Ship's security guards are not police officers and should not be investigating crimes

[John Bull]

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 :)

[CruiserBruce]

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?

[JustCruiseMe]

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.

[Ravenscroft]

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 !

[kitty9]

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.

[rwr235]

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 :)

[smeyer418]

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.

[smeyer418]

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.

[luddite]

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!"

[John Bull]

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 :)

[AZbeachboy]

[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

[notentirelynormal]

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 :)

[Ravenscroft]

self delete.

[Skai]

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

[John Bull]

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)

[Thoie]

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.

[sparks1093]

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.

[Thoie]

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".

[RenaeG]

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!

[Nigella]

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.

[Nigella]

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.

[AZbeachboy]

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.

[smeyer418]

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.

[Skai]

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.

[John Bull]

 

........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: