|
FS: Cuba A Cruising Guide by Nigel Calder
Cuba A Cruising Guide by Nigel Calder is a guide for sailors to the
waters surrounding Cuba. The hard-to-find book provides meticulous details for the navigator with charts of the hundreds of miles of coastal waters surrounding Cuba. For anyone thinking about a cruise in Cuban waters someday this is an indispensable resource. We are pleased to offer the book Cuba A Cruising Guide at a starting price of $19.95 at: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=453560300 2 Thank you, http-mart |
Actually, they can, according to a directive signed by our deserter
president george w. bush (well, where the hell was he from may 1970 to may 1971?) on 2/23/04. All they need is the charts indicating your intent to visit Cuba. What a government.... Capt. Jeff |
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:06:49 -0500, krj
wrote: If I buy this book, won't the U.S. Guvment decide that I'm thing about sailing to Cuba and confiscate my boat? krj I have heard US Citizens may visit but we are not allowed to spend any money in Cuba. I think we can go there as guests of someone else and that person can pay everything. |
if you go, they will need to pay for everything and give you a
notarized letter stating so and you gave them no compensation in return. Such a letter is admisable as testimony in a trial, and you will still be sent a letter and asked to document that you did not expend any money in cuba. This must specify clearly that they also paid your plane ticket, entry fees, exist fees, visa fees, hotel stays (if you stay in a hotel), food and transportation within cuba. you are right, the original letter of the law was to stop us citizens from spending money. But, presidential orders from Bush, and many of them, have clamped down on everything. Example, you used to be able to go as part of a school program. Now you can't. Pretty much all of the loop holes have been closed and methods of getting in. It's very, very, very risky as the President has directed the Coast Guard to "seize any vessels under any flag capable of going to Cuba" and the treasury department to "use the full measure of the law to enforce the trading with the enemies act". There are more treasury agents assigned to do this then to track down terrorist funding. Write you congressmen, but until it changes, and Bush leaves, you can't go. |
Tamaroak wrote:
Actually, they can, according to a directive signed by ... bush ...All they need is the charts indicating your intent to visit Cuba. What a government.... 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/ |
"Armond Perretta" wrote:
Tamaroak wrote: Actually, they can, according to a directive signed by ... bush ...All they need is the charts indicating your intent to visit Cuba. What a government.... What in the world are you talking about? Travel to Cuba for US citizens is restricted, yes, but _thinking_ about it is not. It's not restricted as long as you don't really have any way to get there. If you have a boat capable of going and they perceive that you might be thinking about it, they can take the boat to be sure that you don't turn thoughts into action. At least that is my understanding of the directed. And it doesn't just apply to US citizens either. grandma Rosalie |
"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. |
You would think, in the interest of national security, that people trying to
get into the US from Cuba would warrant more scrutinization than people thinking about visiting Cuba from the US (or Canada). A couple "Shining Path" types could get garbage documentation saying they are Cuban, hop on an inner tube and as long as they make it to the beach in Florida, we would not only welcome them with open arms, but would also pay there way until they got jobs (or blew up a barely protected "nucular" power plant!). I sure feel safer! MMC "boatgeek" wrote in message oups.com... if you go, they will need to pay for everything and give you a notarized letter stating so and you gave them no compensation in return. Such a letter is admisable as testimony in a trial, and you will still be sent a letter and asked to document that you did not expend any money in cuba. This must specify clearly that they also paid your plane ticket, entry fees, exist fees, visa fees, hotel stays (if you stay in a hotel), food and transportation within cuba. you are right, the original letter of the law was to stop us citizens from spending money. But, presidential orders from Bush, and many of them, have clamped down on everything. Example, you used to be able to go as part of a school program. Now you can't. Pretty much all of the loop holes have been closed and methods of getting in. It's very, very, very risky as the President has directed the Coast Guard to "seize any vessels under any flag capable of going to Cuba" and the treasury department to "use the full measure of the law to enforce the trading with the enemies act". There are more treasury agents assigned to do this then to track down terrorist funding. Write you congressmen, but until it changes, and Bush leaves, you can't go. |
