Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Reposted for those who are THINKING about Cuba. be careful what you
THINK. The thought police are watching. 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. Addendum Instead of foolishly arguing B.S. politics, why don't you idiots who think this subject is meaningless drivel READ THE FREAKING PROCLAMATION seven or 8 times until you comprehend it! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Carter wrote:
Well Armond, you should read the law again. I read it several times and I have interpreted it to mean that I, a Canadian citizen, and my boat, which is Canadain registered, will be seized by the US Govermnet Agencies empowered by this law, if they perceive that I will be travelling in US waters and my "intent" is to travel from US waters to Cuba. First, there are no _laws_ governing the subject. There are instead a number of regulations administered by the US Treasury Department via the Office of Foreign Assets Control. I suggest _you_ make a further study of these regulations. Try: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforce...uide-cuba.html Second, the USCG and those few other agencies engaged in enforcement of the regulations, do indeed have defined authority over all vessels that are operating in US territorial waters. However barring extraordinary circumstances, they have _no_ authority over non-US vessels in international waters or on the high seas. There is no provision in the referenced regulations that affects these "laws of the sea." No one is suggesting that the US is behaving rationally in this matter, but this is not new. The embargo and associated activities date to the early 1960's. Instead of ranting about one or another government's distasteful behavior, I suggest a closer study of the facts. If it can be demonstrated that provisions exist in the regulations that authorize US government agencies to interfere with non-US vessels on the high seas (barring extraordinary circumstances), I would certainly like to learn about it. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Armond Perretta wrote:
Jim Carter wrote: Well Armond, you should read the law again. I read it several times and I have interpreted it to mean that I, a Canadian citizen, and my boat, which is Canadain registered, will be seized by the US Govermnet Agencies empowered by this law, if they perceive that I will be travelling in US waters and my "intent" is to travel from US waters to Cuba. First, there are no _laws_ governing the subject. There are instead a number of regulations administered by the US Treasury Department via the Office of Foreign Assets Control. I suggest _you_ make a further study of these regulations. Try: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforce...uide-cuba.html Second, the USCG and those few other agencies engaged in enforcement of the regulations, do indeed have defined authority over all vessels that are operating in US territorial waters. However barring extraordinary circumstances, they have _no_ authority over non-US vessels in international waters or on the high seas. There is no provision in the referenced regulations that affects these "laws of the sea." No one is suggesting that the US is behaving rationally in this matter, but this is not new. The embargo and associated activities date to the early 1960's. Instead of ranting about one or another government's distasteful behavior, I suggest a closer study of the facts. If it can be demonstrated that provisions exist in the regulations that authorize US government agencies to interfere with non-US vessels on the high seas (barring extraordinary circumstances), I would certainly like to learn about it. Wrong Armond. JUST WRONG. And It is NEW (February 2004) READ THE PROCLAMATION HE http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040226-11.html |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Marley wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote: Jim Carter wrote: ... read the law again ... I have interpreted it to mean that I, a Canadian citizen, and my boat, which is Canadain registered, will be seized by the US Govermnet Agencies empowered by this law, if they perceive that I will be travelling in US waters and my "intent" is to travel from US waters to Cuba. ... Try: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforce...uide-cuba.html ... There is no provision in the referenced regulations that affects these "laws of the sea" ... ... If it can be demonstrated that provisions exist in the regulations that authorize US government agencies to interfere with non-US vessels on the high seas (barring extraordinary circumstances), I would certainly like to learn about it. Wrong Armond. JUST WRONG Thanks for the elaborate clarification. It is true now, and has been so for some time, that _all_ vessels operating in US territorial waters are subject to regulation by US authorities. It is also true that non-US vessels in international waters are not subject to US authorities. The referenced document states: "The Secretary may make rules and regulations governing the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, which may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or result in unauthorized transactions, and thereby threaten a disturbance of international relations." Nothing in this portion of the statement addresses, either directly or indirectly, the _seizure_ of foreign vessels in US waters capable of going offshore. The referenced document further states: "The Secretary is authorized to inspect any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, at any time; to place guards on any such vessel; and, with my consent expressly hereby granted, take full possession and control of any such vessel and remove the officers and crew and all other persons not specifically authorized by the Secretary to go or remain on board the vessel when necessary to secure the rights and obligations of the United States." Once again there is no mention of Cuba in this portion of the statement. In fact this proclamation is not different in degree or kind from the then existing regulations. If a vessel, US or otherwise, waves a "red flag" in front of the authorities, it is quite likely that those authorities will react. This is not news. A careful reading of the referenced document does not agree with the vessel seizure interpretation proposed elsewhere in this thread. It is hard enough dealing with patently absurd regulations as things stand. There is no need to go the "urban legend" route. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Armond Perretta wrote:
Marley wrote: Armond Perretta wrote: Jim Carter wrote: ... read the law again ... I have interpreted it to mean that I, a Canadian citizen, and my boat, which is Canadain registered, will be seized by the US Govermnet Agencies empowered by this law, if they perceive that I will be travelling in US waters and my "intent" is to travel from US waters to Cuba. ... Try: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforce...uide-cuba.html ... There is no provision in the referenced regulations that affects these "laws of the sea" ... ... If it can be demonstrated that provisions exist in the regulations that authorize US government agencies to interfere with non-US vessels on the high seas (barring extraordinary circumstances), I would certainly like to learn about it. Wrong Armond. JUST WRONG Thanks for the elaborate clarification. It is true now, and has been so for some time, that _all_ vessels operating in US territorial waters are subject to regulation by US authorities. It is also true that non-US vessels in international waters are not subject to US authorities. The referenced document states: "The Secretary may make rules and regulations governing the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, which may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or result in unauthorized transactions, and thereby threaten a disturbance of international relations." Nothing in this portion of the statement addresses, either directly or indirectly, the _seizure_ of foreign vessels in US waters capable of going offshore. The referenced document further states: "The Secretary is authorized to inspect any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, at any time; to place guards on any such vessel; and, with my consent expressly hereby granted, take full possession and control of any such vessel and remove the officers and crew and all other persons not specifically authorized by the Secretary to go or remain on board the vessel when necessary to secure the rights and obligations of the United States." Once again there is no mention of Cuba in this portion of the statement. In fact this proclamation is not different in degree or kind from the then existing regulations. If a vessel, US or otherwise, waves a "red flag" in front of the authorities, it is quite likely that those authorities will react. This is not news. A careful reading of the referenced document does not agree with the vessel seizure interpretation proposed elsewhere in this thread. It is hard enough dealing with patently absurd regulations as things stand. There is no need to go the "urban legend" route. Seriously Armond, How in HELL can you even post this position Armond. You read the ENTIRE proclamation, and then decide all by your self that part A is somehow not connected to part B. The entire procamation is about Cuba. You can NOT arbitrarily decide that one part applies to Cuba and the rest doesn't. That just smacks of denial. Frankly Armond, that is quite probably the most pathetic attempt at avoiding responsibility for posting in error that I have ever seen. In fact, in doing that it appears so pathetic that I would have expected it from the likes of JaxAshby! (Low blow, I know). Nice to see that you can read an official proclamation DIRECTLY FROM the White House web site and arbitrarily declare that it's "urban legend". Remarably impressive display of denial Armond! |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Marley wrote:
Seriously Armond, How in HELL can you even post this position Armond. You read the ENTIRE proclamation, and then decide all by your self that part A is somehow not connected to part B. The entire procamation is about Cuba. You can NOT arbitrarily decide that one part applies to Cuba and the rest doesn't. That just smacks of denial. Frankly Armond, that is quite probably the most pathetic attempt at avoiding responsibility for posting in error that I have ever seen. In fact, in doing that it appears so pathetic that I would have expected it from the likes of JaxAshby! (Low blow, I know). Nice to see that you can read an official proclamation DIRECTLY FROM the White House web site and arbitrarily declare that it's "urban legend". Remarably impressive display of denial Armond! I hope you can do better that resort merely to ad hominem attacks. Your choice. Getting back to the topic at hand, there is absolutely no reference in the document that specifically states that US authorities can seize foreign vessels merely if they are intending to travel to Cuba. That was the contention of the poster to whom I replied. What _is_ stated in the proclamation is: " ... : The Secretary may make rules and regulations governing the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, which may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or " ... This means that anyone who violates US law ("result in unauthorized transactions") in US territory is subject to government action. Is this surprising? What this does _not_ mean is that non-US vessels _not_ engaged in illegal activities are not otherwise subject to seizure. There is nothing illegal in carrying Cuban charts, as suggested by the writer to whom I replied, and it's preposterous to even suggest that's the case. Here's a parallel example. I sail to Canada quite often. There are strict import regulations regarding liquor in Canada. I like liquor. If I violate these regulations my vessel can be seized. Does this mean the law is unreasonable? I don't think so. If any vessel in US waters engages in prohibited commerce with Cuba, it can be seized. Having Cuban charts on board (the original issue way back in this thread) is _not_ illegal. I am not defending this or any other law or regulation. What I am suggesting is that it's probably a good idea to understand what is actually stated in these documents before going on the attack. Can you or anyone else actually give an instance of a Canadian (or other foreign) vessel seized for carrying Cuban charts? OK, you can get back to the ad hominem attack portion of the program, eh? -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:43:33 -0500, Marley wrote:
Reposted for those who are THINKING about Cuba. be careful what you THINK. The thought police are watching. 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". That proclamation only extends that authority "when necessary to secure the rights and obligations of the United States." Although that's pretty vague, it does limit the application. Instead of foolishly arguing B.S. politics, why don't you idiots who think this subject is meaningless drivel READ THE FREAKING PROCLAMATION seven or 8 times until you comprehend it! Good idea. Ryk |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Armond Perretta wrote:
Marley wrote: Seriously Armond, How in HELL can you even post this position Armond. You read the ENTIRE proclamation, and then decide all by your self that part A is somehow not connected to part B. The entire procamation is about Cuba. You can NOT arbitrarily decide that one part applies to Cuba and the rest doesn't. That just smacks of denial. Frankly Armond, that is quite probably the most pathetic attempt at avoiding responsibility for posting in error that I have ever seen. In fact, in doing that it appears so pathetic that I would have expected it from the likes of JaxAshby! (Low blow, I know). Nice to see that you can read an official proclamation DIRECTLY FROM the White House web site and arbitrarily declare that it's "urban legend". Remarably impressive display of denial Armond! I hope you can do better that resort merely to ad hominem attacks. Your choice. Getting back to the topic at hand, there is absolutely no reference in the document that specifically states that US authorities can seize foreign vessels merely if they are intending to travel to Cuba. That was the contention of the poster to whom I replied. What _is_ stated in the proclamation is: " ... : The Secretary may make rules and regulations governing the anchorage and movement of any vessel, foreign or domestic, in the territorial waters of the United States, which may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or " ... This means that anyone who violates US law ("result in unauthorized transactions") in US territory is subject to government action. Is this surprising? What this does _not_ mean is that non-US vessels _not_ engaged in illegal activities are not otherwise subject to seizure. There is nothing illegal in carrying Cuban charts, as suggested by the writer to whom I replied, and it's preposterous to even suggest that's the case. Here's a parallel example. I sail to Canada quite often. There are strict import regulations regarding liquor in Canada. I like liquor. If I violate these regulations my vessel can be seized. Does this mean the law is unreasonable? I don't think so. If any vessel in US waters engages in prohibited commerce with Cuba, it can be seized. Having Cuban charts on board (the original issue way back in this thread) is _not_ illegal. I am not defending this or any other law or regulation. What I am suggesting is that it's probably a good idea to understand what is actually stated in these documents before going on the attack. Can you or anyone else actually give an instance of a Canadian (or other foreign) vessel seized for carrying Cuban charts? OK, you can get back to the ad hominem attack portion of the program, eh? -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ Armond, Take the time to go back and read the document as it was written, as a COMPLETE document. It is VERY clearly written and you truly are mistaken in your apparently confused understanding of the proclamation. I will not invest any further effort in trying to help you to comprehend the document. Nor will I waste time reading your ad hominem attacks (i.e. urban legend). All people have two choices. To be informed or to remain ignorant. Everyone has that choice entirely, Armond. And that choice is made for any number of reasons, not the least of which is in an effort to support a political belief structure. Far be it from me to attempt further clarification for you or for anyone else for that matter. To those interested, just read that "urban legend" proclamation that is posted on the white house web site and feel absolutely free to interpret it ANY WAY that serves you best. Just like the authorities will be free to do when they visit your vessel. Have a wonderful day. M |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Marley wrote:
