Attempt to exempt US authorities in Canadian waters from Canadian law
- Thread starter Rockfish
- Start date
Feeling Nauti
Member
Search and seizure laws are pretty much the same, probable cause is enough, in your own country. However when crossing the border, your entering another country, that's a whole different issue.
If American police/border agents are exempted from obeying Canadian laws, then they can pretty much get away with breaking the law and facing no punishment for it. I wouldn't call that alarmist, I'd call it down right frightening.
Have you ever been boarded by the US coast guard/customs? Was it any fun? Now imagine that they aren't bound by any laws, and can do what they please. Yeah...NO Thanks! We have enough issues with our own law enforcement agencies, we don't need yours.
'...aren't bound by any laws...' that is alarmist. this sounds more like painting the USCG as a bunch of cowboys, which they are not. at this point, I have not been boarded by these teams but I have been stopped multiple times by USBP who were polite and business like. the million dollar question is always '...is everyone onboard a US citizen...'. sounds to me like your media is trying to sell papers.
Feeling Nauti
Member
"is everyone on board a US Citizen"....good question when your in US territorial waters and your the USCG, but not in Canadian waters. I'd didn't single out USCG personnel at all, I said "American police/border agents"...so lets get your responses correct.
On a personal note, I been stopped by both US and Canadian coast guard over the years and the were always professional, polite and extremely nice to me and those aboard, but they were in their own territorial waters at the time. On the whole both countries coast guards are awesome in the role they play, what they do for us by sticking their necks out to save us when we are in trouble.
Now to Clarify ...Quote..."U.S. government wants an agreement that American law-enforcement officers in cross-border programs will not be subject to Canadian law while they are working in this country" Unquote.
This is all law enforcement, not just the coast guard. This is just another case of good old Uncle Sam wanting to make by his own rules and dictate policy in another country for his own benefit. Wow that sounds very familiar doesn't it!!??.
Honestly though...if you don't like what our newspapers up here in Canada have to say, do us a favor and read your own, there's way more in your media/newspapers that you can complain is alarmist, and you'd more than likely be right.
On a personal note, I been stopped by both US and Canadian coast guard over the years and the were always professional, polite and extremely nice to me and those aboard, but they were in their own territorial waters at the time. On the whole both countries coast guards are awesome in the role they play, what they do for us by sticking their necks out to save us when we are in trouble.
Now to Clarify ...Quote..."U.S. government wants an agreement that American law-enforcement officers in cross-border programs will not be subject to Canadian law while they are working in this country" Unquote.
This is all law enforcement, not just the coast guard. This is just another case of good old Uncle Sam wanting to make by his own rules and dictate policy in another country for his own benefit. Wow that sounds very familiar doesn't it!!??.
Honestly though...if you don't like what our newspapers up here in Canada have to say, do us a favor and read your own, there's way more in your media/newspapers that you can complain is alarmist, and you'd more than likely be right.
well I have to say that I really don't understand this except to say this appears to be policy with US law enforcement when they operate in other countries. I honestly don't understand the rationale for this at all as profishers post clearly underscores what I thought was going on.
as far as you media outlets, they are 'owned' just like those on this side of the border. sensationalize an issue as opposed to explaining the root thinking is just media in action. that was my only point. if you want to believe your media is somehow 'better' that the US media, well that's just another example of your jingoism, too bad. now explain just what a swell job they have done on the net pen/harper/cooperate take over. or big oil and gas raping Alberta. your media sucks just like ours, get over it.
and to perfectly clear, I don't support this sort of exemption. joint patrols are one thing but you are a sovereign nation and law enforcement should be respecting that.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a big difference between being in active pursuit of an assumed felon who crosses a border, and doing routine patrols in the territorial waters of another nation - while being "exempt" from the laws of that country.
There are laws in Canada that permit retention of assumed criminals using "reasonable force" until the authorities show-up. Even an American National (including law enforcement officials) could take advantage of these laws already on the books here in Canada. In the case of "joint patrols" - that law enforcement official is sitting right next to them.