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! |
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/ |
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 |
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 |
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/ |
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 |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:01:47 -0500, "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. Yep. If you play Desi Arnaz 78s off Syracuse in a Canadian boat, the I-68 or whatever the form is called won't protect you if they think you're contemplating a cigar run. This is why I will not cross the lake. I do not care to subsidize fanaticism or to risk state-sanctioned theft because some nautical mall cops thinks I might be a Commie sympathiser. Well, no, but I do enjoy a Havana Club rum at the dock on occasion. So my increasingly lucrative dollars stay here in Soviet Canuckistan until someone grows a brain and a sense of proportion and respect for international law. To me this amounts to Piracy. Well, any excuse will do with the arrr-yo-ho-ho types. As the late Bill Hicks noted, the U.S. Feds went in at Waco because they "had heard of child abuse" (later unsubstantiated). Hicks said "in that case, why aren't there Abrams tanks flattening half the Catholic churches in the country?" Logic doesn't enter into things with governments, particularly governments that abrogate to themselves extra-territorial powers. R. |
rhys wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:01:47 -0500, "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. Yep. If you play Desi Arnaz 78s off Syracuse in a Canadian boat, the I-68 or whatever the form is called won't protect you if they think you're contemplating a cigar run. This is why I will not cross the lake. I do not care to subsidize fanaticism or to risk state-sanctioned theft because some nautical mall cops thinks I might be a Commie sympathiser. Well, no, but I do enjoy a Havana Club rum at the dock on occasion. So my increasingly lucrative dollars stay here in Soviet Canuckistan until someone grows a brain and a sense of proportion and respect for international law. To me this amounts to Piracy. Well, any excuse will do with the arrr-yo-ho-ho types. As the late Bill Hicks noted, the U.S. Feds went in at Waco because they "had heard of child abuse" (later unsubstantiated). Hicks said "in that case, why aren't there Abrams tanks flattening half the Catholic churches in the country?" Logic doesn't enter into things with governments, particularly governments that abrogate to themselves extra-territorial powers. R. Well said Rhys. Well said indeed. |
Armond, I hate to say it but yours is a dreamworld interpretation of the
directive. There are a lot of folks who try to find rational interpretations of for some of the current administration's policies but then there are folks who swear that Elvis is pumping gas in Arizona too. You can try to deny it all you want but the directive is what it is and says what it says and that is that your boat can be siezed if the government THINKS you MIGHT sail it into Cuban waters and it is up to you to prove them wrong. -- 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 |
A brief civics lesson:
The White House proclamation is a policy document which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to make and enforce regulations within certain guidelines. Armed Coasties can't wave this policy document as they storm the boats of innocent cigar smokers sailing ominously near to Cuba. What they DO have to comply with and enforce is this document: http://www.uscg.mil/d7/d7o/mic/regulations.pdf It took me 2 minutes on Google to find the actual regulations the CG has to follow. I am not even going to pretend to interpret them for you; please read it for yourself. Civics disclaimer: The Secretary can change these regulations at any time as long as he does so within the President's proclamation. Jim |
"Jim" wrote in message oups.com... A brief civics lesson: The White House proclamation is a policy document which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to make and enforce regulations within certain guidelines. Armed Coasties can't wave this policy document as they storm the boats of innocent cigar smokers sailing ominously near to Cuba. What they DO have to comply with and enforce is this document: http://www.uscg.mil/d7/d7o/mic/regulations.pdf It took me 2 minutes on Google to find the actual regulations the CG has to follow. I am not even going to pretend to interpret them for you; please read it for yourself. Civics disclaimer: The Secretary can change these regulations at any time as long as he does so within the President's proclamation. Jim Regardless of content, some will interpret the proclamation as a profound threat to even those with cigars, charts or cruising guides of Cuba. A certain canadian with a propensity for waxing political, ad nauseam, coupled with wishing to be a fly on the wall, hopefully will meet up with a common fly swatter and thus spare us further BS. |
Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Armond, I hate to say it but yours is a dreamworld interpretation of the directive. There are a lot of folks who try to find rational interpretations of for some of the current administration's policies but then there are folks who swear that Elvis is pumping gas in Arizona too. You can try to deny it all you want but the directive is what it is and says what it says and that is that your boat can be siezed if the government THINKS you MIGHT sail it into Cuban waters and it is up to you to prove them wrong. For a change of pace lets discuss something germane. A certain writer whose nationality is not known to me suggested that his _Canadian_ vessel could be seized while in US waters merely for possessing Cuban charts. I disagree with this and if you yourself don't also, I'll be somewhat surprised. I made no comments about my US-flagged vessel and I certainly rendered no political opinion. In fact, in the several thousand posts I've written to this group I've never made a political statement (unless making such a claim is in itself political). Unless you do a stand-up routine as Karnack on the weekends, I don't see how you can logically assume _anything_ about my politics. This of course doesn't mean you're not free to do so here in the good ole USA, but it does seem a bit out of character in your particular case. I certainly don't mind being wrong, because there's always something new to learn. However I _do_ rather mind having my statements misrepresented, which is precisely the basis upon which the present discussion is built. But hey, ya know, sometimes things just happen in newsgroups, don't they?. -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Well the Canadians are pretty hacked right now and in a way I don't blame
them. I have a feeling you will be surprised but it is true that under the directive the USCG or any other federal law enforcement agency CAN seize a Canadian boat in international waters after transiting US waters that shows any indication of entering Cuban waters. It can be done and I have a bit of personal experience with the powers of the USCG that proves it.. I was the only American crew on a French flagged Beneteau enroute from Martinique to Port Antonio, Jamaica in February 1998. We were clearly in international waters a little over 20 miles south of Isla Beata on the south coast of the DR when about 2AM we were hailed by a USCG cutter. We were then boarded, searched and our log book and navigation notes and charts examined. The skipper was justifiably upset but atypically for a Frenchman decided that discretion was the better part of valor considering the cannon on the cutters foredeck trained on us. I thought the CG was outside its purview myself so when I got home I did a little research. It turns out that the USCG can and has seized foreign flagged vessels in international waters "of interest to the United States" when it is in violation of US laws or directives. If any contraband had been found they definitely would have taken the boat into custody. By simple extension a Canadian boat runs a similar risk. In short, a Canadian vessel enroute to or returning from Cuba may not enter US territorial waters without exposing itself to the possibility of seizure either in US or international waters. That includes after intermediate stops in the Bahamas, Hispanola and Cayman Islands. The directive has only one purpose. To keep the older Cuban community in Florida in the Republican camp. -- 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 |
OK. You found it. Now read it. Part 107 Sub-part B specifically.
-- 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 "Jim" wrote in message oups.com... A brief civics lesson: The White House proclamation is a policy document which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to make and enforce regulations within certain guidelines. Armed Coasties can't wave this policy document as they storm the boats of innocent cigar smokers sailing ominously near to Cuba. What they DO have to comply with and enforce is this document: http://www.uscg.mil/d7/d7o/mic/regulations.pdf It took me 2 minutes on Google to find the actual regulations the CG has to follow. I am not even going to pretend to interpret them for you; please read it for yourself. Civics disclaimer: The Secretary can change these regulations at any time as long as he does so within the President's proclamation. Jim |
Sir, your experience is OBE!
