CSI coming to all cruise ships - Matsui's Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act

[lcguy]

lcguy, if it was your daughter, sister, mother, wife, friend, etc., wouldn't you want them to have help available immediately?

To answer your question, of course. And currently they would have help available immediately. I don't understand why the government needs to get their hands in the pile. Obviously, the bill has no teeth as the cruise industry has abandoned its lobbying against the measure. Our tax dollars at work. Again.

[beastiemom]

I see where the huge burden is... it's on you and me. The cruise ships' bottom line won't suffer, they'll just increase fares. Regardless of what some people think, nothing in this world is free. Someone has to pay for it. :rolleyes:

 

I find it ironic that the cruise industry abandoned lobbying against this legislation back in July.

 

Maybe they decided not to lobby against it because it really won't cost them that much money and the negative publicity for opposing the bill wasn't worth it.

[lcguy]

Maybe they decided not to lobby against it because it really won't cost them that much money and the negative publicity for opposing the bill wasn't worth it.

Precisely!!! If the bill would have a negative impact, I guaranty they would be lobbying against the measure. My guess is the industry had a hand in crafting the legislation in exchange for opposing it. It's called politics. :rolleyes:

[beastiemom]

State laws cannot preempt Federal law......

 

Yes, but there are things that the federal government can't regulate for the states. See my example of the DWI laws. The federal government cannot set a federal minimum age law for drinking. That is why they had to do it by forcing the states to comply by withholding federal money if the states did not impliment minimum age laws. I am not an expert in this area, as I explained, but control of state owned ports well could be one of those areas over which the federal goverment has no control. If the federal government implements requirements, and infringes on those things the state has control over, then they do not have to comply. They must then force compliance in other ways. Generally speaking, however, you are correct that state laws cannot preempt Federal law.

 

For those who are concerned about passing on the cost, I cannot imagine implementing these requirments would cost much, if anything to implement. For example, most doors already have the peepholes. As pm noted any doctor that has done an emergency room rotation during medical school (which would be all of them) learns how to do a rape kit. The cost of the rape kits could be as much as $250.00 (which I believe the amount quoted in stories that Alaska was charging its vicitims for their kits), but even if you use 3 per trip :eek:, is less than $1,000 per voyage. The average salary for a CSI is about $40,000 per year. And that is assuming you can't find one that can double as a regular security guard (which I am sure they have on their ships). The free phone call would cost them nothing, really. On a cruise that carries 2,500 passengers per week, even if the total amount of the costs were passed on to the passengers would be $0.31 per passenger. I think that it would be worth it-you can't buy anything on the ship for less than a dollar-not even a cupcake on the Oasis. ;)

 

Lc-I think the reason that our government felt that this needed to be regulated is that the ships themselves were not doing it, even after repeated incidents. Sometimes you just have to give a little encouragement!

[lcguy]

Lc-I think the reason that our government felt that this needed to be regulated is that the ships themselves were not doing it, even after repeated incidents. Sometimes you just have to give a little encouragement!

I agree with you and I'm sure that was plenty of give and take. The bottom line is, what happens in international waters is out of US jurisdiction, rather governed by Maritime law. I also find it difficult to govern a ship not registered in the US.

[temple1]

I agree with you and I'm sure that was plenty of give and take. The bottom line is, what happens in international waters is out of US jurisdiction, rather governed by Maritime law. I also find it difficult to govern a ship not registered in the US.

 

The feds can't govern ships in international waters, but once inside the 3 mile zone and in US ports and I do believe the Feds do have control there, these are entities entering our boarders. So if they want to play in our ball park, they have to play by our rules.

 

I think there is Federal jurisdiction over ports - recall one of the ports trying to sub out port security to a foreign controlled company.

[Gonzo70]

If the cruise line industry wants to play hard ball they refuse to dock in US ports and lets see how the states that they dock in deal with the loss of revenue...

 

Uhm, while a cruise line boycotting U.S. ports would certainly hurt the revenues of the impacted states, it would bankrupt the cruise line; the affected states would survive. This is not something the cruise lines would get into a game of chicken over.

[Mark_K]

I wonder how this legislation could be applied to a ship registerd in a non-US country and sailing outside US territorial waters. The FBI has no jurisdiction here and would be completely irrelevant if the passenger was not a US citizen.

 

 

For example, a ship registerd in Malta and cruising the Norwegian Fjords.

 

It's a typical over-reaction to an occurrence that happens very rarely on cruise ships.

 

And no-one had better put peep holes in the door of any cabin I am using!

Ah! I've just found another use for duck tape! :D

According to the language in the bill, it only applies to cruises that embark or disembark in the US:

 

(k) APPLICATION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—This section and section

3508 apply to a passenger vessel (as defined in sec12

tion 2101(22)) that—

(A) is authorized to carry at least 250 passengers;

(B) has onboard sleeping facilities for each passenger;

© is on a voyage that embarks or disembarks passengers in the United States; and

(D) is not engaged on a coastwise voyage.