Why do American Law Enforcement Officials want to be "exempt" from Canadian laws? (Snowden is in Russia for god's sake) - That's an unreasonable and scary scenario to me. No need or justification for this suggestion. We shouldn't be entertaining any such asymmetric legal changes.
There are laws in Canada that permit retention of assumed criminals using "reasonable force" until the authorities show-up. Even an American National (including law enforcement officials) could take advantage of these laws already on the books here in Canada. In the case of "joint patrols" - that law enforcement official is sitting right next to them.
Why do American Law Enforcement Officials want to be "exempt" from Canadian laws? (Snowden is in Russia for god's sake) - That's an unreasonable and scary scenario to me. No need or justification for this suggestion. We shouldn't be entertaining any such asymmetric legal changes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Military forces are already exempt - NO to any Civilian forces!
I have to disagree with that! The U.S. Armed Forces, including the U.S. Coast Guard are currently NOT governed by any Canada laws and for that matter while not on U.S. soil or waters they are also NOT governed by any U.S. “civil” laws! They can can literally do whatever they are legally ordered to do. They have received their orders and briefed on what is acceptable by the two countries. IF someone goes rouge and violates orders and/or commit any type of crime it falls under Article 98 ICCSt, agreements governing the legal status of “visiting” forces in a receiving state (Status of Forces Agreements: SOFAs). Article 98(2) is not applicable to standard SOFAs, no conflicts between such SOFAs and the ICC Statute should arise. As organs of their sending states foreign service personnel enjoy functional immunity under general principles of international law recognized under Article 98(1); consequently, any act of detention or physical control by the receiving state would require cooperation with the sending state. The same conclusion is reached with regard to members of peacekeeping operations, as they are generally exempted from the jurisdiction of the receiving state,
Also something to think about, while U.S. citizens abroad do enjoy courtesies from U.S. Armed Forces (by orders), there really is no U.S. Constitution rights abroad. Obama proved this through his recent authorized “drone strikes” on U.S. citizens in foreign countries. No U.S. Armed Forces abroad are governed by anything other than their authorized operational orders and the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is actually a different set of laws established by US Congress in 1950. Just for the record, the U.S. will very rarely turnover any service member for prosecution by any foreign government on any foreign soil. They returned to the U.S. and the main method of enforcing military justice is through the court-martial process under the laws contained in the UCMJ. What does the UCMJ do for the service member, this about says it all:
“The UCMJ essentially banned many offenses found in the U.S, Constitution, crimes like murder, theft, or use of illegal substances.
First point: 1) The U.S. Forces personal are subject to the UCMJ, meaning they still have follow legal orders. If one happens to violate a legal order involving a foreign country the very first thing that happens is the individual(s) will be immediately removed from the jurisdiction of that particular county. The best a foreign country can hope for is court marshal proceedings, under the UCMJ. Historically, that crime will have to be “very” serious and “very” public for anyone to get more than a slap on the hand.
I’d be asking, which “civilian” Americans have decided they’re not comfortable, as it sure isn’t U.S. Armed Forces or the Coast Guard and I personally would tell them to stay they hell out.
Bring up a major problem and the second point: 2) When any type of “civilian” officers operate in another country they absolutely should have to obey the host country’s laws. You kidding me, Canada really wants to allow any “civilian” law enforcement agency that same protection as a military force? I would be asking just one question there – what part of “global police force” are you trying to imitate and who is going to be the governing authority, as right now NEITHER government would have the authority to prosecute? Quite frankly right now, IF Canada is giving up their right to prosecute ANY U.S. “civilian” (federal or otherwise), and they were to break your Canada law on Canadian soil or waters and Canada cannot prosecute may I ask, just which U.S. Court is going to have jurisdiction to do the prosecuting? I believe you will find the answer to that is – NONE!
Btw… under those circumstances Canada giving up their jurisdiction, I wouldn’t be offering any of them any directions to your Canadian banks!!!!
Just my ex-military 2 cents!
I have to disagree with that! The U.S. Armed Forces, including the U.S. Coast Guard are currently NOT governed by any Canada laws and for that matter while not on U.S. soil or waters they are also NOT governed by any U.S. “civil” laws! They can can literally do whatever they are legally ordered to do. They have received their orders and briefed on what is acceptable by the two countries. IF someone goes rouge and violates orders and/or commit any type of crime it falls under Article 98 ICCSt, agreements governing the legal status of “visiting” forces in a receiving state (Status of Forces Agreements: SOFAs). Article 98(2) is not applicable to standard SOFAs, no conflicts between such SOFAs and the ICC Statute should arise. As organs of their sending states foreign service personnel enjoy functional immunity under general principles of international law recognized under Article 98(1); consequently, any act of detention or physical control by the receiving state would require cooperation with the sending state. The same conclusion is reached with regard to members of peacekeeping operations, as they are generally exempted from the jurisdiction of the receiving state,
Also something to think about, while U.S. citizens abroad do enjoy courtesies from U.S. Armed Forces (by orders), there really is no U.S. Constitution rights abroad. Obama proved this through his recent authorized “drone strikes” on U.S. citizens in foreign countries. No U.S. Armed Forces abroad are governed by anything other than their authorized operational orders and the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is actually a different set of laws established by US Congress in 1950. Just for the record, the U.S. will very rarely turnover any service member for prosecution by any foreign government on any foreign soil. They returned to the U.S. and the main method of enforcing military justice is through the court-martial process under the laws contained in the UCMJ. What does the UCMJ do for the service member, this about says it all:
“The UCMJ essentially banned many offenses found in the U.S, Constitution, crimes like murder, theft, or use of illegal substances.
First point: 1) The U.S. Forces personal are subject to the UCMJ, meaning they still have follow legal orders. If one happens to violate a legal order involving a foreign country the very first thing that happens is the individual(s) will be immediately removed from the jurisdiction of that particular county. The best a foreign country can hope for is court marshal proceedings, under the UCMJ. Historically, that crime will have to be “very” serious and “very” public for anyone to get more than a slap on the hand.
I’d be asking, which “civilian” Americans have decided they’re not comfortable, as it sure isn’t U.S. Armed Forces or the Coast Guard and I personally would tell them to stay they hell out.
Bring up a major problem and the second point: 2) When any type of “civilian” officers operate in another country they absolutely should have to obey the host country’s laws. You kidding me, Canada really wants to allow any “civilian” law enforcement agency that same protection as a military force? I would be asking just one question there – what part of “global police force” are you trying to imitate and who is going to be the governing authority, as right now NEITHER government would have the authority to prosecute? Quite frankly right now, IF Canada is giving up their right to prosecute ANY U.S. “civilian” (federal or otherwise), and they were to break your Canada law on Canadian soil or waters and Canada cannot prosecute may I ask, just which U.S. Court is going to have jurisdiction to do the prosecuting? I believe you will find the answer to that is – NONE!
Btw… under those circumstances Canada giving up their jurisdiction, I wouldn’t be offering any of them any directions to your Canadian banks!!!!
Just my ex-military 2 cents!
Hey Charlie - thanks again for your wealth of knowledge here. I just have 2 questions for clarification:
1/ I thought the US Coast Guard was part of the USDOT when in peacetime, and part of the armed forces when at war. Is this true? would that affect them under the legislation you mentioned above (i.e. would the Coast Guard be exempt?), and
2/ I thought ambassadors and other embassary staff would be the only ones exempt from local law, not the military - although the US would always want to have their own tried by their own military law. Doesn't local law always apply; although the US has the military might to enforce their views and protocol on other countries by might - rather than by international law? And the US (along with China and Russia) have a veto on the UN Security Council so they can stop any motions by less powerful and less influential nations in the UN to get the UN involved?
1/ I thought the US Coast Guard was part of the USDOT when in peacetime, and part of the armed forces when at war. Is this true? would that affect them under the legislation you mentioned above (i.e. would the Coast Guard be exempt?), and
2/ I thought ambassadors and other embassary staff would be the only ones exempt from local law, not the military - although the US would always want to have their own tried by their own military law. Doesn't local law always apply; although the US has the military might to enforce their views and protocol on other countries by might - rather than by international law? And the US (along with China and Russia) have a veto on the UN Security Council so they can stop any motions by less powerful and less influential nations in the UN to get the UN involved?
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Nope... U.S. Coast Guard was transferred over to Homeland!
Nope!
Yep!
Nope!
IMHO... the U.S. could give a **** about international law.
Yep!
Last edited by a moderator:
Whole in the Water
Well-Known Member
So what is good about the US Coast Guard being exempt from Canadian laws while in Canadian waters, potentially detaining Canadians?
Charlie
Well-Known Member
The U.S. Coast Guard(USCG) has their orders and have been briefed as to their authority in Canadian waters. Being exempt from Canadian laws really has nothing to do with anything. Canada as a sovereign state the U.S. has NO business entering, detaining anyone (U.S. or Canadian), in any Canadian waters and they should NOT, unless some idiot wants to create an international incident? Don't forget USCG mission:
"The U.S. Coast Guard's mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic interests — in the nation's ports and waterways, along the coast, on international waters, or in any maritime region as required to support national security."
Now with that said their mission does include drug smuggling and terrorist threats. The U.S. and Canada had problems chasing the bad guys to the border, having to stop at the border, and response time. So, in 2005 the USCG and Canada RCMP started the Shiprider Program to fill the cap in chasing the bad guys cross border. I actually have no problem there and think it is a good idea, which is:
"Under the Shiprider program, officers from the USCG and the RCMP are assigned to each other's watercrafts. In the course of their duties, if the patrolling officers deem it necessary to engage a suspected terrorist or criminal on the water and the watercraft is on the U.S. side of the border the lead USCG officer will be the principle acting officer--subject to the search, seizure, and arresting laws and regulations of the U.S. If the watercraft is on the Canadian side of the border, the opposite principles apply.
"To ensure efficacy of the program, participating USCG and RCMP officers attended a two-week joint training session at the USCG Maritime Law Enforcement Academy. This special curriculum, which consists of lectures and exercises, was created by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, USCG, and RCMP to address the unique intricacies of using one watercraft to patrol the waters of two sovereign nations. After graduating from the program, the RCMP members are cross-designated as U.S. officers of the customs and USCG officers are cross-designated as supernumerary constables of the RCMP.
Each are trained and follow the appropriate nations laws to prosecute the bad guys. Win-win!
You don't want some idiot civilian (federal or otherwise) "police force" running around Canada "EXEMPT" from Canada law! That is ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!
Feeling Nauti
Member
Charlie,
I tend to agree with you on the Joint USCG/RCMP Program, mostly due to the fact that it does make sense to have the ability to cross into each others waters when it comes to apprehending Criminals or potential terrorists only, should that be the case.
"Each are trained and follow the appropriate nations laws to prosecute the bad guys. Win-win!" your right here!!!
But this should not apply to police forces or border services for any reason, and lets not even get into Homeland Security(Not USCG), you can keep those guys on your own side of the 49th.
The key thing in the whole article however is the fact that the good old USA wants to make the rules and impose itself on a sovereign country, all the other hyperbole is just a distraction from the facts of the story.
Your write up about the military while informative, has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, the article is based on police forces (including Homeland/Border Services) and not military. Being retired Military myself I understand your write up about Military powers, the uniform code of military justice, and civilian laws and its great info for those that don't know, but that has zero bearing on this.
"You don't want some idiot civilian (federal or otherwise) "police force" running around Canada "EXEMPT" from Canada law! That is ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!" Aside from the "Idiot Civilian" in this comment of yours, this exactly what we think about Uncle Sam's request.
On a separate and much better note, thanks for your service, always good to meet another service member.
Cheers.
I tend to agree with you on the Joint USCG/RCMP Program, mostly due to the fact that it does make sense to have the ability to cross into each others waters when it comes to apprehending Criminals or potential terrorists only, should that be the case.
