Skip to comments.
US Coast Guard New Rules to Fight Terrorism Announced
US Coast Guard Press Release ^
| May 28, 2002
| US Coast Guard Vice Adm. James D. Hull
Posted on 05/29/2002 1:26:07 PM PDT by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
On any given day, the men and women of the Coast Guard:
Conduct 109 search-and-rescue missions.
Assist 192 people in distress.
Seize 169 pounds of marijuana.
Nab 306 pounds of cocaine.
Most important, the Coast Guard saves lives.
"Ten or 12 people today will go home to dinner with their family
only because the Coast Guard got them out of trouble,"
said Adm. James Loy, commandant of the Coast Guard.
Now that's a respectable day's work.
All from a service of only 35,000 people, fewer than the New York Police Department.
We Need You -- In the wake of the recent attacks on the United States, the Coast Guard Auxiliary will be called upon to provide essential services to the Coast Guard as they focus more heavily on their military missions. We will need all the help we can get. You needn't own a boat or even be an experienced boater, since our missions are wide-ranging. For information about existing Auxiliary missions and the Auxiliary in general, go to our Join the Auxiliary webpage. You will find there a form through which you can ask that a local Auxiliarist make contact with you to explore the ways in which you can assist Team Coast Guard
and, in the process, do something for our country in its hour of need.
Age 17 and up (no upper age restrictions) Click Here for details.
To: Delta21;CWOJackson;A Navy Vet;CIAPilot
PING
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
I can think of a number of narrow channels where these regulations make no sense and could be dangerous if enforced.
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Violating a Naval Vessel Protection Zone is punishable as a class D felony, which can result in a prison term of up to six years and a $250,000 fine.I don't understand this part Tonk. Shouldn't there just be a greasy spot on the water where the violater once was?
/john
To: Carry_Okie
"I can think of a number of narrow channels where these regulations make no sense and could be dangerous if enforced."
There is an e-mail link, in the linked article, if you want to voice your concern to the Coast Guard.
They have a reputation of working with boaters in all matters of safety.
To: Carry_Okie
"Under some circumstances, the official patrol may permit vessels that can only operate safely in a navigable channel to pass within 100 yards of a U.S. naval vessel in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigation Rules "
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Dang, does this mean babes on passing pleasure craft will no longer be able to offer "two gun salutes" to sailors?
7
posted on
05/29/2002 1:53:54 PM PDT
by
csvset
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: Ramius
Coastie Ping!
To: csvset
"Dang, does this mean babes on passing pleasure craft will no longer be able to offer "two gun salutes" to sailors?"
I think that would fall under supporting the morale of the military, rather than terrorism. LOL!!!
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
Comment #12 Removed by Moderator
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
Since when does the Department of Commerce have the Constitutional power to prevent free passage of American citizens on the waters of the United States? That is a War Power. Do we have a declared war? Bush's speech doesn't count.
I can think of a number of navigable channels less than 100 yards wide. Consider the Oakland/Alameda Estuary. A Navy ship at Todd's floating drydock could shut it down. Then there's the Napa River near Mare Island.
The Navy should be in charge of patrolling around their vessels. With container ships arriving and unloading totally uninspected, with those containers having full access to the North American continent, I think we have higher priorities for the Coast Guard than to harass American boaters (no, I don't have a boat), and I CERTAINLY don't think walking on the Constitution is necessary to protect American Naval vessels.
This is just about as dumb as the Federal Deputies inspecting old ladies at airports. Somebody should tell Mineta to unplug his butt and open his eyes. Better yet, he should be fired.
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
On June 15, a temporary Coast Guard regulation to protect U.S. Navy ships, that was put into effect Sept. 14, as a result of the attacks, will become permanent, creating a standing safety perimeter around all large U.S. Navy ships anchored, moored or operating in U.S. waters. Another thing, does the Commerce Department have the Constitutional power to ENACT LAWS controlling the use of the navigable waters of the United States? Again, that should be Congress.
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
What about private yachts coming into the country without identification?
To: Carry_Okie
I can think of a number of narrow channels where these regulations make no sense and could be dangerous if enforced.Like Mayport Florida, San Diego, Ft. Lauderdale, and any number of port entrance areas that are very narrow.
To: Carry_Okie
Since when does the Department of Commerce have the Constitutional power to prevent free passage of American citizens on the waters of the United States? That is a War Power. What does the Department of Commerce have to do with anything? The US Coast Guard falls under the Department of Transportation, and is a federal law enforcement agency. In addition to search and rescue, they enforce the United States Code during peacetime. During wartime, they become a part of the US Navy.
Back off of my fellow Coasties.
To: big ern
"Like Mayport Florida, San Diego, Ft. Lauderdale, and any number of port entrance areas that are very narrow."
From Press release above
"Under some circumstances, the official patrol may permit vessels that can only operate safely in a navigable channel to pass within 100 yards of a U.S. naval vessel in order to ensure a safe passage in accordance with the Navigation Rules"
To: 68-69TonkinGulfYatchClub
A U.S. naval vessel is any vessel owned, operated, chartered, or leased by the U.S. Navy; any pre-commissioned vessel under construction for the U.S. Navy, once launched into the water; and any vessel under the operational control of the U.S. Navy or a Combatant Command. As a result, the establishment and enforcement of NVPZs is a function directly involved in and necessary to military operations and the safety and security of naval commanders and personnel.It sounds to me like a person could be rather confused as to what boat was under Naval Control, leased by it etc. This could lead to mistaken perceptions that the Average Joe Boater was a terrorist, and the resultant actions take completely unnecessary. Sounds like a terrible over-reaction waiting to happen.
Oh I forgot. Afterwards they can say something like, "This is one contingency that none of the experts thought of before 00/00???"
While I see some need for beefed up security, this sounds like some not very well thought out plans.
To: Semper911
Semper Paratus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson