Boarded in international waters

The US negotiated the laws of the Convention and did most of the legwork. But we are a nation of individuals and some of us, after reading the thing, decided that we were giving away too many of our rights and opening up ourselves to taxation in our own EEZ, handing over more power to the UN, and willingly ceding sovereignty as I see it. In general, you'll find support or lack thereof along party lines. "Thus beyond 12nm, it is international waters." - nope, 200. Though the US HAS NOT RATIFIED the treaty, it honors almost all the provisions thereof. For practical purposes, there is no pressing need to ratify it that outweighs the negatives of the remaining provisions.
"They act with impunity hoping no one will challange them." - Couldn't care less who challenges us. Well, actually, I suppose they do - it is in our interest to get along. Other than that, we'll negotiate through diplomatic channels any problems, in the mean time, It's recommended that you not bring that brick of cocaine inside of 200 or in large swaths of the Pacific or in most of Central and South America. The US has more territorial seas than any other country, in fact, more territorial seas than we have country and the CG is getting more rigid and militarily disciplined in their enforcement and boardings.
Was the .50 actually pointed right at you? I would have words with someone and documentation/witnesses. There is no call for that ****. Seriously, close enough to be readily brought on target but not right at you should be the standard.
Thanks, Kludge and Ike.

 

The thing that worries me is that it's not given right, it's taken... so it's kind of piracy. If anyone else made such act's US would screaming after justice and revenge
Not denying the benefits of USCG act's to public safety but tastes bit of totalitarism to me..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBIk8n8BojA

 

The US signed the treaty on Sept 15th 1958.

It has minor issues with certain countries, such as:
"The reservation made by the Government of Mexico in its instrument of accession."
11 July 1974

apart from these minor exceptions, it is a fully signed up member state.

 

That's a tiny detail that can be useful to remember...

I was once beeing more or less slapped around by some Austrian costoms officers... They had a bad day, which made my day unreasonable bad. One eventually pulled out a Walther P38, pushed ito my face/ eye, when he retreated it took a time to focus on the fact that he'd actually had done that that.. and that it was in the hands of an "official". I can tell you that its best to play along, be polite, etc... The fellow with the (biggest) gun always sets the rules. I even tried to start an easy conversation with him at that time. As a suggestion, when in Austria, steer clear of the following line (as a conversation starter):

"Hitler came from this area? didn't he?"

That line has been thoroughly tested, didn't then and probably still, doesn't work...

 

Good story Knut. Bad day though.

I have only had one unfavorable experience with govt officials and it was in my own country. Everywhere else I have traveled (mostly western Europe, Australia, Middle East) has been a positive experience.

When flying back from Australia just before 9/11, I had to stop in Los Angeles (LAX), as all those flights do before proceeding on to the east coast of the US. There were some cattle corrals to walk through and some were set up poorly and I was also tired. I went on the wrong side of one of the corrals and kept following it. Suddenly, I was behind the customs officials and asked for some help to find my way back to the right part of the "cow path" I was supposed to take.

Well, they didn't like that I came from the back like that and decided to give me the 1/2 hour grilling and tearing apart of all my luggage. These were the days before this was expected, so I was pretty indignant. After such a long flight, I was angry that they would cause my to miss my connection to get home.

They were asking me questions doubting my citizenship so, I said things like, "what are you going to do? Deport me?" "Go ahead... ha ha ha" They actually took it and didn't make me stay longer, like they would do these days. They let me pack my stuff back up and sent me on my way. I just barely caught the connecting flight, but was able to by running.

Within the US, I am noticing a far more pressing problem with the local police forces, especially in FL. Aside from all the boarding they do (armed, without permission), I have seen countless cars on the side of the road completely torn apart. They take out the seats and everything, tearing cars to pieces. Who pays to put them back together if the victim doesn't have the skills to do so? Who pays for damage they cause your vehicle when dismantling it? They are also allowed to steal your money (cash) because they view cash as probable cause for a crime or something. The world is becoming a very disturbing place.

Drifting way off topic for a moment... the worst travel experience I have every had (except massive stomach problems in Israel) was on an El Al flight back from Tel Aviv. I had this Hasidic Jew behind me in a 4 person deep line for the bathroom. There was someone in the bathroom, 2 people in front of me, myself and then him. While standing there for a while waiting, he reached out and started pushing on my back. Little nudges, pushing me forward. He kept doing this all the way until I was in the bathroom, waiting for several other people. I don't know how I didn't punch the guy. I was the most difficult "you have to adapt to the other culture" experience I have ever had.

Anyway, I think I did say everything the more fancy posters said about why the USCG can board you, just in more conversational language.

 

Yes michael, Most of what the USCG does never makes the evening news. How many of you know the name Nathan Bruckenthal. Died in Iraq. Or Vietnam ( http://www.uscg.mil/history/faqs/VietnamKIA.asp) But that wasn't reported by the major news media. They prefer stories about lewd videos on the Carrier Enterprise. Or the Coast guardsman in New London who happened to stumble on a drug transfer and ended up at the bottom of the harbor, One of the major drug seizures in the eighties involved a former CG cutte,r and latter a presidental yacht, turned ddrug runner, that was armed to the teeth and carrying electronic surveillance equipment that wasn;t even yet avaible to the Coast Guard. Fortunately most drug runners just throw the stuff over the side and run for it. But their had been incidents.