"Each are trained and follow the appropriate nations laws to prosecute the bad guys. Win-win!" your right here!!!
But this should not apply to police forces or border services for any reason, and lets not even get into Homeland Security(Not USCG), you can keep those guys on your own side of the 49th.
The key thing in the whole article however is the fact that the good old USA wants to make the rules and impose itself on a sovereign country, all the other hyperbole is just a distraction from the facts of the story.
Your write up about the military while informative, has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread, the article is based on police forces (including Homeland/Border Services) and not military. Being retired Military myself I understand your write up about Military powers, the uniform code of military justice, and civilian laws and its great info for those that don't know, but that has zero bearing on this.
"You don't want some idiot civilian (federal or otherwise) "police force" running around Canada "EXEMPT" from Canada law! That is ludicrous!!!!!!!!!!!" Aside from the "Idiot Civilian" in this comment of yours, this exactly what we think about Uncle Sam's request.
On a separate and much better note, thanks for your service, always good to meet another service member.
Cheers.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I may be wrong but I don't believe American service members are exempt civil laws in foreign countries. I remember American servicemen being charged with crimes in Canada and standing trial here. To say they have diplomatic immunity is also a stretch and I'd like to see documentation that says otherwise.
What may being confused here is that a visiting warship or a formed unit, retains the right to punish its people for crimes committed against their fellow servicemen or in the case of a warship, committed onboard. This does not extend to crimes committed to the civilian population.
At the very least no military would sanction its members assaulting,raping, murdering etc. In another country. Face it, that isn't the way you treat your allies and would lead you into becoming an international pariah.
In modern times no military can stand alone. Look at recent history. So even if there was some kind of get out of jail free card (I don't believe there is), only a fool would use it particularly in an allied country. Like I say if memory serves me, visiting American servicemen have been arrested and charged in Canada by civil authorities.
What may being confused here is that a visiting warship or a formed unit, retains the right to punish its people for crimes committed against their fellow servicemen or in the case of a warship, committed onboard. This does not extend to crimes committed to the civilian population.
At the very least no military would sanction its members assaulting,raping, murdering etc. In another country. Face it, that isn't the way you treat your allies and would lead you into becoming an international pariah.
In modern times no military can stand alone. Look at recent history. So even if there was some kind of get out of jail free card (I don't believe there is), only a fool would use it particularly in an allied country. Like I say if memory serves me, visiting American servicemen have been arrested and charged in Canada by civil authorities.
Last edited by a moderator:
Charlie
Well-Known Member
Yep, you may be confused. There is a difference between an American service member on vacation in Canada and one on official business, as an American service member on holiday certainly does NOT have and can be charged with crimes in Canada and standing trial there. One stationed there on official business will be immediately sent back to the U.S. and tried under the UCMJ. Point is the UCMJ does NOT apply to ANY civilians - AT ALL!
Concerning military already exempt, already posted that!
IF someone goes rouge and violates orders and/or commit any type of crime it falls under Article 98 ICCSt, agreements governing the legal status of “visiting” forces in a receiving state (Status of Forces Agreements: SOFAs). Article 98(2) is not applicable to standard SOFAs, no conflicts between such SOFAs and the ICC Statute should arise. As organs of their sending states foreign service personnel enjoy functional immunity under general principles of international law recognized under Article 98(1); consequently, any act of detention or physical control by the receiving state would require cooperation with the sending state. The same conclusion is reached with regard to members of peacekeeping operations, as they are generally exempted from the jurisdiction of the receiving state,
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Take a look at the Visiting Forces Act. Sorry I can't link on my android, technically challenged. That relates to service people from foreign countries and states that civil jurisdiction takes precedence. I'm sure you are aware SOFA agreements are varied as they are negotiated individually between countries and are generally used when one country permanently stations troops in another country. US/Japan or US/South Korea come to mind. I'm not sure Canada and the US have such an agreement. I'm sure we have something via NATO, however I think the Visiting Forces Act normally applies here. If you can find a SOFA between our countries I'd be interested in the link.
Similar threads
