And he is out of the territorial waters of the US when he is going to Cuba.
I have a problem with the wording, just as I have a problem with the
confiscation of cars and property because the "MAN" says it was used in the
drug trade. Where is the due process? Innocent until proven guilty? They
confiscate and you have to sue to get it back. They do not even have to
file charges. Is a great money making endeavor for cities and counties.
They sent mob bosses to prison for the same stuff.


"Jr Gilbreath" wrote in message
...
Jim, You can get to cuba without getting into the territorial waters of
the united States.


Jim Carter wrote:

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Marley" wrote in message

A Proclamation made by US President George W. Bush on February 26,
2004,
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to take virtually total
control over any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters

of

the United States, if the authorities feel that vessel "may be used, or

is

susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters".


You have a problem with that? Why?


Yes Jim, I have a problem with that. My reason for the problem is the
wording that says that Bush authorizes the total control over any
vessel,
"foreign" or domestic. I have no problem with the domestic boat but
it is
the foreign vessel that creates the problem for me.

I do cruise to Cuba. I have been there many times. I am a Canadian
Citizen and my boat is Canadian Registry. My government allows me to
travel
to Cuba. My government has trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Why
should a foreign government take control of my boat if I want to go to
Cuba?
That is a terrorism and piracy.

Jim

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:44:10 -0500, Marley said:


This is a jim dandy
law in my book."


So what's the answer to my question? I'll ask it again in case you forgot:


How many skippers have lost
their boats?



The answer to your remarkably ignorant question Dave, is that is NOT the
issue. Your government is now in the legal position of being able to
READ YOUR INTENTIONS and act against you if they (in their unfettered
opinions) think that you are thinking of heading for Cuba.

You are lamely attempting to suggest that since it (might) not have
happened yet the law is meaningless. That is a stupid, ignorant and
foolhardy assumption.

Perspective: Teams of lawyers and politicians carefully chose the
wording. Resident Bush signed it into LAW.

By suggesting that no one has lost their vessel YET, you are implying
that the effort taken incarefully writing the document, and passing the
law was meaningless.

Do you honestly think that a law was written and enacted just to give
the creators something to do?

Nope, it was CLEARLY written to allow the government to READ YOUR
THOUGHTS and act on their assumptions.

You should be afraid Dave. But you are far too busy trying to be right
to see what's obviousl.

Pityful really.

Paul Schilter wrote:



I would imagine they would have to prove "intent". If you were
cruising the coast of southern Florida it probably wouldn't be a
problem. If you were headed directly for Cuba and were getting close to
their waters that might be a different situation.
Paul



Paul

You can IMAGINE that the government would have to prove "intent" if you
want to...if it helps you in your denial have fun.

But the word INTENT is NOT mentioned in the LEGAL disertation posted.

If and when you are accused of "thinking of going to Cuba" you are
welcome to tell the gestapo that they should prove intent if you want
to..but clearly there is no requirement in the law as it is written.

That should frighten every single person reading it.

Dave wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 22:33:18 GMT, "Garuda" said:


I couldn't agree more. Marley doesn't understand
the meaning of the word "intent" or probable
cause.


Not to mention his total lack of comprehension of how the 5th Amendment's
due process clause gets implemented..



Dave, PLEASE make at least a trivial effort at thinking before posting.
The 5th amendment does not apply to Forgeign vessels.

The real point here is that the way that this law was written and signed
into law CLEARY states, without any doubt that your government can take
command of your boat just because they believe that you are THINKING of
going to Cuba. you can insist that you are not thinking of doing so, but
the LAW is not on your side.

Doesn't that scare you Dave?

It REALLY should. Then again, you seem to be far too concerned with
"being right" to take the time to read this law objectively.

Garuda wrote:

I couldn't agree more. Marley doesn't understand
the meaning of the word "intent" or probable
cause.



Garuda

Please visit the link provided which directs you to the actually
document sign into LAW by Resident Bush and tell me which paragraph
contains the phrases:

Probable Cause

or

Intent.


It simply isn't there Garuda. You can attempt to minimize your concern
by assuming it's there if it helps you to sleep at night, but you would
be making a VERY incorrect assumption, Garuda.

Doesn't that scare the crap out of you?

Think hard before answering Garuda...

Marley wrote:
Proclamation Restricts Rights of Boats in US Waters

A Proclamation made by US President George W. Bush on February 26, 2004,
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to take virtually total
control over any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters
of the United States, if the authorities feel that vessel "may be used,
or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters".

Translation: If the "authorities" believe for any reason that you are
THINKING about or are able to visit Cuba, you loose your boat. Yup...the
authorities are now MIND READERS. And once they read your mind they act
accordingly. I would venture to say that ANY boat is "susceptible of
being used to visit Cuba, wouldn't you?

Don't believe it? Here's it is striaght from the horses ass...err...mouth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040226-11.html

Welcome to 1984 folks.