Anyway, I tire of this argument that has been going on for many many years (I am getting old and tired LOL). I am not an attorney. I am an engineer. I enforced laws for boat manufactuers and safe boating.

So you can cite laws all day and it doesn't really matter. You can say they don't have the authority, but I know this, There is hundreds of years of case law, and court decisions both US, and International in the Hague, and the US has very rarely lost. The CG authority has been upheld time and time again. So if you or anyone else thinks they have a case hire your attroney and take it to court. I will be more than happy to watch the outcome.

If you think you have been wronged write to

Commandant
US Coast Guard
2100 Second ST SW
Washington DC 20593

I assure your complaint will be given every consideration.

As for boardings at sea, none of this occurs in a vacuum. You might think so being woken by a loud bullhorn telling you to heave to, But what you don't see is;
You have probably been observed for many hours before.
The ship has been talking back and forth with the appropriate command ashore (southern command for Carribean and Central America) El paso Intelligence Center ( look that one up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Paso_Intelligence_Center),
In the case of foreign flag vessels, the State Department and the Embassy of the Flag State.
Run your vessel description through numerous databases and watch lists, DHS, FBI, DEA, NSA and so on.

Decisions to board are not done arbitrarily or without higher authority input, but when push comes to shove it's the "man on the scene" that makes the final decision.

So if they made a mistake, take it to a higher level. Don't ***** about on a forum. Do something constructive.

And Michael, places like in your youth still exist. For instance, in La Push Wa, a ltille fishing town on the coast, the CG not only provides the usual services, they are the fire department, the EMTs. the local telephone and utilities company, and the nearest law enforcement. The CG still delivers mail and medical services in remote villages in Alaska and does all the stuff they have always done. But as the recruiting ad says "and a whole lot more".

I used to envy the Station at Fort Lauderdale (now closed) right across the street from one of the best beaches in the country. My intro to the CG was talking to the coasties setting buoys for the hydroplane races on Lake Washington. Oh if it were only still like that. Unfortunately we live in a far different and far more dangerous world now. In my younger days (the 60's) I was a Shore Patrolman for the CG in New York City. We didn't even carry a gun (except when guarding the payroll) Can you even imagine that today? They sent our ships off to fight in vietnam with equipment that was installed in WWII. Now it's stingers and 20 mm automatic computer controlled weapons.

It's a far different world.

 

Ike: how can there be an undeclared war? That is against the Constitution in the USA. Either Congress of the President (if given extraordinary powers) has to declare war before an act of war is legal. Doesn't it amount to piracy within the scope of the Law?

 

You are right there, Teddy...they do it by force. I can understand how that would be irksome but they and the navy do what they do at a directive from powers above, who in turn (supposedly) are buffeted by whims and vagueries of citizens through politicians. They are looking out for our citizen's best interest and "piracy" may be a little strong of a word. They are mostly trying to do drug interdiction when they do things like they did to Gonzo.
Ad Hoc, thank you for teaching about my country's treaty history but UNCLOS l of 1956 didn't address the breadth of territorial waters. It did talk about contiguous zone (12 miles) but there were things in the earlier treaties not representative of interests of many other countries. There was a UNCLOS ll, which the US had problems with as it gave too much to the Russians, did not much address any other countries but Russia and US in intent, and was not ratified by the US, and now, lll which gives all the smaller nations their piece and supercedes earlier treaties and has not been ratified by the US.
This is not just about flexing muscle. Everything from fisheries (remember the Cod Wars with Iceland and England. Iceland was one of the first to say "Screw you - we'll make it 200 miles), to mineral rights to how a foreign sub must travel in the surface mode in another country's territorial waters. It is, in general, meant to be just a handy way to settle disputes and though the US has not ratified, it willing submits to binding third party arbitration. Mind you, lawyers will be involved.
To make it short, the treaties are not that bad in legaleze but I'm still not going to read them all (There are subparts to each UNCLOS). It is still debated on the floors of Congress to this day. Hillary Clinton made it part of her platform that she was going to fight to get it ratified (peace, love, "doing the right thing", VOTES - that kind of thing)
One thing is certain (First, I'd like to again thank Ike); we can't really call 'em the "Knee-Deep Navy" -These guys are seemingly everywhere! Gonzo, don't take it too hard, they are guys trying to do a job...and though I feel pointing the .50 at you was wrong, you really can address this through the channels Ike said and help the next guy get treated better. I know, a simple thing like the distinction of whether the gun was pointed AT you or off to the side is a big deal. One makes you pay attention, the other makes you crap.

 

The US and as a result the USCG is burdened with enforcing mutually agreed internaationl security standards on behalf of countries who do not have the resources to do it themselves. The US and European navies are off the coast of Somali, not to project power but to enforce laws that the Somalis cant enforce themselves . It will always be that way, the world is a messy place.
The British navy operates in the Caribbean. When the Royal Navy hails you in International waters its in your best interest to correctly respond and do what they ask you to do.

