John Bull Posted September 18, 2013 #26 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I'm am Australian & first cruise coming up in January. Looks like I'm in all sorts of trouble if I'm a victim of crime as I'm pretty sure Australian Federal Police aren't hanging out in the Caribbean waiting for crimes to happen to Australians. I'm not an expert in international law but I did find it interesting that someone posted that the FBI has jurisdiction where crimes happen to Americans internationally. Pretty sure that's not the case! If a crime happened to an American in Australia the FBI has no jurisdiction whatsoever. The FBI has field offices in every US Embassy in the world. They have agreements with almost every industrialize country in the world including Australia. That's the whole point. The US doesn't have jurisdiction in other sovereign states, as proven by the Julian Assange & Edward Snowden fiascos. They can only get involved in another country with the consent & cooperation of that country. Much the same as the rights & limitations of any other country. And the US will prosecute in the USA for crimes committed in another country by or against Americans - if the perp sets foot on US soil. That's not my layman's interpretation of "jurisdiction" I was gonna bite off smeyer418's head for such a sweeping comment earlier in this thread, surprisingly sweeping for a lawyer. But I'm only a barrack-room lawyer and, right or wrong, I just knew I'd get tangled-up in legalese. :p There's exceptions - aren't there always. Piracy, war crimes, slavery & such are special cases And maritime law is an even bigger jungle.:eek: But you really do need to be careful about claims of the USA having jurisdiction in other folks' countries, cos such too-big-for-their-boots comments have managed to rile a Canuk and an Aussie & a Brit - all on one thread. Rant finished. :D JB :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CruiserBruce Posted September 18, 2013 #27 Share Posted September 18, 2013 You are absolutely right and I apologize as that was a rude comment, just a bit ticked and should not have said that. I am humbled by your nice comment and telling me it was wrong. Again accept my sincere apology....SORRY! And, as I am an instructor in a Police Academy, perhaps you should be careful as to whom you label as not qualified to comment. Notice I made no comments regarding the FBI issue, nor your allegations as to qualifications of the onboard security. Perhaps that is because I know some cruise lines hire retired American police officers as part of their security staff. Just curious, how many cruises have you done, and how many interactions with ship security have you had? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustCruiseMe Posted September 18, 2013 #28 Share Posted September 18, 2013 I'm a new cruiser but I do believe ships (and other places) have a cya attitude. I get this from watching stories on 20/20 and 60 minutes. (TMTV?) I think the OP when mentioned people from other countries might not be the best as law enforcement may be meant that sometimes their ideas of what is appropriate or legal may be different from an American or Aussies or UK point of view. I'm not sure but that's how I took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenscroft Posted September 18, 2013 #29 Share Posted September 18, 2013 That's the whole point. The US doesn't have jurisdiction in other sovereign states, as proven by the Julian Assange & Edward Snowden fiascos. They can only get involved in another country with the consent & cooperation of that country. Much the same as the rights & limitations of any other country. And the US will prosecute in the USA for crimes committed in another country by or against Americans - if the perp sets foot on US soil. That's not my layman's interpretation of "jurisdiction" I was gonna bite off smeyer418's head for such a sweeping comment earlier in this thread, surprisingly sweeping for a lawyer. But I'm only a barrack-room lawyer and, right or wrong, I just knew I'd get tangled-up in legalese. :p There's exceptions - aren't there always. Piracy, war crimes, slavery & such are special cases And maritime law is an even bigger jungle.:eek: But you really do need to be careful about claims of the USA having jurisdiction in other folks' countries, cos such too-big-for-their-boots comments have managed to rile a Canuk and an Aussie & a Brit - all on one thread. Rant finished. :D JB :) Great post JB. And make that two riled Brits - I've been biting my tongue (or rather sitting on my hands) holding back from posting ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitty9 Posted September 18, 2013 #30 Share Posted September 18, 2013 the law passed in 2010 http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg2/cgis/CruiseLine.asp here is the CG approved course and curriculum for that course http://www.leesfield.com/files/cvssa.pdf Yes, but there's a current one that they're trying to put into the new budget bill that would enforce this issue even more. It's called the Cruise Passenger Protection Act, submitted by Sen Jay Rockefeller from Virginia. It started in August of this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwr235 Posted September 18, 2013 #31 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yes, but there's a current one that they're trying to put into the new budget bill that would enforce this issue even more. It's called the Cruise Passenger Protection Act, submitted by Sen Jay Rockefeller from Virginia. It started in August of this year. West Virginia :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeyer418 Posted September 18, 2013 #32 Share Posted September 18, 2013 The US claims concurrent jurisdiction on cruise ships. Its true that flag states and maritime law also have jurisdiction. Maritime rules on crimes is somewhat complicated but remember the US leo's have kidnapped people even from allies in the past(Italy for one) in non-cruise ship cases and those allies have prosecuted the US nationals who did the kidnapping. If a crime occurs in lets say Australia, I can(unfortunately) imagine the circumstance where we would without the host countries consent decide to supersede their sovereignty. The US certainly claimed extra territoriality in the Achille Lauro case. You can't investigate something in another country without that country's at least acquiescence but that doesn't mean you don't claim the right to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro. Its more complicated that a bold assertion of US right to arrest and bring to justice a crime against a US citizen any where