Can't seem to open the link.

So long as you're in US waters (and I believe the limit is 12 miles, but 200 if you're doing "economic" things such as fishing), the Coast Guard or Navy can stop you regardless of any flag or no flag.

In international waters, if you're flying a Russian flag, it means that a US navy ship that wanted to stop you would ask the Russians for permission first. If the Russians tell them your ship isn't really registered there, that's good enough for permission. In effect your flag is fake.

The only way in which this incident seems to depart from the norms, is that normally when the Coast Guard or Navy wants to stop an unflagged ship in international waters, they'd first radio and ask the ship to identify itself, thus giving its crew a chance to raise a flag if it has one. That's what they should have done, and in practical terms it would only have delayed the seizure. Once the ship hoists an Ecuadorian flag, they ask Ecuador for permission. If Ecuador says no, they either wait until the ship enters national waters, or with sufficient reason they go ahead anyway (which is an act of war, but do you really think Ecuador is going to declare war on the United States for seizing a boat full of drugs?)

Your relativism is showing. If you'd bothered to study history at all, you'd know that thehigh seas and intergovernmental relations are nothing more than the rights of might. Even the Barbary pirates issue was settled by greater force. It's a jungle out there.

A boat-owner can't just float a privately-owned boat
out in the water? (Although formerly in the Naval
Reserve, I do not claim to have any special ex-
pertise on this question).

Of course it is legal under U.S. law. If a person has ever heard the words "United States" the courts rule the U.S. has jurisdiction. Isn't that what all imperial governments say?

Let me ask you this, then... as a fer instance...

I am taking our boat, The Taggart Express, homeported in San Francisco, to the Farralons. Once outside of the 3 mile limit, I hoist a Russian flag. Does that make my boat Russian territory? If boarded by the Coastie Toasties, can I seek redress by the nation under which the flag is flying?

Or even better... I hoist the flag of some nation declared "rogue" by the dotgov (Syria? Somalia? North Korea?) when I cross the boundary, but then on recrossing it going home drop said "rogue" standard and hoist a US standard?

Of course - as long as you accept the premise that the United States claims jurisdiction over internatonal waters. Of course, the US makes such claim as "the world's policeman"... and having no onther nation who would challenge such acts of Pirac... er... "Law Enforcement". What if another nation decided to post it's coast guard in the same location (or, say in international waters just off the US coastline) ... Say China, or Canada, or Russia, or North Korea... and decided to enforce their laws there, boarding boats et al...

As the song says (in American English)... We are the world...

what happened to the 200 mile limit for a country to control its waters. 300 miles is international and the coast guard should never have been out there in the first place.

He's committing an illegal act regardless of what the definition of what is is. (See Clinton vs the universe). Of course, this discussion from a philosophical point of view can get us into a truckload of conflicting proposals up to a discussion of the morality of drug laws in general. The Captain of the US ship was probably wrong, but according to the common sense of the laws he operated under, he was right. This is the type of mish-mash morality that comes when clearly defined basic premises do not propagate the law.

So after listening to the audio, here is the first conclusion I came to: don't run from a military vessel. Second: don't traffic in illegal drugs.

At issue is a technicality of whether or not a tiny flag painted on the hull constitutes "flying one's colors" under admiralty law. I have to agree with the court's determination in this case, however, that one's colors must be prominently displayed or the vessel can be seen as rogue.

Bottom line...they have the guns so whatever they do is ok...until someone comes along with a bigger ship and more guns.

I recently, just literally in the past couple days, came to the harsh reality that laws are only written to control the livestock. Here in California we are passing laws that are in direct conflict with our state Constitution. But, they'll remain on the books. It's surreal...like something out of a movie. Harsh realization...

With the fishing I do it is not too uncommon for the Mexican Navy to board our boats and hold us at gunpoint while they go through our stuff. And, we fly the American flag on permit to fish there.

Every nation is just a tax farm, really. Or, graft farm...

The fedgov and their managers are the pirates.
There is no rule of law, only force at gunpoint delivered by the fedgov against anyone that has property worth stealing.

I am starting to think that legal is what Homeland Security says it is. Wonder why they didn't just track the boat and notify authorities at the destination point?

From the Coast Guard's perspective, the point was to intercept the drugs before it's points of sale where the entire shipment would be broken into smaller shipments that would be difficult to track. The Ecuadorian ship captain would know the rule of the sea. With what purpose would he choose a small flag? To avoid identification. I am no maritime expert, but if other nations follow the same rule, then international waters, small flags, and cocaine seem to go together like eye patches and peg legs.