Home land security?

[capt lar]

rich - i agree they have the legal authority. it is a question of how they use that authority. i did a web search to try and find more info on this story and came up empty. i did find articles dealing with the monterey c.g. and their relations with fishermen and others. seems this could be an escalation of an ongoing problem specific to monterey. if it were me, i would contact my congressman. part of this tension is somehow tied to commercial fishermen and around here they are well supported by their elected officials. i believe Congressman Sam Farr represents you in Washington. his office should respond to your inquiries, assuming you do it right. capt. lar

[Richhh]

Being a conservative (actually a 'reformed' liberal) It absolutely rankles me how this "Patriot Act' has essentially totally removed the "probable cause" portion of search and seizure rules. This has been challenged in the courts and has been upheld that essentially if not specifically INSIDE your home any law enforcement officer can stop and search you including a 'witch-hunt' for contraband, etc.etc. etc. ... and now needs NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO DO SO !!!!!!!!!!!

What is happening all over the USA is many 'municipal authorities' have begun to use these new rules to enhance their 'income'. It is now perfectly legal for a police department set up (at any time and anywhere) a wholesale road-block and 'examine' all the drivers and passengers for proper ID, insurance cards, valid inspection, etc. etc. etc. and freely search the vehicle for 'contraband' .... and NO probable cause is needed !!!!!!!!!!! Astoundingly federal courts have upheld these 'new' procedures as completely legal and totally within the law. The (dreaded) ACLU wont even touch this issue. PROBABLE CAUSE as a first requirement of search and seizure is no longer a legally required prerequisite for search and seizure outside of ones domicile in the USA. I realize that the USA is in a downward rush to Socialism but I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany.

I live in a very conservative area, am a conservative, and am totally outraged that the laws have been so twisted to allow this 'police state' to arise. And whats more aggravating is that the local municipal authorities are gleefully using this as a prime means to increase their 'income' ....nothing more than a *police state for greed*. Whats missing in the Patriot Act is the statement or definition that the citizens of this country for the purposes of 'security' shall now be deemed as PREY SPECIES for law enforcement agencies and hungry 'tax bases' .... at least THAT would be honest.

I'll bet the farm that the Monterry situation was nothing more than that city saw the chance to make a bust (think fines and penalty charges) and since they have no 'navy' called in the CG who must act/respond so when requested. Ill also bet the farm that Monterrey is in dire need to fill its tax coffers .... and thats the ultimate reason for this.

Thank you Patriot Act. I feel a lot safer now - NOT. George III wasnt THIS crazy!!!!

Rich, first. In this area, the tax coffers are pretty healthy, but California is not known for it's tact when generating revenue. Probable cause statutes still apply, but have been greatly expanded, although this has never applied to vessels.
As for the ACLU, I have received numerous requests from ACLU attorneys to present this case. I did not really want to take that route, but based on the Coast Guard's stance that they have no intension of curtailing this behavior, I may have no other option. I have decided that I want to do something about it. My overall opinion of the Patriot Act, and it's creators is not very good, but even that aside, this goes way beyond. As for spiraling into socialism, I disagree. Maybe Marxism, but true socialism (not the modern version) would never stand for what the current administration is feeding us. I think we are moving closer to a dictatorship if anything.
Capt Lar, they have made it clear that they do not feel this is misuse of their authority, and plan to expand on such searches.
To the best of my knowledge, the Monterey Coasties have a reasonable relationship with the local fishermen, and they seem to have boarded more pleasure vessels than commercial boats. You are correct about Sam Farr, and he is the right guy for the job. I have been thinking about contacting him all day. Good call. I would also mention to anyone who is interested, every letter I have written to a representitive has been answered. They do listen.
Alaskadog, THe Herald has an online version, but it requires a subscription. After the followup article comes out, I will email you a copy of the article for your personal use.
Richhh, thanks for the info and the links. It has always been SOP for this government to keep exceptions on hand. At least since the Al Capone days. It is only recently, since the US Coast Guard was reclassified under Homeland Security, that they have to answer to anyone. The reg. you mentioned reads any vessel in navigable, or waters having access to navigable US waters. This 20 year old basis for such action is ready for a change.

[Starbuck]

sneuman posted:

Jeff,

It's obvious from your post that you feel…

And then you go on to dress me in brown shirt and tell the board how I'm goose-stepping down Main-stradden saluting the Furher. You can't possibly have used an open mind to read my original post: the only way to come to the slanderous comments you direct at me is to have seen my post through a narrow and biased lens. You speak without knowledge. If I had time, I'd be offended, but I'm too busy laughing and trying to wipe the splatter off myself.

Paul, your open mind regarding my words, and gentle and dispassionate comments in an attempt to keep this thread calm and reasonable, have earned my respect. I know that at least one reader here took my post for what it was intened to be: a counterpoint to establish perspective and encourage discussion. You're an adult.

nockerwhite, my understanding of the events surrounding the tube shooting were based on just the initial reporting. I'm always open to information that sheds light: we didn't get any follow-up news about the shooting over here (and I haven't checked my BBC newspage recently, being too busy following our unfolding hurricane story); I must admit that sounds like sorry policing.

Your descriptions of the craziness in your society following liberal influence on property rights tells me you understand why the gun-owning segment of our own culture eyes our left with suspicion.

Kai Nui, I'm very sympathetic to your situation, but you may be making a terrible mistake: the US Supreme Court's job is not to "re-interpret the laws," but rather to intrepret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to current law. If you assume re-intrepretation, you assume change, whether needed or not, and that's just what we must resist doing in our reading of this founding document. It doesn't take many re-interpretations to lose any shred of original intent, and then the words mean anything (and therefore, nothing). Please forgive me if I'm reading too much into your use of this term.

I am uneasy about the apparent sweeping executive power of the CG, but if it is so established in time and case law, it will be very dificult to dismantle, especially in today's nervous climate. I wish you luck.

That being said, I understand why increased security in our country is so necessary, and I'm not surprised to learn of the difficulty that our large and historically independent bureacracies (sp?) are having in coordinating themselves toward a common goal (sadly, we've seen the same happen with the hurricane rescue/relief effort, though I'm not as critical as some). Excesses like these will likely be ironed out as our services gain confidence in the new reality in which they must function. Or, one would hope.

BTW, the Achilles heel of socialism/communism is that they persist in a utopian view of human nature, i.e., they start off with the idea that people are good deep down inside. But it's easier to make the case that human nature is deeply flawed, and will never be perfected by our own efforts. We will always need law to punish evil and promote good, just to stay even.

[Alan Wheeler]

Boy's boy's boy's, can we perhaps let this thread sink to the bottem. As I have stated before, argueing Politics is too detrimental on a BB like this. When arguing Politics, there are no winners, no one totaly right, no one totaly wrong and plenty of losers left in the wake of the argument.
Come on guy's.
I wish I could buy a round.

[Matt Hager]

Wheels,

I will take a shot of Teqila and a Fosters!

Matt

[sneuman]

Hmmm, Jeff. No, I wasn't thinking of Hitler. I was thinking more along the lines of Stalin's 1930s purges.

Capt Jeff, well stated, and I appreciate your viewpoint. I may have mis-spoken when I said "re-interpret" My intent was to say that the Supreme Court Interprets existing laws as to their application to modern and constantly changing society. That very specific phrasiology was brought up in the John Roberts Confirmation hearings today.
Wheels, and the rest, I really did not want this to turn into a political discussion. My intent here is to make as many people as possible as possible, aware that this new procedure is beginning, and that the Coasties have every intention of expanding on the use of their powers.
Regardless of your political beliefs, knowing that things like this are comng down the pike is useful information. If you agree with it, go ahead and support it. If you do not, and I think it is clear where I stand, let people know that you do not.
If the consensus is to let it die, I will, but if people are interested, I will continue to post the facts. I will make every attempt to avoid expressing any further political opinions, but I will make the information available.

