View Single Post
  #34   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Chuck Gould Chuck Gould is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,117
Default Federal Administration Becomes Even More Obtrusive, "Boater ID"

On Oct 31, 2:23 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:55:16 -0400, Gene Kearns





wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:50:30 GMT, penned the following
well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:16:17 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:13:36 -0400, penned the following
|well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:
|
|On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:17:12 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:
|
|USA Today reports this morning that Homeland Security has ordered one
|of its divisions, (the USCG) to define a plan to positively identify
|boaters. The rationale is that small boats could be loaded with
|explosives and used to
|blow up military or commercial vessels, ala USS Cole. Until the USCG
|presents its plan we don't know the details, but possible requirements
|*could* include, at a minimum, carrying a national Boater ID card.
|(Something the Administration seems to favor, based on its proposals
|in several areas).
|
|
|
|I don't know where USA Today got their information, but the USCG
|proposal specifically REJECTS creation of any additional or special
|ID. They adamantly DO NOT want one. The idea is that any photo ID such
|as a drivers license or state issued ID in lieu of a drivers license
|would be all that is needed.
|
|
|Not so, Dana Goward, director of Coast Guard maritime domain
|awareness, is "very concerned about people doing harm with small
|vessels" and that it is "time to look at this other gap."
|
|Adm. Thad Allen, commandant of the Coast Guard says, "... that the
|issue needed extra attention." Allen is, also, in favor of
|"requir[ing] boat operators to have a special license," because that
|apparently has some magical power to allow us to "know to a degree of
|certainty who are operating boats out there."
|
|
|The USCG WRITTEN proposal specifically and emphaticaly rejects the
|idea of a new, separate ID. They want to require that you carry a
|drivers license or other similar ID.
|


Cite?


You don't need one, Gene. The USCG is already being asked to do a


In other words, you don't have any idea what the final WRITTEN
proposal will "specifically and emphatically" recommend or reject and
you're just mumbling through your hat?