops violate the 4th Amendment, they would actually be saying it has ALWAYS been unconstitutional ...

[darylat8750]

"What law, or laws, are you specifically referring too?

If your suggesting that all US laws apply to a person on their US flagged vessel, no matter what the country they are in is just bunker"

I'm not a lawyer or a Coastie but I think the issue here is that there is a difference between US laws "applying" and US laws "superseding" another countries law.

No one is saying US law supersedes a foreign countries law. Consider this. A US documented boat goes to Australia. While there they pick up a kilo of heroin at AU port A and take it to AU port B. The said boat is filmed or "ratted out" so that the local police are attempting to arrest the crew. The boat makes it to international waters before the local authorities can detain them. A US CG or US Navy ship sees the wanted vessel. The will detain the crew for violating US law even though the violation occurred in Australia. I doubt that they would turn the druggies over to the Australians but if both countries were pursuing the druggies when said druggies were still in Australian territorial waters and the USCG happened to chase the druggies back into AU waters before detaining them would most likely turn them over to the local authorities. When their time was served in Australia they would still face charges in the US.