As far as having .50 caliber machine guns aimed at me..its NEVER happened and Ive been boarded many times. To avoid intimidaton... monitor the VHF , professionally respond when challenged, then do exactly what you are asked..

Many yachts are challeged simply because they are operated in an unproffesional manner. Transit a VTS zone without check in and they will challenge you. Check in, ping your AIS and enrole in AMVER to avoid hassle.
Anyone who resents this and feels its an intrusion of their personal freedom or right to freely roam the sea is a fool. The navies and coast guards of the world enforce the very rules that allow you the privilege to roam the sea at will... they supervise the system that allows you to press the EPIRB button and be rescued on demand.

 

In the Barcelona World Race that just started in Open 60's this just happened:

From Scuttlebutt last night:

MIRABAUD: Dominque Wavre (SUI) and Michèle Paret (FRA) have reported that their IMOCA Open 60 Mirabaud had been boarded on Monday by Moroccan customs officials. Approximately 48 miles east of the entrance to the Straits of Gibraltar and 30 miles off the Moroccan coast, officials searched the boat over a period of around 35 minutes, opening many of the couple's vacuum sealed bags of food and equipment. After receiving a radio call the customs officials left the IMOCA Open 60 Mirabaud without any further explanation.

 

They were detained DURING the race, Doug? Holy cow. You know, the CG here will go so far as to ride alongside, wait for my convenience, ask me to slow down just enough to allow two of their officers to board from their skiff, then carry on as they run alongside. They are polite, professional, don't nitpick if a serious attempt has been made to have everything in order. In short, FAR AND AWAY the best agency by which to be boarded. (We have at least five agencies with guns and boats here by which I may reasonably expect to be boarded: NOAA/NMFS, Parks, Fish and Game, Troopers, and USCG.)

 

Gonzo: have you never heard of the War Powers Act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

The president as CIC has the authority to defend the US whenever it is necessary and this has been used many times since the beginning. However there are limits to his powers to continue to engage in hostilites. That is given to Congress.

Congress is supposed to be the one to say yae or nay on going to war, but they ceded much of that to the President in 1973 when they passed the War Powers Act. which Nixon vetoed but Congress overrode. It essentially gives the President authority to use armed force for up to 60 days. Then Congress has to do something, which is usually a resolution that says "carry on". That's how we got immersed in the Iraqi debacle and why Afghanistan has gone on so long. Congress has simply ceded away their responsibility. Then they turn around and ***** about the Presidency usurping Congress's authority.

Plus that they use other "reasons" to engage in war. One is to simply change the name. Korea was a UN police action. Vietnam was us exercising our Treaty obligations under SEATO. Grenada "invited" us in to get rid of the Cubans. (which was the same excuse used by the USSR to invade Afghanistan) Somalia was a humanitarian mission. Bosnia was a NATO action. Iraq was a Nato operation and so is Afghansitan. Listen to the news. They don't say, US troops killed, they say Nato troops killed.


Just thought I'd ad a note on territorial limits. There are all kinds of territorial limits under international maritime law. There is the well known 12 mile limit which grew out ofd the 3 mile limit (which was how far your could shoot a shore based gun) There is a 50 mile "zone" that deals with pollution and spills and fisheries. Then there is the 200 mile economic zone , which by the way has been adopted by all the maritime nations. Under international law a country has the right to exercise some (not all) control of economic activity, mostly fishing and oil exploration, off of its coast especially on the continental shelF (example Russia planting their flag on the Artic sea floor and saying it's theirs. But that ignores Norway's claim to the same area) This does not prohibit foreign vessels from transiting these areas.

There are all kinds of exceptions. The two most common are Force Majeure (Being forced to take refuge due to circumstances beyond your control such as a hurricane) and Right of Innocent Passage. Some straits fall within the territorial limits of nations but foreign ships have the right to transit them. Probably the most famous are the Starits of Gibralter and the Dardinelles. The big hubbub now is the South China Sea. China is trying to assert authority over the South China Sea which would prohibit other Navies (such as the US pacific fleet) from going there and limit shipping transiting the sea.

This is a very complex area of maritime law and I do not pretend to be an authority on it. But you can bet if you get boarded and they cite one of these restrictions, they had some other reasonn for boarding you.

 

"Iraq was a Nato operation and so is Afghansitan. Listen to the news. They don't say, US troops killed, they say Nato troops killed."
Iraq wasn't NATO, IKE. It was a coalition that severely stressed NATO because the UN wouldn't do it's duty and allowed Saddam to thumb his nose at inspections with the result that there was a reasonable expectation that he could have been hiding WMDs. Meanwhile, France had huge interests in Iraq and was against the movement.
The news reports say "NATO troops killed in Afghanistan" and we don't hear much about it because of media biases. When Bush was president it was the headline every day; "____ US Soldiers Killed Yesterday" - Be it Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

=================
Yeah, isn't that amazing?! And they were clearly in International waters.....

 

Yes, it was rude.