[capt lar]

i did not enter into this thread early on because i agree this is a forum for sailing. the treatment of liveaboards is a valid issue and one that has been discussed before. i am glad you are getting your facts together. your statement "the Coasties have every intention of expanding on the use of their powers" is, imo, too general. i think, from what i have been able to learn so far, you have a local problem and i suspect the problem is your local cg commander who already had a "gun ho" attitude and now finds he is blessed with more authority. i suspect that, as you dig, you may well find he (or she) is the one that, due to new powers and his federal authority, is raising the bar and involving other agencies. keep working and get the facts. if my guess is right, you will need federal help to reel him in. thats why i suggested Congressman Sam Farr. i would also speak with the mayor's office and get a petition started. you might also check on the commercial fisherman who refused to let the CG board because he was tired of being harassed. he is now headed to federal court - not the way to play, but your earlier comment that commercial guys are happy seems to contradict this story. capt. lar

Thanks Capt Lar, the very fact that you have researched it, means that my post accomplishe what I wanted. I am in process of writing my letter to Sam Farr, and hope to send it by Friday, but I want to see the Herald's story first, so I have as much info as possible. So far, you are right about it being local. I have not heard of any other situations, and you are also right that federal intervention will be needed.
As for the fishermen, they are not particularly happy with the Coast Guard, but they have a reasonable repore. The fisherman you are speaking of was the exception more than the rule, but no one likes to be boarded.

[capt lar]

i spent a few years in city government once i stopped screwing around with boats. mayors can talk to state reps or governors and they, in turn, can talk to feds you never know who knows who and who doesn't like who and what else is going on but if an issue is raised from several different voices, it gets noticed. whenever you are getting beat on, be certain you are never the only one. (except maybe in the southport raw bar - but thats another story) capt. lar

Now THAT sounds like a story worth hearing

[Alan Wheeler]

Just to be clear, I am not saying this discussion should not be. I am happy (who am I anyway) that you have brought this issue up and I think that is good. But I am just voicing concern of political arguments where they get out of hand. Maybe it wasn't, but it just looked like it was on the edge of something more heated a few posts back, and hence my comment. Feel free to discuss the issue, I have no concern over that. Providing Gord is happy as ultimately, he is the moderator, not I.
Now in saying that, if I can wade in here. I think it is sad that something like originaly described, has taken place. It doesn't matter where you live, Law's designed to protect the inocent can also go very wrong for the Inocent. We have a case here in NZ right now. A man was talking on a Phone and someone elses conversation broke over top. He heard someone plotting a crime and so as a good citizen, went to the police with all the details. Unfortunetly, the good citizen has now been charged with breaching privacy. Just ot be clear, the Police themselves did not lay the charge.

[delmarrey]

I welcome aboard the CG. They can board my vessel anytime I have nothing to hide! I'd even offer them a beer if they weren't on duty.

What's the big deal? They are trying to keep us safe and if one has something to hide then so be it! Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Living up here by the Canadian border I see Canadian boats crossing over all the time and who knows who they are. When I crossed over into Canada last month I had the CCG approach my vessel but looked me over and went on. I don't see the same thing happening on this side of the line. So what are the rules in other countries and what justifies these complaints above.

I think we're pretty fortunate for what we can do and have.

[Jentine]

When the laws regarding boarding of vessels by the Coast Guard, then known as the Cutter Revenue Service, were enacted, the nation was young. We no longer live in those times. Citizens, and that is the crux of the matter, citizens, now live aboard their boats and it is home. Citizens have certain rights. One is the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. Entering one's home without a warrant is criminal. I don't care who enters or what the circumstances are, wrongful entering is criminal. You would be very upset if the Provincial police or the RCMP rousted you in the middle of the night with no warrant, no reasonable search and seizure and no authority of any kind other than "we want to look around" or thier favorite "safety check". However it is viewed, it is a police intrusion of the worst kind.
Security of this kind we can live without. Boarding an American flagged vessel on the high seas to inspect for contarband is not the same as barging into one's home in the middle of the night at a dock. We fought many wars to prevent this type of tyrannical law enforcement. We as a nation, have a duty to rally against this unlawful behavior.
I am forwarding a copy of my response and Kai Nui's original complaint to my Congressman and Senators. I urge all Americans to do the same. An injustice against one citizen is an injustice against all.
Jim Kane