in the world and for that I apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeyer418 Posted September 18, 2013 #33 Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yes, but there's a current one that they're trying to put into the new budget bill that would enforce this issue even more. It's called the Cruise Passenger Protection Act, submitted by Sen Jay Rockefeller from Virginia. It started in August of this year. My point was that the law already requires the reporting of all crimes(except for relatively minor ones). and I am pretty certain that this additional proposal will not make it into law this year given a congress who can't agree on much of anything. The problem with the current law is not the cruise line reporting requirement but the FBI's interpretation of what they will post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luddite Posted September 18, 2013 #34 Share Posted September 18, 2013 When dealing with the ship's staff after a problem, these are words that you need to be using------ " Let's go to the videotape!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted September 19, 2013 #35 Share Posted September 19, 2013 The US claims concurrent jurisdiction on cruise ships. Its true that flag states and maritime law also have jurisdiction. Maritime rules on crimes is somewhat complicated but remember the US leo's have kidnapped people even from allies in the past(Italy for one) in non-cruise ship cases and those allies have prosecuted the US nationals who did the kidnapping. If a crime occurs in lets say Australia, I can(unfortunately) imagine the circumstance where we would without the host countries consent decide to supersede their sovereignty.The US certainly claimed extra territoriality in the Achille Lauro case. You can't investigate something in another country without that country's at least acquiescence but that doesn't mean you don't claim the right to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Achille_Lauro. Its more complicated that a bold assertion of US right to arrest and bring to justice a crime against a US citizen any where in the world and for that I apologize. Thanks for the response. Yes, the US did claim extra-territorial jurisdiction on Italian soil in the case of the Achille Lauro terrorists - and that resulted in an armed face-off in Sicily between Navy Seals & the Carabinieri. The US had to back down - as would have been blindingly obvious to nationals of any other country, mindful of the sovereignty of states. The sort of incident that does not give the US a good name, even amongst its friends. Hopefully the US won't ever be in a position to consider that sort of nonsense in Aus. Or even the UK, now that it's lost its poodle in Downing Street :D. JB :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZbeachboy Posted September 19, 2013 #36 Share Posted September 19, 2013 [quote name=John Bull;40003493)But you really do need to be careful about claims of the USA having jurisdiction in other folks' countries' date=' cos such too-big-for-their-boots comments have managed to rile a Canuk and an Aussie & a Brit - all on one thread. Rant finished. :D JB :) Isn't that the whole point of these threads to rile Canadian's, Brits and Aussie. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notentirelynormal Posted September 19, 2013 #37 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Grrr lost the whole post I typed so I’ll start again. My biggest contact with security: We were on a cruise with my then mid 20s daughter and her friend. The friend was approached by a guy around 55 who said he was cruising with his mother. He said she was beautiful and would she like to come back to his cabin where he would take pictures of her. Now, this friend is a longshoreman and not a girly girl and is almost 6 feet tall. She’s around a lot of outgoing guys. She was freaked. She tells us the story. The next day she sees the guy hitting on another even younger girl. Then my daughter walks by and he sees friend and daughter and uses the same line. Doesn’t sit well with my daughter either. About that time I walk by. We are outside the photo gallery and I go to the guy and tell him the story. He places a call to Security. Security tells us to keep an eye on the guy and someone will be there shortly. We wait around 15 minutes and no one comes. We ask photo guy to find out what is going on. Well, it turns out that senior officers, including the Captain, are up on the bridge discussing the matter and how to handle it. Shortly after an officer comes down and catches our eye and where we are watching. From that moment on this guy was shadowed. We saw him a few more times that day and always a few paces behind him was an officer watching him. The guy was never seen after that day and we were only a few days into a 10 day cruise. I have no doubt that this guy was either taken off the ship or quarantined to his room. I think that the situation was handled well. The guy never knew it was my girls that turned him in. He was continually monitored and never seen again. I thought the situation was handled very professionally. I can’t see how approaching the local police would have served any purpose. I would have had no proof and they would have had no jurisdiction. I’d like to know more about the situation that the OP experienced to have such a strong warning/comment on the matter because all security issues I’ve ever had on a ship were handled professionally. I never took the time to notice their nationality, only their respectful professionalism. For the record, I'm a Canadian and an American so I get to pick on both :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenscroft Posted September 19, 2013 #38 Share Posted September 19, 2013 self delete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skai Posted September 19, 2013 #39 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Isn't that the whole point of these threads to rile Canadian's, Brits and Aussie. lol Hear!!! Hear!!! Methinks the commonwealthers doth protest too much over U.S. supremacy.:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted September 19, 2013 #40 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Isn't that the whole point of these threads to rile Canadian's, Brits and Aussie. lol Hear!!! Hear!!! Methinks the commonwealthers doth protest too much over U.S. supremacy.:p Tin hats on, everyone - the colonial upstarts are in revolt. :p 1774/5 is happening all over again. :D JB :) (yes, no need to remind me, in 1775 we had our arses whupped :o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoie Posted September 19, 2013 #41 Share Posted September 19, 2013 From the FBI's own website, if anyone is wondering: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/june/international_060308 Of course, we don’t go uninvited into another country—we get permission from the host government and always work with that nation’s law enforcement and security personnel, in concert with the U.S. Embassy and the Ambassador. Our jurisdiction doesn’t extend to non-terrorism related homicides, robberies, rapes, and muggings of Americans—these are usually handled by local authorities. But we can—and sometimes do—offer investigative or forensics assistance in these cases if asked. So, the FBI will investigate terrorist attacks on Americans overseas, with permission from the host country, and they may prosecute the perpetrator in the US, if (s)he ever turns up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rare sparks1093 Posted September 19, 2013 #42 Share Posted September 19, 2013 You know, all of this talk about whether or not the FBI has jurisdiction or this or that country having jurisdiction convinces me even more that the initial report should be made to shipboard security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoie Posted September 19, 2013 #43 Share Posted September 19, 2013 You know, all of this talk about whether or not the FBI has jurisdiction or this or that country having jurisdiction convinces me even more that the initial report should be made to shipboard security. It does seem like the most sensible option for normal people who don't have their heads stuck up their own nether regions. "So tell me sir, after you were viciously attacked 3 days ago out at sea, did you tell anyone on board, or what actions did you take next?" "No, I kept it a secret from the people who could have helped, and decided to tell you guys instead after everyone has already left the ship - I thought it'd be more fun to investigate that way". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenaeG Posted September 19, 2013 #44 Share Posted September 19, 2013 You know, all of this talk about whether or not the FBI has jurisdiction or this or that country having jurisdiction convinces me even more that the initial report should be made to shipboard security. Absolutely agree.... I am from one on the other 192 countries that exists in the world and the FBI couldn't be more irrelevant to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigella Posted September 19, 2013 #45 Share Posted September 19, 2013 From the FBI's own website, if anyone is wondering:http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/june/international_060308 So, the FBI will investigate terrorist attacks on Americans overseas, with permission from the host country, and they may prosecute the perpetrator in the US, if (s)he ever turns up there. Thank you for the link Thoie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigella Posted September 19, 2013 #46 Share Posted September 19, 2013 Absolutely agree.... I am from one on the other 192 countries that exists in the world and the FBI couldn't be more irrelevant to me! I couldn't agree more. Awful xenophobia being displayed on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZbeachboy Posted September 19, 2013 #47 Share Posted September 19, 2013 I couldn't agree more.Awful xenophobia being displayed on this thread. I do not think xenophobia has been shown here. People have been pretty good about speaking to the OP’s original post and speaking about crime. Many have disagreed with him as well. Which shows it is a good discussion to have. I do think some arrogance is shown by suggesting that foreign police and ship security are incompetent, corrupt or not professional. However, some of that feeling comes from news reports that circulate among the media. The authority of the FBI is a good discussion. It has brought some information on both how it works and what limitation it has. Even those in the US have reservation about the long arm of the US; especially those who believe in the sovereignty of a nation to govern it own boarders. Yet, we love it because it gives us a feeling of some security that the perpetrator will get theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smeyer418 Posted September 19, 2013 #48 Share Posted September 19, 2013 FYI I don't necessarily approve of what the US Government does but I suspect another one is coming... http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/18/fbi-barred-from-making-benghazi-arrests-in-libya/?hpt=hp_t3 I don't expect that this will be done that often only that the US asserts that it has the jurisdiction to do so. I don't think they will do it in Australia for a common crime, or at all there but Italy was and is an ally. I also don't agree with the Supreme Court. Countries including the US should not be allowed to flout other's laws. They should have sent him back and requested his extradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skai Posted September 19, 2013 #49 Share Posted September 19, 2013 While questioning the capabilities of a ship's security may be unfounded, the OP still presents a good point as it relates to who the ship's security has in their best interest. It must be noted that law enforcement (in theory at least) serves and is beholden and sworn to protect the public that ultimately employs them. Ship security, however, is employed by the cruise line companies, and their role may be to safeguard and perhaps insulate the company from any liability and/or potential bad PR. As that relates to the xenophobia charges ITT.....I don't think it's unreasonable to be weary and presume that foreign nationals will always have the best interests of Americans abroad either. The suggestion that contacting a U.S. consulate to report a crime overseas against an American could be considered sound advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bull Posted September 19, 2013 #50 Share Posted September 19, 2013 ........I don't think it's unreasonable to be weary and presume that foreign nationals will always have the best interests of Americans abroad either. The suggestion that contacting a U.S. consulate to report a crime overseas against an American could be considered sound advice. If I'm reading your post right, Skai, it's the very definition of xenophobia :rolleyes: So if I'm the victim of a crime in the Big Apple, best I report it to the British Consulate, eh? :rolleyes: Because by your logic I should be wary & presume that New York's finest won't act in the best interests of a foreign national in the US. :rolleyes: JB :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.