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

Marley wrote:

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

You won't change the mind of any law enforcement officer. He proceeds, then you
defend yourself in court. Arguing with any of them long proved that you can only
worsen his temper and he may stick you with a couple more charges such as
resisting arrest.

And the winner is....

....probably a bunch of lawyers after you spent twice the value of the boat in
debating this through several courts, whichever side wins the case!

;-)

Jean Dufour
Montreal, Qc