As of February 26, 2004, when Bush signed Proclamation 7757, supposedly
if you have charts of Cuba on your boat, the government can seize said
boat because possession of those charts is evidence of the fact that you
either visited or intend to visit Cuba in violation of these rules. You
then have to prove you didn't go there to get it back. Is this
outrageous or what?

Do we remeber back in the days when we hated the Soviets for all the
horrible things they did? Like invading innocent countries, trying to
shove their government down everyone's throat, taking away their own
citizen's rights, etc....

Hopefully Tuesday will bring a change.

Capt. jeff

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:Tphgd.80761$hj.42925@fed1read07...
Here is some corespondence between a Canadian sailor and the US Ambasador
to
Canada and other authorities.
http://www.internationalchallenge.org/cuba/whatsnew.htm

The jist from the US State Department is: "a Canadian crew aboard a
Canadian
vessel traveling through American waters with no intent to carry funds or
commerce to the Cuban people is "at risk" of removal from their vessel and
seizure of their boat. The U.S. Coast Guard would be operating within
their
legal jurisdiction if they were to take such action...even for vessels
that
are clearly noncommercial."

What that really means is that, by executive order of the President, if
the
USCG suspects that you may go to Cuba even after visiting another country
if
you have been in US waters they can sieze your boat ANYWHERE they find
you.

Actually the two letters only mention seizure while in US waters. The US
would be violating a lot of international laws if it started unilaterlly
seizing boats in international waters.

--
Evan Gatehouse

you'll have to rewrite my email address to get to me
ceilydh AT 3web dot net
(fools the spammers)

Surely this is not legal if i am a non US citizen on a non US boat they
have no right to limit where i go and who i see and i have no intention
of going any where near Cuba any way but common sense tells me to carry
a chart or two for safety.
I just read this article
http://www.internationalchallenge.org/cuba/whatsnew.htm
Sheesh and i thought Russia was bad
Shaun




Tamaroak wrote:
As of February 26, 2004, when Bush signed Proclamation 7757, supposedly
if you have charts of Cuba on your boat, the government can seize said
boat because possession of those charts is evidence of the fact that you
either visited or intend to visit Cuba in violation of these rules. You
then have to prove you didn't go there to get it back. Is this
outrageous or what?

Do we remeber back in the days when we hated the Soviets for all the
horrible things they did? Like invading innocent countries, trying to
shove their government down everyone's throat, taking away their own
citizen's rights, etc....

Hopefully Tuesday will bring a change.

Capt. jeff

On 29 Oct 2004 03:12:12 GMT, (LaBomba182) wrote:

It was a joke Wayne. :-)
Take a look at a chart.
======================

OK, OK.

I know the chart very well. I'm sitting here in Cape Coral looking
for places to cruise to with our new GB49 and Cuba looks like a winner
if we can ever get some rational policies in place.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 22:05:37 -0700, "Evan Gatehouse"
wrote:

Actually the two letters only mention seizure while in US waters. The US
would be violating a lot of international laws if it started unilaterlly
seizing boats in international waters.

======================

It's a long way from Canada to Cuba without going through US waters.

Falky foo wrote:

Doesn't Canada have anything to say about this?

Well this Canadian does.
What the hell would it matter what the Canadian government or any other
govt for that matter has to say about US foreign policy? You guys have
the 2nd biggest threat to world peace as your president and the biggest
threat to world peace i.e., the idiot Rumsfeld telling him what to do.
You don't like a "regime"? Pre-emptively start a war on false pretexts,
lie to your populace, scare them with terrorist boogeyman propaganda and
do whatever the hell you want. Who is going to give a damn about an
impounded Canadian yacht in the context of a country that will spend
$500billion and counting to extend its military might across the globe
in an imperialistic invasion and occupation of another sovereign nation?

"Evan Gatehouse" wrote in message
...
..

Actually the two letters only mention seizure while in US waters. The US
would be violating a lot of international laws if it started unilaterlly
seizing boats in international waters.

You would logically think so but the US has had a treaty with the Bahamas
allowing the USCG enforcement powers in Bahamian waters since 1996. The
original intent was drug interdiction but the agreement is no longer
restricted to just that. Just after the directive was issued the US signed
agreements with the Bahamas and Haiti expanding USCG enforcement powers in
the waters of both nations. Given the high reguard that the US currently
has for international relations and the rather liberal (dare I use that
word) interpretations that DOD and Justice Department lawyers are giving to
international law, seizing foreign flagged vessels was not much of a
stretch.

Actually the USCG has been boarding foreign flagged boats in the Caribbean
for some time. Back in 2000 I was crewing on a French boat being delivered
from Tortola to Grand Cayman when we were boarded about 3AM. We were about
30 miles south of Isla Beata, DR. We figured it was not right but were not
willing to argue with the cannon on the foredeck.

You could probably get the boat returned after apealing but it would still
put a big crimp in the cruise.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

Garuda wrote:
Why would the current situation improve next Tuesday? Do you think
the Castro regime is in need of Heinz products?

I can't speak for the "regime" but I know from first hand experience that
the populace would be very pleased to have access to just about any
reputable canned goods.

Re your first question, things could begin looking up if the moron living at
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue had to make arrangements to move his furniture back
to Crawford in mid to late January. I guess we'll just have to see what
Jesus decides on Tuesday (if you think this is some sort of joke or in poor
taste, then you haven't been paying attention to what goes on inside that
moron's head).

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

The mayor of London, John Livingstone, calls Bush "the greatest living
threat to life on this planet."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Capt. jeff

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:12:56 GMT, "Falky foo"
wrote:


The jist from the US State Department is: "a Canadian crew aboard a
Canadian
vessel traveling through American waters with no intent to carry funds or
commerce to the Cuban people is "at risk" of removal from their vessel and
seizure of their boat. The U.S. Coast Guard would be operating within
their
legal jurisdiction if they were to take such action...even for vessels
that
are clearly noncommercial."

Doesn't Canada have anything to say about this?

You'd think, but they're too busy fighting the U.S. lumber lobby in
spite of NAFTA G.

Canadians will vote with their wallets if any Canadian registered
boats are seized due to insane U.S. policies. I'm no friend of the
Cuban dictatorship, but I am less enamoured of a policy of "seize
under suspicious" non-U.S. vessels.

Halifax to the Azores, and then to Havana, anyone?

Looking good.

R.