US challenge of international maritime law

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Dowding
What? Now you've changed your tune. The crews must be on ships destined for US ports - why should there be a law prohibiting the forced disclosure of information about such ship's crews?

We're talking about the authority to perform 'anytime, anywhere, any place' searches, that has nothing to do with ships destined for the US.

Seriosuly Dowd, See
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by john9001
"""Under present laws it is only legal for nations to stop and search foreign ships suspected of carrying weapons of mass destruction within their 12-mile territorial limit. """

thats not true, if you get permission from the country of registration, you can stop the ship in international waters, US Coast Guard does it all the time.
if the ship flys no flag, it can be stopped anytime, anywhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).

Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!


Now, think about a ship, that was destined for the U.S. with a legit cargo but which was hijacked and a nuke put aboard and we had intel about that hijacking.  Do you really think we need to ask someone for permission to take care of it or does any other country for that matter, if they are the target.?  Likewise, what if a ship that wasn't going to the U.S. was hijacked, and we got intel that it was hijacked and a nuke put aboard to blow up something in the U.S.  Do you seriously think that ANY country in the world that had the wherewithall would hesitate to take care of it?  Intl law is a series of treaties is all.  Ther is no International Constitution or Magna Carta.  It's just agreements between two or more countries.  If we deem it in our best interest to break a treaty for national security, we must do so, just like the UK or France, or must also do so.

Sorry the world isn't Utopia yet.  Maybe someday.

[-dead-]

Originally posted by rpm371
The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, "The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels).

 Basicly, what that says is there is no limit to where a U.S. Coast Guard vessel can stop and inspect ANY ship ANYWHERE on the High Seas. It all depends on the mission. SEMPER PARATUS!

As I understand it, 14 USC 89 only applies to "any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States." ie only those vessels flagged in the US.

"Under admiralty law, the ship's flag determines the source of law. For example, a ship flying the American flag in the Persian Gulf would be subject to American admiralty law; and a ship flying a Norwegian flag in American waters will be subject to Norwegian admiralty law. This also applies to criminal law governing the ship's crew. But the ship must be flying the flag legitimately; that is, there must be more than insubstantial contact between the ship and its flag, in order for the law of the flag to apply. American courts may refuse jurisdiction where it would involve applying the law of another country, although in general international law does seek uniformity in admiralty law."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/admiralty.html

[Torque]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.

I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.

I think niether of you two know the slightest thing about the war of 1812 or that it actually lasted for over three years. If you don't even know the history between your neighbour then how do you expect to understand a country ten thousand miles away?

Five major invasion attempts by Ameican forces over a three year period which all failed. The last battle on Canadian soil took place on Aug 1 1814 in Lundy's Lane and it was the bloodiest of them all and by the end of the fighting the Americans forces had retreated leaving their dead and wounded behind to rot on the battlefield.

A few weeks later Washington DC was invaded and somewhat burnt to the ground, you probably don't even know how the name "White House" came aboot, eh.

Sounds like a winner... oh btw did you know it was a signed Republican declaration of War that was opposed by congress, somethings never change.

carry on poindexter...

[Vulcan]

So how long before someone like Libya says whats good for the goose is good for the gander and decides to 'intercept' foreign ships at will.

And does this legitimize North Koreas actions in international waters.

I think you yanks are treading on thin ice on this one.

While I backed the war in Iraq, remember no WMDs have been found to date. Now is not a good time to legitimize what many would consider piracy.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Vulcan
So how long before someone like Libya says whats good for the goose is good for the gander and decides to 'intercept' foreign ships at will.

And does this legitimize North Koreas actions in international waters.

I think you yanks are treading on thin ice on this one.

While I backed the war in Iraq, remember no WMDs have been found to date. Now is not a good time to legitimize what many would consider piracy.

Yes what happens when North Korea decides to search US flagged vessels outside it's waters...or China decides to search Taiwanese vessels..or even Japanese vessels in international waters for "illegal" weapons?

 Tronsky

[takeda]

JOIN THE NAVY!

[_Schadenfreude_]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Hehe.. thats not how the history books in Canada see it.

I think 1812 was one of those wars we "won" by hanging on longer than the Brits wanted to fight.

Perhaps using an example of a smaller nation fighting off a larger one seen as an opressor is not the best example to use.....however I think the outcome will be the same - the side that lasts the longest and has the ability to take the most casualties will win, the loser will in the end leave.

Pretty much the way it's always been - personally I think that one of the qualifications for running a country is undergraduate degree in modern history, if it's a super power you're running then a degree in both ancient and modern would save everyone a lot a grief.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Torque
I think niether of you two know the slightest thing about the war of 1812 or that it actually lasted for over three years.

you probably don't even know how the name "White House" came aboot, eh.

Sounds like a winner...

Sounds like a whiner to me.  Torque, you really torqued me off.  I'm telling W that I have intelligence that says Canuckians, and you specifically, have WMDs. Since Canuckian practice  is to let every terrorist in the world come to Canada to get to the US, that ought to be justification enough for a redux of the 1812 exercise.

Oh, and the White House is called that because it isn't green or purple, or red, or brown!

Oh, and don't you know that MT is right!  Sheesh!:rolleyes:



Tsk tsk tsk.
We were kidding dude!.  Get a clue dude!
Dude!

[Nilsen]

Track the suspect ships while they are in international waters using satelites, predators Pc3's or whatever and grab them as soon as they reach someones waters if that country will allow.

It may cost more but you don't step on anyones toes.

When i was active in the navy we did it all the time and still do.

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
Track the suspect ships while they are in international waters using satelites, predators Pc3's or whatever and grab them as soon as they reach someones waters if that country will allow.

It may cost more but you don't step on anyones toes.

When i was active in the navy we did it all the time and still do.

Is it 12 miles or 200 miles.  I foreget?  Does it depend on who you ask?  Isn't 12 miles the Internaitoanlly recognized boundary but some,say up to 200?

[Nilsen]

For us this is our responsibility: 200nm

Bluezone..

[Syzygyone]

Originally posted by Nilsen10
For us this is our responsibility: 200nm

Bluezone..

Hey, can I use that in the Diplomacy game.
I can kick em all out of the North Sea!

[Nilsen]

lol, sure