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message news:wjs_d.67021$SF.4096@lakeread08... Well the Canadians are pretty hacked right now and in a way I don't blame them. I have a feeling you will be surprised but it is true that under the directive the USCG or any other federal law enforcement agency CAN seize a Canadian boat in international waters after transiting US waters that shows any indication of entering Cuban waters. It can be done and I have a bit of personal experience with the powers of the USCG that proves it.. I was the only American crew on a French flagged Beneteau enroute from Martinique to Port Antonio, Jamaica in February 1998. We were clearly in international waters a little over 20 miles south of Isla Beata on the south coast of the DR when about 2AM we were hailed by a USCG cutter. We were then boarded, searched and our log book and navigation notes and charts examined. The skipper was justifiably upset but atypically for a Frenchman decided that discretion was the better part of valor considering the cannon on the cutters foredeck trained on us. I thought the CG was outside its purview myself so when I got home I did a little research. It turns out that the USCG can and has seized foreign flagged vessels in international waters "of interest to the United States" when it is in violation of US laws or directives. If any contraband had been found they definitely would have taken the boat into custody. By simple extension a Canadian boat runs a similar risk. In short, a Canadian vessel enroute to or returning from Cuba may not enter US territorial waters without exposing itself to the possibility of seizure either in US or international waters. That includes after intermediate stops in the Bahamas, Hispanola and Cayman Islands. The directive has only one purpose. To keep the older Cuban community in Florida in the Republican camp. -- 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 |
WaIIy wrote:
Well Chief, please point out the url's or ANY credible story to back up your assertion. jeezus WaIIy the url has been posted a dozen times read the damn proclamation and thenjust get over it you and Armond can't act like the thing doesn't say what it says you're big boys, you're smart enough you can understand it you Americans have got to get over this Cuba thing you lay like a whore with Putin and the Chinese because there's $$ in it but tiny little Cuba? naw, you'll still recycle the same tired old horse**** about Communism you guys are still just ****ed that Fidel took a pair of bricks to your balls 50 years ago and told you to f*** off when are you Americans _ever_ going to learn that you'll make more allies by feeding them, than starving or bombing them? |
prodigal1 wrote:
... [rant snipped] ... Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but it occurs to me that the level of discourse hereabouts is tending toward Paris Sewer levels. One possible reason is that there are quite a few folks posting under anonymous monikers. As many long-time readers know, this occurs here from time to time, characterized by a frequency on par with sun spots and US general elections. Though rare, it's still a bit unnerving. If I didn't know better I'd suspect these nameless wonders do this because they are not quite forthcoming enough to post their sentiments under a name that other readers could associate with a real live human being. (BTW, the "spam avoidance" excuse doesn't work here, or haven't you heard about "munging" and Mailwasher?) There are any number of possible reasons for this character-less activity, but none of them pass muster as evidence of responsible behavior. There are many of us who've been writing to this group over the years who have always signed our names. There's also a large group of anonymous posters whose behavior is impeccable. We've all said and done stupid things and made mistakes, but this missive is not intended for them. It's directed at the "others." The "others" contingent hides behind some "nom-de-Usenet" and never crawls out from under the rock they currently inhabit. They and their ilk have origins that can usually be traced to other newsgroups where their behavior is the norm rather than the exception. They seem to be prone toward political rants and broad generalizations, and quite often show little evidence of schooling beyond fourth grade (on a good day). They are quite certain that "grammar" is an actor in a TV sitcom These are _not_ the folks one wants to share an anchorage with, although it's unlikely that they will wander far in their 18 foot runabouts.. Hey, I'm just an old-fashioned guy, I guess, but would these "phantoms" give some though to backing up their rants with their real names? As the song goes, "let the sun shine.". -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Beautiful Armond, simply beautiful, but those that live under a rock hate sunshine. JR Armond Perretta wrote: prodigal1 wrote: ... [rant snipped] ... Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but it occurs to me that the level of discourse hereabouts is tending toward Paris Sewer levels. One possible reason is that there are quite a few folks posting under anonymous monikers. As many long-time readers know, this occurs here from time to time, characterized by a frequency on par with sun spots and US general elections. Though rare, it's still a bit unnerving. If I didn't know better I'd suspect these nameless wonders do this because they are not quite forthcoming enough to post their sentiments under a name that other readers could associate with a real live human being. (BTW, the "spam avoidance" excuse doesn't work here, or haven't you heard about "munging" and Mailwasher?) There are any number of possible reasons for this character-less activity, but none of them pass muster as evidence of responsible behavior. There are many of us who've