In a message dated 7/3/00 8:19:07 PM Central Daylight Time, sjvan@csd.uwm.edu
writes:
> I once discussed the "ship option" with a licensed captain. His opinion
> was that it is next to useless...the Coast Guard by no means restricts
> itself to U.S. territorial waters, and can and will board vessels of *any*
> flag if it believes U.S. citizens are in danger or that U.S. law is being
> broken. It is actually *easier* to do such things in international
> waters, since they are obviously not invading anyone's soveriegn
> territory. The flag country has grounds to complain, but rarely does.
>
> Bear in mind the suspected terrorist that was lured into international
> waters and arrested a few years ago. In many ways the U.S. government has
> *more* power at sea. If they decide they want you...well, they just go
> *get* you.
These examples arise from efforts to interdict contraband or arrest violent
criminals. I suspect that the "leading maritime powers" would be quite leery
of this kind of behavior in connection with activities that took place
entirely on the high seas. I wouldn't look to a flag of convenience to
protect such a vessel, but rather would look to the simple lack of precedent
as some protection. The old UK "pirate radio" station ships are a good
precedent for the kind of immunity from national policing on the high seas
this sort of endeavor would hope to enjoy. However, I'm still a deep skeptic
of the "oceanic" option, but for practical operational and economic reasons.
Greg Burch <GBurch1@aol.com>----<gburch@lockeliddell.com>
Attorney ::: Vice President, Extropy Institute ::: Wilderness Guide
http://users.aol.com/gburch1 -or- http://members.aol.com/gburch1
ICQ # 61112550
"We never stop investigating. We are never satisfied that we know
enough to get by. Every question we answer leads on to another
question. This has become the greatest survival trick of our species."
-- Desmond Morris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:34:09 MDT