"Armond Perretta" wrote in message
...
What in the world are you talking about? Travel to Cuba for US citizens
is
restricted, yes, but _thinking_ about it is not.
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/

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.

To me this amounts to Piracy.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

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.

To me this amounts to Piracy.

Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield

This information and our reactions to it needs to be forwarded to the
owner/operaters of marinas all over the Great Lakes. Americans seem to
be motivated by $$ and perhaps they need to know that legislation like
this is going to cost them $$. Personally, as a result of the predatory
economic policies that Bush has implemented towards it's largest trading
partner despite it's signing of NAFTA i.e., border closures to Cdn.
cattle and duties on softwood lumber, I have made the decision _not_ to
travel to the US until these punitive trade sanctions, and G.W. Bush are
gone. No to Florida, Si to Cuba. My considerable personal disposable
income will not longer be spent in the US until the US starts treating
it's best ally, like it's best ally.

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!

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

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/

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

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/

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!

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 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