13 Tons

[Sandman_SBM]

 http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010515/ts/crime_cocaine_dc.html

Okay... I'm confused. How does a ship 500 miles off the coast get siezed? If international water begins at 12 miles, how does the Coast Guard establish jurisdiction?

It's okay for a U.S. surveillance aircraft to patrol off the coast at 12 miles and everyone rants about "free passage", but a "fishing ship" that doesn't behave like it's fishing is okay to be boarded at 500 miles? I guess we don't hear about the ships that are boarded only to find nothing.

Hell... the ship wasn't even bound for the U.S. It was headed for Columbia or Mexico.

This just seems wrong.



------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs
The SBM's are hiring!

[Staga]

We have a slogan here; "Intentions sanctifies course of events", Not sure what would be the exact translation.
_____________________________ ________________
International law:
5.4.3 High Seas
Historically thought to belong to no one.
res communis, res nulis
Article 87 sets out the freedom of the high seas.
Article 87 states that high seas begin after the 200 mile economic zone.
States have jurisdiction over their own ships on the high seas
Exceptions:
Any state could stop a pirate or a slave trader.
Principle of Hot Pursuit. The right to arrest a vessel that violates the territorial sea of state which flees to international waters.
_____________________________ ________________

I just wonder how they are going to justifie that seize?

[Staga]

Ah the link: http://ollis.uottawa.ca/student_res/3000/int_law.html#54

[blur]

Of course its wrong but then again might makes right.

Incidentally if this ship were heading for the US, it would have had clear sailing, as all the proper authorities would have been paid off.  

[Staga]

Article 108 of International law:
 
Illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances
1. All States shall co-operate in the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances engaged in by ships on the high seas contrary to international conventions.

2. Any State which has reasonable grounds for believing that a ship flying its flag is engaged in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances may request the co-operation of other States to suppress such traffic.
_____________________________ ________________

Ship was under Belize's flag so if Belize didn't ask help in this case it looks like U.S Coast Guard's ship's crew could be sued as a piracy. WTG  

I'm happy they could stop that load of drugs thought it looks the way they did it was against intl. laws.
Does the suspected cargo of that ship justifie the seize of that ship? No.

[Dinger]

Guys, the US does this regularly, even when the substance isn't illegal at its port of destination.

[miko2d]

 Come on, guys. Do you know how much cocaine is produced? A lot. It practically grows on the trees!
 If we let the cocaine in unopposed, the drop in price will be so huge that it will wipe any profits caused by increase in volume.
 Drug lords could hardly sink their own ships because it is bad for employee morale and sinking rival drug-lord's ships is apparently not considered a polite thing to do. So the US coast guard/customs are the only thing left to keep them in business, based of course on our druf-friendly legislation.
 We do it for free, they do not lose face and do not feel obligated to take on the US navy, like they would have with a rival. The prices are kept high, our boys get their medals, everybody is happy.
 We probably knew what kind of cargo that ship would be carrying an where even before it was loaded and the crew hired - from one drug lord or another.

 miko

[Staga]

Hmm....

I'm going to cruise to the Estonia in next weekend. Maybe one of U.S Coast Guard's ships could seize that ship and tow it to Florida from Bay of Finland? Not sure if there are any drugs (propably some) but at least there are plenty of booze and cigarettes  

[Ripsnort]

US Coast Guard uses a "Ship Profile" developed to "guard" against this sort of shipment.  They are effective.  In alot of cases, these ships offload their cargo to smaller vessels that then 'import' the cargo to the US.  It's easier to get the major source prior to offloading.

Kudos to the Guard.

[Ripsnort]

Pyro, feel free to jump in this conversation, being an ex-Guardy, I'd like to know your opinion on this matter.

[StSanta]

Well, we have international law. You either respect the law or you don't. It's a bit hypocritic to hunt down law breakers and in doing so, becoming one.

The soluton to the drug problems in the US is not to seize vessels.

Quite simply it's a problem not so much of of limiting import, but limiting demand.

If the US has honest objective courts, these guys should walk away due to a wrongful arrest. Might even get compensation  .

Wonder why the US felt they couldn't track it on radar and wait as it got close instead?

------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Ripsnort]

 

Originally posted by StSanta:



Quite simply it's a problem not so much of of limiting import, but limiting demand.

Santa, now your opening up a big can of "Social" worms (no, not the kind residing in your pants)....the "Drug" culture of the 1960's changed the U.S. despite what the defenders of 'their' generation say.

[Pyro]

You guys are making a big leap in logic that this ship was boarded with no authority and that Belize and the U.S. are not acting in cooperation.  Getting permission from Belize to board the ship is not a huge obstacle.  It is very much covered in the treaty that Staga points out.  The U.S. also operates, or at least has in the past, drug interdiction aircraft out of Belize.  Do you also think that the U.S. just deploys those planes there without permission from Belize?  

Whether it's an effective way to combat the drug trade is totally different argument.



------------------
Doug "Pyro" Balmos
HiTech Creations

[Tac]

won wei!

[Hamish]

 

Originally posted by Pyro:
You guys are making a big leap in logic that this ship was boarded with no authority and that Belize and the U.S. are not acting in cooperation.  Getting permission from Belize to board the ship is not a huge obstacle.  It is very much covered in the treaty that Staga points out.  The U.S. also operates, or at least has in the past, drug interdiction aircraft out of Belize.  Do you also think that the U.S. just deploys those planes there without permission from Belize?  

Whether it's an effective way to combat the drug trade is totally different argument.

CC Pyro, I was sitting on my ship here in San Diego when the USCG pulled in to port with that boat in tow. Was quite a scene here with all the armed guards standing around the drugs. What most people might not understand is that we (the U.S.) have treaties with many countries allowing us to do exactly what happened with that boat. All nice and legal. I highly doubt those guys that i saw marched off in handcuffs are going to be getting off lightly at all, and definately without compensation. <S> USCG
(My ship just got back late last year from Counter-Drug ops in the south pacific)


Hamish!
U.S.N. Active Duty