Are you are referring to the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the powers of the government in using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US? You are correct that Coast Guard is exempt from these limitations. But they only apply to U.S. vessels. So this is not applicable to Navy when interacting with foreign vessels.
I think Dutchie has it right. When the U.S. Navy was doing piracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden they carried a detachment of coasties that actually boarded and searched local non-US Flag vessels.
My understanding was that U.S. Navy personnel were not allowed to board vessels.
EDIT: Navy was allowed to board, just not perform law enforcement actions. Presumably the U.S. State Dept got permission from the flag state in this case.
It is a long-standing rule of international law that one sovereign State does not have authority over another sovereign State and that all States are equals.
The USCG falls under the Department of Homeland Security, and not the Department of Defense, allowing their VBSS teams to act in a law enforcement capacity within US waters. VBSS stands for Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure.
US Law apply in US territorial waters only. In international waters UNCLOS, INTERNATIONAL Maritime Laws and Treaties apply. Even the US Navy is not above the law, although they some time behave like they are.
Boarding a vessel in international waters can only be legally done when mandated by UN in the form of enforcing sanctions etc. (That does NOT incl. unilateral sanctions by any one country)
Even when a ship is in foreign territorial waters, or in a foreign port, boarding by armed forces without permission of the Master is not legal.
Some may remember the Tampa incident at Christmas Island in 2001, when Australian Special Forces (SAS) stormed on board the Tampa heavily armed, with orders to force the Master to take his ship out of Australian waters, still with 438 survivors on board, (See separate post)
Saddam Hussein was in charge of Iraq at the time and we helped him with supplies. I liked Saddam a lot - a strong Arab leader! But we also negotiated with the Israelis that wanted to charter one of our vessels as a casino ship trading between Eilat and Sharm el Sheik with American gamblers. The Israelis would run the casino ++ and we should run the ship. Interesting times. The Israelis spoke very good Arabic. We liked them … but gambling was not our business. And then one day USN stopped our ship in the straits of Tiran - probably in Egyptian waters. The Master called us at Cairo and wondered what to do? Invite them for a cup of tea, we suggested. The armed Americans came aboard, refused our tea but had a look at our ship. And then they left. An international incident was avoided.
Isn’t UNCLOS another of the conventions not ratified by the US? (Land mines being another one)
That is correct. US is a signatory, but the the Congress has not ratified UNCLOS yet.
Previous administrations has been striving to comply though, especially when it benefits US interests. Not sure if the present administration has any opinion, one way or the other.
I don’t think that the British have a law that prevents the armed forces being used in a police action and they have used the SAS in terrorist incidents within the U.K.
When I was in tankers, more years ago than I want to remember, it was nothing unusual for a cargo to be sold to different entities during the voyage. At the time it was just there to make life miserable for me as second mate as I rubbed out one voyage plan and replaced it with another.
No matter what the AIS and other information that the vessel may have made public I am betting that there will be revealed a financial link that confirmed the cargo was destined for Syria.
If the vessel is within the territorial waters of a state and engages in an illegal activity under the laws of that state then the state can take action against that vessel.
Farsi News have released pictures and video of the crew on Stena Impero, still on board their ship in Bandar Abbas:
Video from Sky News:
BBC’s take on the background for the situation for the two tankers:
Well, BBC is not on top any longer. It is propaganda as usual.
There is nothing to smile about. It is probably smile or I shoot…
I am puzzled as to how you interpreted the film clip from the BBC as propaganda. Grace 1 was seized because of an EU directive. Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the impression that you are Swedish and Sweden is a member of the EU.
Thanks for the heads up as I was wondering about Heiwa and where he hailed from…
Propaganda is just means of spreading ideas, correct or not, and there are no EU instructions about attacking oil tankers in Moroccan waters, etc. So in my opinion the BBC report was garbage. It seems that the person ordering the illegal attack, Ms Theresa May, has now resigned. She has a lot to explain. More interesting is, e.g. what H&M underwriters and P&I think about it and the treatment of the crew.
Propaganda is also deliberately spreading falsehoods. The Grace 1 was in Gibraltarian waters not Moroccan.
Her resignation had nothing to do with this event. It has been in the works for months and they just elected a new PM yesterday.
Grace 1 was sailing along the East bound lane of the TSS in an Internationally recognised Strait that is open to free navigation. (As was Stena Imperio):
https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm
She had not broken any laws, or international sanctions at the time of boarding. That she MAY be bound for a Syrian port, or INTENDING to do STS transfer of her cargo in international waters to smaller tankers heading to Syria, which is NOT the same as having broken EU sanctions against Syrian companies.
No I’m not backing up Heiwa’s nonsense!!! only pointing out the irrelevance of the excuses used by both Gibraltar, UK and others.
If someone boarded a vessel loaded with USD 120 Mill. + of US own oil, would you expect the US to just keep quiet and take it??