Armond, Take the time to go back and read the document as it was written, as a COMPLETE document. It is VERY clearly written and you truly are mistaken in your apparently confused understanding of the proclamation. A person should be willing to sit at the table he or she has set. Here is the complete text of a post you made on this subject:. Take particular note of you second paragraph when you quote directly from the document. quoted Marley Mar 8, 1:35 pm Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising From: Marley Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:35:06 -0500 Local: Tues, Mar 8 2005 1:35 pm Subject: goin ta cuber wrote: I been 'nvited to a sintifik conference in Havana in late Sept this year. My boat (a 28' S2) will probably still be in S. Florida then. What y'all think of sailin there from the Keys? Supposedly, its all OK since its fer scientifik purposes n all. Even gonna give a talk might be titled "Entropy Reversal in an Old Sailboat". 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. /quoted Please compare _your_ quote in the second paragraph, to wit: "may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters". with the _actual proclamation that you referenced but failed to present in its entirety: "may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or result in unauthorized transactions, and thereby threaten a disturbance of international relations. " I leave it to the reader to determine which of us is selectively editing, sir. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Red Cloud© wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:39:05 -0500, "Armond Perretta" wrote: Marley wrote: Armond, Take the time to go back and read the document as it was written, as a COMPLETE document. It is VERY clearly written and you truly are mistaken in your apparently confused understanding of the proclamation. A person should be willing to sit at the table he or she has set. Here is the complete text of a post you made on this subject:. Take particular note of you second paragraph when you quote directly from the document. quoted Marley Mar 8, 1:35 pm Newsgroups: rec.boats.cruising From: Marley Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 16:35:06 -0500 Local: Tues, Mar 8 2005 1:35 pm Subject: goin ta cuber wrote: I been 'nvited to a sintifik conference in Havana in late Sept this year. My boat (a 28' S2) will probably still be in S. Florida then. What y'all think of sailin there from the Keys? Supposedly, its all OK since its fer scientifik purposes n all. Even gonna give a talk might be titled "Entropy Reversal in an Old Sailboat". 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. /quoted Please compare _your_ quote in the second paragraph, to wit: "may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters". with the _actual proclamation that you referenced but failed to present in its entirety: "may be used, or is susceptible of being used, for voyage into Cuban territorial waters and that may create unsafe conditions, or result in unauthorized transactions, and thereby threaten a disturbance of international relations. " I leave it to the reader to determine which of us is selectively editing, sir. My vote is clearly with Marley. Please check with ALL the major sailing/cruising news sources for further verification. I have yet to find one that agrees with your rather twisted interpretation. red You are correct Rick. All reputable sailing news sources have seen this proclamation as striking at the heart of freedom. The REAL issue at heart here for those who want to argue against that which is clearly written is quite simple, and I believe already stated it. In spite of logica and reason, some folks will ~interpret~ what they read as THEY see fit. This is usually done in an effort support their political agenda. In other words, it's not about reality, it's about "being right" at all cost. It's that "I voted for insert name of choice so it can't be true" game that is played out so very often. And I TRULY don't care what those who chose this path think. Frankly, their ignorance ain't my problem. Unfortunately for them (and for the rest of us too for that matter), the AUTHORITIES will interpret as THEY see fit too. They have the power, and they have the upper hand. PERIOD. By inference: Can you just imagine that someone actually might think that the authorities would back down when confronted with an armchair legal opinion based on his ... shall we say..."unique" interpretation of this proclamation? Can't you just picture the heavily armed squad of coasties apologizing profusely for mistakenly interpreting the proclamation in such a way as to give themselves the authority to do as they wish? No doubt they would then return to their vessel to chastize their foolish captain for his misinterpretation! I'd just LOVE to be a fly on the wall and be able to watch anyone who believes as Armond claims to believe when the coasties board and accuse him of ~thinking~ of visiting cuba though. Gee, I wonder who would win that debate? ROTFLMFAO! Cheers M |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Lake Erie Cruising Guide | Cruising | |||
Online Cruising Guide | Cruising | |||
Call to All Boaters- Help Write Our Online Cruising Guide! | General | |||
Call To All Cruisers - Help Write Our Cruising Guide! | Cruising | |||
Sailboat Trash Cruising Guide | Cruising |