been writing to this group over the years who have always signed our names. There's also a large group of anonymous posters whose behavior is impeccable. We've all said and done stupid things and made mistakes, but this missive is not intended for them. It's directed at the "others." The "others" contingent hides behind some "nom-de-Usenet" and never crawls out from under the rock they currently inhabit. They and their ilk have origins that can usually be traced to other newsgroups where their behavior is the norm rather than the exception. They seem to be prone toward political rants and broad generalizations, and quite often show little evidence of schooling beyond fourth grade (on a good day). They are quite certain that "grammar" is an actor in a TV sitcom These are _not_ the folks one wants to share an anchorage with, although it's unlikely that they will wander far in their 18 foot runabouts.. Hey, I'm just an old-fashioned guy, I guess, but would these "phantoms" give some though to backing up their rants with their real names? As the song goes, "let the sun shine.". |
Armond Perretta wrote:
ad hominem snipped To paraphrase Dr. Lector, if you don't understand the words, it's best not to enter the conversation at all. But since several of us are being kind enough to try to explain the words to you, I'll continue. Your job will be to shut up and learn. Whether I choose to post under a pseudonym or not is of no concern to you. What is a "name" on usenet anyway? What is of concern to you are the _ideas_ being presented by those words. Some of the words and ideas that have been presented for your edification have been both difficult for you to comprehend and apparently even more difficult for you to swallow. You have to set aside all your long years of propagandization by your political system and that's a _very_very_ difficult thing for many of you Americans to do. By the words you post here it seems that people like you, your pal WaIIy and your cheerleader JR would all like to shove your heads deeply into......the sand and ignore the fact that the imperialist politics of the USA are relevant to topics of discussion in rec.boats.cruising. If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the Canary Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government whether I choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully who thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes proclamations like the one in question which impinge on my freedom as a citizen of another country. So let's summarize. 1. address the ideas 'cause the names don't matter 2. imperialist American politics is relevant to rec.boats.cruising 3. when in doubt, refer back to #2 and #1 |
"prodigal1" wrote in message ... ........................snip.................... If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the Canary Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government whether I choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully who thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes proclamations like the one in question which impinge on my freedom as a citizen of another country. ..................snip again............... I write and have always written under my real name and I also would like to say that I completely agree with what "prodigal 1" has stated about the rights of travelers to sail to wherever they want without the intervention of the US Authorities. If I am sailing from Haiti to Cuba, what right does the United States have to stop me from doing so? If they stop my boat on the high seas it, to me, amounts to piracy! It is no wonder that the Americans are so hated in most parts of the world when their government issues such ridiculous laws pertaining to Cuba. It was bad enough that the US Forces attacked Grenada for no reason other than there were Cubans there who were there by the Grenadian Government invitation and now they would stop citizens from other countries who want to travel to Cuba. James D. Carter "The Boat" Bayfield |
prodigal1 wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote: ad hominem snipped To paraphrase Dr. Lector, if you don't understand the words, it's best not to enter the conversation at all. But since several of us are being kind enough to try to explain the words to you, I'll continue. Your job will be to shut up and learn. Whether I choose to post under a pseudonym or not is of no concern to you. What is a "name" on usenet anyway? What is of concern to you are the _ideas_ being presented by those words. Some of the words and ideas that have been presented for your edification have been both difficult for you to comprehend and apparently even more difficult for you to swallow. You have to set aside all your long years of propagandization by your political system and that's a _very_very_ difficult thing for many of you Americans to do. By the words you post here it seems that people like you, your pal WaIIy and your cheerleader JR would all like to shove your heads deeply into......the sand and ignore the fact that the imperialist politics of the USA are relevant to topics of discussion in rec.boats.cruising. If I want to sail my boat to Cancun, the Canary Is. or Cuba, it is none of the business of the US government whether I choose to do so. What makes your politics relevant to rec.boats.cruising is that now, behaving like the schoolyard bully who thinks he can get away with it, the idiot Bush passes proclamations like the one in question which impinge on my freedom as a citizen of another country. So let's summarize. 1. address the ideas 'cause the names don't matter 2. imperialist American politics is relevant to rec.boats.cruising 3. when in doubt, refer back to #2 and #1 -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