There's nothing at all wrong with this indeed it's exactly "why" the
people of the US re elected W with such a huge majority!!!

Just so you know; here downunder we've gone even further, "any" vessel
"intending" to enter our territorial waters (commercial 200 miles non
commercial 12miles) "must" give our national marine centre prior notice
of their intentions "before" they get within 1000 miles of the coast.

Needless to say some of the near (less than 1000 miles) neighbours got
a bit ****ed but so what??? there's no offense committed, so long as the
vessel notifies the marine centre who they are & what they're doing
before they set out for the coast.

Needless to say any boat turning up "unannounced" will be intercepted &
dealt with.

You really should grow up a bit, this genuinely is a winner takes all
war, the reason you don't fully understand is that your admin has
successfully protected you from further attacks since 911.

Instead of being critical you should be on your sad socialist knees
thanking them for the continued safety of you & your family.

K

The Krause lie of the day???

The liar Krause works for Ullico the union Co that tries to take
money from honest hard working unionists then direct it to "union"
decided projects, so this lie is him admitting how a union organisation
was actually funding a political campaign, illegal?? you ask, yeah me
too but hey we know how much he hates Bush. Ullico has a history in this
also as you'll see in subsequent Krause lies.


I'm doing my part to ease unemployment. I'm hiring another writer
for my staff. Will be putting the ad on MONSTER.COM and in the Wash Post.

I need more staff because 2004 is a major election year and business

booked to date indicates we'll be drowning in work. We need to hire a
production coordinator, too. It has very little to do with the state
of the
economy, other than using it as reason to defeat Republicrap candidates.


Is this just another Krause lie??? well probably like all the
others:-) but imagine if it's actually true???? Knowing that he has no
"business" of his own just as he has no boat of his own, but he works
for Ullico which is supposed to be a not for profit looking out for
genuine unionists?????



We have first-class benefits, including a top-of-the-line health
insurance plan, a non-contributory defined-benefit pension plan, a 401k,
and a life insurance policy equal to annual salary. We contribute a
share of profits to the 401k on behalf of the employee. Our employees
pay $4.50 for generic prescriptions and $8.00 for non-generics, but
that's going up next year to $10 and $15. New employees get two weeks
vacation the first year, and that goes to three weeks the third year. In
addition, we have 12 paid holidays and we shut down from noon on
Christmas eve to the day after New Year's Day. We also provide 20 days
of paid sick leave a year. And we have an outside company administering
pre-tax flexible bennies for our employees.
Our fringe benefit package follows the trade union model, except, of
course, for the profit contributions to 401k's. Trade unions are
not-for-profit enterprises.
How do these compare to the bennies at your shop?


Clearly if there is any truth to this then it's the pay & conditions
Krause gets from his employer Ullico & probably socialists being
socialists they pay all the employees the same!!! So here we have hard
working unionists being levied by their unions, who give the money to
the likes of Ullico who then pay their uneducated lying staff such as
Krause as per his own claims in his own words above, this is sad in the
extreme.

If you are in a union better start asking questions big time it's
your retirement they're ****ing against the wall, by paying themselves;

Even some in the NG found this lie over the top & said so;


Paid? Every year? I call "bull****". With 3 weeks vacation, 12 paid
holidays, and 20 paid sick days that's 47 *paid* days off every
year. Are they hourly employees? For a "small business", that's the road to
bankruptcy.



Boy...and you had me going there for a minute.


Even after that!!! not our lying Krause he just continues with the
previous line that his employer is putting big bucks into a political
campaign, how so??? they're a not for profit with tax concessions to
boot!!! it's illegal!!! send in the Feds!!! simple as that & remember
all you unionists it's "your" money they're
spending without your knowledge much less permission on "their"
political campaign!!!

So lying Krause continues & adds even more insight into what
happens to "your" money when it goes to the unions:-);

Not quite so simple, though you are trying hard to make it so. Our
business is up because we're on the cusp of an election year. Our
business always goes up in a major election year.
You could say we're going to be doing very well in 2004 because Bush is
such a total failure.
The 20 paid sick days aren't part of the "paid" days off unless those
days are used. None of our people abuses sick leave. In fact, no one as
yet has even come close to using 20 sick days in one year. They're there
in case they're needed.
Oh, I forgot. We also provide everyone with LTD.
The company provides an insurance plan that pays 50% of an employe's
salary for Long Term Disability. Employes have the option of purchasing
an additional 16.66%, bringing their total to 66.66%. The basic benefit
maximum is $4,000 per month. With the buy up, the limit is increased to
$10,000 per month.



In this case I suggest Krause just admits it's another of his lies
before any of his little socialist mates get nailed????

Well Marley, maybe them having the right to take your boat on a whim is not
big deal. Remember they have also given themselves the right to come into
your house in the middle of the night and take you. And they don't have to
tell anyone they did so and you have no right to see a lawyer or anyone else
for that matter. GW is one of the last people on earth I trust with that
power.


