Oh I'm well aware of naval cooperation with civilians and hiring contractors (they have to shuttle the contractors off the carriers when the fleet engages in any "combat" action, even if no actual shooting takes place), but picking up hitchhikers from a nominally neutral port because they're in legal trouble, purely out of charitable goodwill, would not go well in today's military. They're harboring fugitives, at that point, and interfering in another nations' "justice" system, and just begging for a diplomatic incident that ends with the captain at least getting shafted, mission success or not.
Royal navy 200 years ago would 1000% do that. They were infamous for interfering with other nations justice systems, even allied ones, causing diplomatic incidents, ignoring the government in Westminster and acting however their personal morality saw fit. Because it could take weeks for the government to even find out what you had done, and then weeks still to send your orders lololololol
There are two kinds of militaries. Ones where "what is not explicitly forbidden is permitted," and one where "what is not explicitly permitted is forbidden." And even within a military, the culture an officer cultivates may widely shape the attitudes of one regiment or ship compared to another.
Extraterritoriality as a concept was largely developed due to European naval powers interfering with the sovereignty of local powers to protect their citizens, or the citizens of other European/American polities, from prosecution in arbitrary courts with punishments like "throw in snake pit" or "death by a thousand slices." So I am always generous with these kinds of things, because just because something is one way with one organisation today, does not mean it would always be that way in any time, any setting with any peoples
I was born today.
Merry birthday!!!