Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

Later,

Tom

If we aren't tough on 'questionable visitors' the US security people
s*it all over us. They seem to
think we're too lax in preventing terrorists etc. from using us to
attack you. It's a no win situation.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:57:09 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

It's a long story and really not worth repeating - it was resolved in
a satisfactory manner by the USCG and Canadian Navy or whoever it was
that was involved. I just felt that the Canadians, in the face of the
visual and verbal reports of the incident in question, could have been
a bit more understanding rather than acting like I was trying to sneak
into Canada.

If we aren't tough on 'questionable visitors' the US security people
s*it all over us. They seem to
think we're too lax in preventing terrorists etc. from using us to
attack you. It's a no win situation.

I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Later,

Tom

Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the "victim",
Canada's or the USA ?

Jim

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:33:39 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.

But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?

It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)

Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the "victim",
Canada's or the USA ?

It started in American waters and finished in Canadian waters.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:33:39 -0400, "Jim Carter"
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
I understand your point and agree - it is a no win situation.
But seriously - when you've listened to the radio traffic, have full
understanding of what happened and why, the USCG is on scene
and everything is under control, why is it necessary for the
French...er. Canadian Navy to interrogate the victim in French using
an interpreter?
It all worked out eventually - no harm, no foul. :)
Just a short question Tom. In whose territorial water was the
"victim",
Canada's or the USA ?
It started in American waters and finished in Canadian waters.
Later,
Tom
Well Tom, In Canada we do have two official languages, French and English.

Jim