"Marley" wrote in message
. ..
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:44:10 -0500, Marley said:


This is a jim dandy law in my book."


So what's the answer to my question? I'll ask it again in case you
forgot:


How many skippers have lost
their boats?



The answer to your remarkably ignorant question Dave, is that is NOT the
issue. Your government is now in the legal position of being able to READ
YOUR INTENTIONS and act against you if they (in their unfettered opinions)
think that you are thinking of heading for Cuba.

You are lamely attempting to suggest that since it (might) not have
happened yet the law is meaningless. That is a stupid, ignorant and
foolhardy assumption.

Perspective: Teams of lawyers and politicians carefully chose the wording.
Resident Bush signed it into LAW.

By suggesting that no one has lost their vessel YET, you are implying that
the effort taken incarefully writing the document, and passing the law was
meaningless.

Do you honestly think that a law was written and enacted just to give the
creators something to do?

Nope, it was CLEARLY written to allow the government to READ YOUR THOUGHTS
and act on their assumptions.

You should be afraid Dave. But you are far too busy trying to be right to
see what's obviousl.

Pityful really.

Jr Gilbreath wrote:


The same people that are screaming about this, and that it is Welcome to
1984 folks" had no problem when Billy and Hilly were using the FBI files
to spy on private citizens. Plus they don't know the difference between
loose and lose.

Marley wrote:

Proclamation Restricts Rights of Boats in US Waters

A Proclamation made by US President George W. Bush on February 26,
2004, authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to take virtually
total control over any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial
waters of the United States, if the authorities feel that vessel "may
be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban
territorial waters".

Translation: If the "authorities" believe for any reason that you are
THINKING about or are able to visit Cuba, you loose your boat.
Yup...the authorities are now MIND READERS. And once they read your
mind they act accordingly. I would venture to say that ANY boat is
"susceptible of being used to visit Cuba, wouldn't you?

Don't believe it? Here's it is striaght from the horses ass...err...mouth

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040226-11.html

Welcome to 1984 folks.

Dear Jr Gilbreath,

1) I don't give a rat's ass about politics. Bush, Gore, Clinton, I
simply couldnt care less. I am neither democrat or republican. You can
try to turn this into a Dems vs. Rep. issue if you want to...doesn't
change the law one bit though.

2) OBVIOUSLY since I typed an extra O when spelling lose..the entire
statement made is negated. OBVIOUSLY that extra O completely erradicates
any opinion offered. OBVIOUSLY, the law as posted on the whitehouse web
site doesn't really exist, since I acidently added an extra O to word
lose. By the way Jr Gilbreath, just in case you are as thick as your
post suggests, try a google of the word sarcasm).

It's remarkable what you, who feel that you need to be RIGHT in spite of
the obvious FACTS presented (
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040226-11.html ), will accept
as proof that you are right.

Here Jr Gilbreath, let me help:

In spite of the fact that lawyers no doubt spent months writing and
rewriting this law, in spite of the fac that Resident GWB signed this
into law, he doesn't really mean it. You can tell because I added an
extra O to the word lose. OBVIOUSLy that proves that the law as written
and published by the whitehouse is meaningless. They are just kidding ok?

Feel better now Jr Gilbreath ?

This law has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting our waters. It is a
blockade to keep people from this country or any other country from
traveling to the country of their choice. Sounds like the Berlin Wall
doesn't it.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...
"Marley" wrote in message
A Proclamation made by US President George W. Bush on February 26,
2004,
authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to take virtually total
control over any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial
waters
of
the United States, if the authorities feel that vessel "may be used,
or
is
susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters".

You have a problem with that? Why?

Yes Jim, I have a problem with that. My reason for the problem is the
wording that says that Bush authorizes the total control over any vessel,
"foreign" or domestic. I have no problem with the domestic boat but it
is
the foreign vessel that creates the problem for me.

I do cruise to Cuba. I have been there many times. I am a Canadian
Citizen and my boat is Canadian Registry. My government allows me to
travel
to Cuba. My government has trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba.
Why
should a foreign government take control of my boat if I want to go to
Cuba?
That is a terrorism and piracy.

Jim



Because they may not know your intentions.

When was the last time a Canadian privately owned boat was confiscated by
the US? Why don't we have an right to protect our waters based on our
laws
and regulations?

Don't like it? Travel to Cuba via waters not owned and under legal
control
of the US.

OH my, somewhat paranoid aren't you Marley. If
you don't agree with our laws, during wartime,
take your chances and do as you wish. Personally,
I've seen Cuba and have found other areas to be
much more enjoyable. Only people with thoughts
like you scare the crap out of me. By the way, I
don't make assumptions, I act on personal desires
and visiting Cuba again or reading your nonsense is
something I find to be boring.
If you want to see Cuba go, but quit whining about our laws.