Murder on the high seas

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Those suspected drug runners did not impose an immanent threat to anyone.

Afternoon, Jerry.

Except those Americans that would buy the drugs. 

1 hour ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Everyone should get access to due process, even mass murders.

Do you not agree?

In the US; I do agree. I posted earlier about the difference between due process and substantive due process. To Joe's point, the USGC cannot do drug interdictions in International waters unless it flies an American flag. Then, because they are US citizens - they get US due process. 

Edited September 5 by BIGUN

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, dogyks said:

I have spent decades in the pharma industry since then, and am quite familiar with the lethality of various drugs - to include fentanyl.

Familiar enough to see how people die from illicit drugs? 

[dogyks 24]

10 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Familiar enough to see how people die from illicit drugs? 

You have no idea.

[JerryBaumchen 1,484]

14 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Afternoon, Jerry.

Except those Americans that would buy the drugs. 

In the US; I do agree. I posted earlier about the difference between due process and substantive due process. To Joe's point, the USGC cannot do drug interdictions in International waters unless it flies an American flag. Then, because they are US citizens - they get US due process. 

Hi Keith,

Re:  would buy the drugs

IMO 'would' is not an imminent threat to anyone.

And, for the record, I am opposed to the use of illegal drugs. *

Re:   because they are US citizens - they get US due process. 

I hope that you are not saying that due process only applies to US citizens.

Jerry Baumchen

* My only use of illegal drugs was alcohol while under age.  No, I do not walk on water.

[BIGUN 1,520]

27 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I hope that you are not saying that due process only applies to US citizens.

I can see why you asked that. I didn't communicate that very well. In the US; due process.  

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, dogyks said:

You have no idea.

Then you understand my ire

[nigel99 659]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Does that  mean we wouldn't have to see anymore celebrties with super puffy lips :)

I don’t understand that trend. Atlanta airport last year a young guys lips looked like something out of a cartoon. They were probably level with the tip of his nose they stuck out so far.

[JerryBaumchen 1,484]

18 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

I don’t understand that trend. Atlanta airport last year a young guys lips looked like something out of a cartoon. They were probably level with the tip of his nose they stuck out so far.

Hi Nigel,

As is said:  Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

However, I agree with you; IMO they look like something out of a horror movie.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 3,005]

4 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I can see why you asked that. I didn't communicate that very well. In the US; due process.  

For sure these assholes didn't deserve due process. It's Georgia, we should have bombed the bastards.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-immigration-agents-arrest-hundreds-hyundai-plant-mostly-koreans-2025-09-05/

[jakee 1,622]

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

To Joe's point, the USGC cannot do drug interdictions in International waters unless it flies an American flag. 

That is categorically untrue. Absolute nonsense.

9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Then, because they are US citizens - they get US due process. 

You think that flying an American flag on a boat makes you an American citizen? Or that only Americans are allowed to set foot on American registered boats? Like... WTF are you talking about?

[BIGUN 1,520]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

For sure these assholes didn't deserve due process. It's Georgia, we should have bombed the bastards.

I corrected myself, Joe. 

[Phil1111 1,234]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

For sure these assholes didn't deserve due process. It's Georgia, we should have bombed the bastards.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-immigration-agents-arrest-hundreds-hyundai-plant-mostly-koreans-2025-09-05/

Irrespective of undocumented workers on the job site. Actions like that will certainly send the message to any international corporation wanting to build a US plant. That every law slighted or fired worker could result in storm troopers at the door.

Or perhaps Hyundai failed to pay the obligatory bribes to the Orange King at 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Or perhaps Hyundai failed to pay the obligatory bribes

Or, fill out the obligatory I-9 Form. What's the point of building a factory in the US if you're not going to employ American workers. 

[Phil1111 1,234]

42 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Or, fill out the obligatory I-9 Form. What's the point of building a factory in the US if you're not going to employ American workers. 

Well for US corporations that donate to Trump: "Amazon donates $1m to Trump’s inaugural fund as tech cozies up to president-elect" . They can set aside that idea of employing US workers: "Amazon will reportedly soon have as many robots working in its warehouses as it does humans.....

• According to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Amazon has deployed over 1 million robots in its warehouses.
• Roughly 75% of the e-commerce giant's global deliveries "are assisted in some way by robotics," the Journal said."