Garuda wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message oups.com... A brief civics lesson: The White House proclamation is a policy document which gives the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority to make and enforce regulations within certain guidelines. Armed Coasties can't wave this policy document as they storm the boats of innocent cigar smokers sailing ominously near to Cuba. What they DO have to comply with and enforce is this document: http://www.uscg.mil/d7/d7o/mic/regulations.pdf It took me 2 minutes on Google to find the actual regulations the CG has to follow. I am not even going to pretend to interpret them for you; please read it for yourself. Civics disclaimer: The Secretary can change these regulations at any time as long as he does so within the President's proclamation. Jim Regardless of content, some will interpret the proclamation as a profound threat to even those with cigars, charts or cruising guides of Cuba. A certain canadian with a propensity for waxing political, ad nauseam, coupled with wishing to be a fly on the wall, hopefully will meet up with a common fly swatter and thus spare us further BS. You know Garuda, ALL I have done is suggest that you READ THE PROCLAMATION carefully. YOU are the one who keeps insisting it isn't so. And THAT is not my problem...it's YOURS. Franklly, your efforts at denial are nothing short of spectacular. Hey, who am I to argue? If shooting the messenger somehow helps you enforce your rampant denial, far be it for me to take that away from you. It would be nice though if you could speak up. Hard to hear you with your head so far up your ass. Now feel free to post some useless (and embarassing to you) "response". I'll take the high road and simply filter your rampant ignorance right after I hit send. In other words, I won't see it. Yank your head outa your ass and FLAME AWAY. M |
Again, I have first hand experience. Prior to Bush's first order to
the treasury department, anyone going to Cuba who didn't act like a fool would have been fine. As long as they weren't smuggling cigars, no problem. Further, prior to this, the Treasury department actually stated that going to Cuba via boat was a good way to avoid paying any money. Fast forward to 2002, after the first presidential treasury department directive. This isn't hypothetical, it's fact. The treasury department sent us an automatic fine for 10,000 even after we produced pictures of our provisions, our boat and a notarized letter from our friends from canada stating that they had paid for everything. Fortunately, we were able to prove it, but we still recieved the letter and were processed under the assumption that until we proved our innocence beyond a shadow of a doubt, we were guilty. Fast forward to last year, 2004, next presidential order for any boat susceptible of travelling to cuban water can be siezed in US territorial waters. US territorial waters extend 200 miles from our coast (an act of Reagon, who I actually admired). Almost all of Cuba's northern coast actually falls into our territorial waters. Truely I wouldn't chance travelling to Cuba now. I'm a conservative, I'm not trying to scare people, but you will be fined. It happens to everyone, and you will have to prove you didn't spend money. If you buy a ticket to Cuba, with your own money, and go via plane, you will have no defense as part of that ticket is an airport fee. A US woman travelling to and from Cuba from Canada was detained and fined at the border for just such a violation two years ago, and it's just getting worse. Again, don't go. Doug |
boatgeek wrote:
... US territorial waters extend 200 miles from our coast (an act of Reagon, who I actually admired). Almost all of Cuba's northern coast actually falls into our territorial waters. I am sure you did not mean this to be taken literally. Cuba enforces its 12 mile territorial waters as many people (and _some_ airplanes) have learned to their chagrin. I was in Havana in 1996 when Fidel's meager air force took out a few of the "Brothers to the Rescue" crowd, Take my word for it: it was a scary time. Where you wrote "territorial waters" I suspect you were referring to "exclusive economic zones" which may extend out 200 nautical miles (for a definition see http://www.answers.com/topic/exclusive-economic-zone. , and for specifics on a country-by-country basis see http://www.exxun.com/enmp/wr_maritime_claims_ee_1.html). As you can see, the US is not unique in trying to enforce an "exclusive economic zone." Almost every country with a seacoast has been at it for some time, and every so often there's a gunfight between fishermen and some government agency regarding this matter. For example, in a case that may be surprising to some, one of the earliest instances of so-called "high seas piracy" occurred in 1995 (see http://www-tech.mit.edu/V115/N10/canada.10w.html ) when Canada attacked and seized a Spanish vessel in international waters. The European Union, which oversees fishing issues for its member nations and is not normally known for name-calling, condemned Canada, calling the high seas dispute over turbot fishing an act of "organized piracy." Gee, that sounds familiar to r.b.c readers, doesn't it? A religious person might opine: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." For more information on the current definition of "territorial waters" see (I've copied the relevant parts of the referenced URLs): http://www.answers.com/topic/territorial-waters quoted "The UN-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994, codified territorial waters of 12 nautical mi (13.8 mi/22.2 km) and an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical mi (230 mi/370 km). In 1999, U.S. agencies were empowered by presidential proclamation to enforce American law up to 24 miles (39 km) offshore, doubling the previous limit." /quoted -- Good luck and good sailing. s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com