For Hyundai: Hyundai unleashes Atlas robots in Georgia plant as part of $21B US automation push

Atlas robot pictured below:

Because of the lack of training of new ICE hires. Its rumoured that many of the reported arrests at the Georgia plant were in fact atlas robots.

[BIGUN 1,520]

12 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Well for US corporations that donate to Trump: "Amazon donates $1m to Trump’s inaugural fund as tech cozies up to president-elect" . They can set aside that idea of employing US workers: "Amazon will reportedly soon have as many robots working in its warehouses as it does humans.....

• According to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Amazon has deployed over 1 million robots in its warehouses.
• Roughly 75% of the e-commerce giant's global deliveries "are assisted in some way by robotics," the Journal said."

While concurrently upskilling 700,000 employees - including a robotics apprenticeship program.

https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-employees-upskilling-education-training

 

[billvon 3,151]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

Or, fill out the obligatory I-9 Form. 

But that would place the onus on the people hiring illegal workers - and that is something Trump simply will not do.  He needs illegal aliens as villains, and going after the people HIRING illegal aliens would make that problematic.

We will see a great many more highly publicized raids like this while the people hiring them escape scot free.  They will also be at places like Hyundai plants and not GM plants, because that would send the wrong message as well.

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

But that would place the onus on the people hiring illegal workers - and that is something Trump simply will not do.  He needs illegal aliens as villains, and going after the people HIRING illegal aliens would make that problematic.

No argument. Employers who do not fill out the I-9 should absolutely be held criminially and financially responsible. Otherwise, why even have an I-9 

[JoeWeber 3,005]

3 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I corrected myself, Joe. 

On this issue, somewhat. With respect to your years of military service we should never think that the nighttime bombing of a small vessel off another nations shores is an appropriate action. Period. We know we cannot trust our government to tell the truth and we know that, divided unequally between the parties, they will wantonly use our military to kill humans innocent or not for purposes of distraction or short term political gain. Hence, the only appropriate immediate reaction should be to be appalled pending more information.

[BIGUN 1,520]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

On this issue, somewhat. With respect to your years of military service we should never think that the nighttime bombing of a small vessel off another nations shores is an appropriate action. Period. We know we cannot trust our government to tell the truth and we know that, divided unequally between the parties, they will wantonly use our military to kill humans innocent or not for purposes of distraction or short term political gain. Hence, the only appropriate immediate reaction should be to be appalled pending more information.

You're right. There is a difference between Policy, the Person exercising the policy, and the Process by which it is served. I endorse the policy, but need to remember that I have nothing but disdain for the person and should have assessed his process. The act was legal, but a different process could have been used. 

[JoeWeber 3,005]

Just now, BIGUN said:

The act was legal,

Not arguing, but Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, how can we not get civilized to where that's not a credible argument?

[jakee 1,622]

8 hours ago, BIGUN said:

I endorse the policy, but need to remember that I have nothing but disdain for the person and should have assessed his process. The act was legal, 

You have justified your support for the policy by making blatantly false claims about the law, though.

[BIGUN 1,520]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

You have justified your support for the policy by making blatantly false claims about the law, though.

Your only reason to exist seems to be to come on here and try to push people's buttons. You could have done a simple Google search.

The U.S. Coast Guard has the authority to board your boat in international waters if it is a U.S.-flagged vessel or if you are planning to re-enter U.S. waters, but their jurisdiction over foreign-flagged vessels is more limited. The Coast Guard does not need a warrant or probable cause to board a vessel under U.S. jurisdiction and can inspect for safety, registration, and enforce national and international laws on the high seas.  

When the Coast Guard can board your boat in international waters:

U.S.-Flagged Vessels:

The Coast Guard can board any vessel flying the U.S. flag in international waters. 

Foreign Vessels and Re-entry to U.S. Waters:

The Coast Guard has authority to board foreign vessels if they are suspected of illegal activity and plan to re-enter U.S. waters, as this falls under the U.S.'s jurisdiction. 

Enforcing International and National Law:

.The Coast Guard's authority extends to enforcing national and international laws on the high seas. 

Reasons for boarding:

Safety Inspections:

The Coast Guard may board to ensure the vessel is properly registered and has necessary safety equipment. 

Law Enforcement:

The boarding can be to enforce federal and international laws related to the vessel, its crew, or its cargo. 

Authority for Boarding:

• The Coast Guard's authority to board is based on federal law, such as 14 USC 89, and does not require a warrant or a suspicion of a crime. 
• The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches does not apply to vessels in the same way it does to homes. 

Consequences of Refusal: 

• Refusing entry to the Coast Guard during a boarding can lead to significant fines.

The Hearing Office often receives responses from charged parties demanding that their cases be dismissed because the Coast Guard “lacked probable cause” to stop and board their vessel. Moreover, they argue that any violation discovered during the boarding cannot be processed because the boarding was improper and in violation of their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures and requires warrants to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

VESSEL BOARDINGS AND COAST GUARD AUTHORITY

Written by CDR Mark Hammond

The courts have long held however, that it is not unreasonable for the Coast Guard to exercise plenary authority under Title 14 United States Code (USC) section 89 to stop and board vessels on the navigable waters of the United States to conduct safety and documentation inspections, even in the absence of a reasonable suspicion that some criminal activity is occurring. The Coast Guard exercises its broad authority to conduct vessel boarding's for the purpose of enforcing U.S. laws and regulations to promote marine safety, security and environmental protection. This authority extends to any vessel over which the United States has jurisdiction. This essentially means U.S. vessels anywhere outside the territorial waters of another country, and foreign vessels in U.S. waters.

Title 14 USC § 89 states in part: “(a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship’s documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance…”

For civil penalty cases forwarded to the Hearing Office, the Hearing Officer reviews each case to determine if there is sufficient evidence in the case file to make a preliminary determination that a violation has occurred and proceed with adjudication. This includes ensuring the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the matter and the elements of the alleged violation are met based on the evidence. There may be cases where a party could reasonably argue that a denial of fundamental fairness, or actions that shock the conscience, undermine the credibility of the officials involved in a case and the reliability of the evidence those officials have offered. Arguments that the Coast Guard “did not have probable cause to conduct the boarding,” however, most often just show an unfamiliarity with the relevant law, as discussed above, and have no bearing on the determination of whether a violation of law or regulation was committed.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:19 AM by BIGUN

[jakee 1,622]

58 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Jakee, you don't know shit from a good grade of peanut butter. Your only reason to exist seems to be to come on here and try to push people's buttons. 

Actually, it’s to try and stop you from making a fool of yourself by sticking to blatantly false claims. If you insist on getting so angry when you find out you’re wrong, I really can’t help with that. 
 

And you are wrong. Obviously, blatantly wrong. The US Coastguard can board many vessels in international waters that are not US flagged. Including flagless vessels, that this one (if it was actually a narco-trafficker speedboat) almost certainly was. Including the scenario in your own post of a foreign vessel suspected of illicit activity that plans to enter US waters. Kinda sounds like every single drug boat smuggling into the US, don’t you think?

 

And the thing is, you know you’re wrong even without having to look up any laws. You know you’re wrong just through living in the world and being vaguely aware of current events. Does the US coastguard seize narco boats in international waters? Yes it does - quite regularly. Are they all US flagged? Blatantly not - why the hell would they be if it only served to make them more vulnerable to law enforcement? 
 

So regardless of how mad you want to get at being caught talking shit, reality doesn’t care and you’re still talking shit. 

Edited Sunday at 08:29 AM by jakee

[BIGUN 1,520]

26 minutes ago, jakee said:

you’re still talking shit.

My shit is backed up with source citations - yours is just noise. 

[jakee 1,622]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

My shit is backed up with source citations - yours is just noise. 

No, your source citations back up my shit, as does any cursory google search, as does reality and common sense. The claim that the US coastguard can only board US flagged vessels and no others in international waters is an outright lie. You know it’s a lie. 
 

Like - take a look at Operation Pacific Viper, for instance. You are not stupid enough to think all these narco speedboats are US registered vessels. You just aren’t. So why are you lying when it’s so obvious that you’re doing it?

https://www.usbordernews.com/p/coast-guard-vs-the-cartels-inside-operation-pacific-viper

 

Edited Sunday at 10:08 AM by jakee