God bless America.
And all who sail in her.

Originally posted by Silver Shadow
God bless America.
And all who sail in her.

Lmao, I am sorry, even if that was a personal attack I had to give you a star. That was probably the funniest thing that I have read on ATS.

Originally posted by dalan.
Lmao, I am sorry, even if that was a personal attack

Oh no Dalan, definitely not having a go at you..

It was intended to be humorous.

Although the whole situation with law, politics, and governance in America is far from funny.

[edit on 19/3/2010 by Silver Shadow]

Originally posted by dalan.a "vessel" belonging in whole or in part to a citizen of the United States is a "vessel of the United States?"

That's the way I interpreted it.

CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer, nor have I had any legal training or education, however I am certainly gainig some knowledge of the law from ATS.

Originally posted by dalan.

If we skip down to Title 18 which deals with Crimes and Criminal Procedure go to Part 1>Chapter 1>Section 9 We find that the definition of "Vessel of the United States" is:

§ 9. Vessel of the United States defined

The term “vessel of the United States”, as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

Is this passage claiming that a citizen of the United States can be a "vessel of the United States," or is it merely stating that a "vessel" belonging in whole or in part to a citizen of the United States is a "vessel of the United States?"

Sorry, but it means any vessel belonging to the USA or belonging to a citizen.
Vessel as in the exact thing you think it is. A boat.
Didn't want to burst the bubble, but it reads exactly as worded.
A vessel owned by a citizen, not a citizen isa vessel.

I am VERY into the strawman idea, but so far, I've been able to debunk most.
I am a strong supporter of getting "off the grid".

But: I am yet to shake the hand of ONE person who is.

Other than that, I like you research and style.
Very reminiscent of my own. It helps I'm from Ohio, too.

Good job doing the work!

No offense to anyone here, but this simply comes down to basic comprehension of English. Using only the passages provided by the OP, I can refute any conspiracy therein.

For starters, human beings- or in this case U.S. citizens, are not a "means of water transportation". Sure, we can paddle boats and whatnot, but we are never the actual means of transportation. The vessel itself is.

Nor are we considered by any rational human being to be an "artificial contrivance". Maybe a biological contrivance, but unless you were created in a lab by scientists then you are not artificlal.

As far as the "or any citizen thereof" portion, again, it comes down to simple English comprehension. No one could legitimately argue that the passage is referring to citizens as vessels rather than referring to vessels owned by US citizens. It's Grammar 101. If for some strange reason they were trying to put a loophole there, well, they failed miserably. The passage clearly refers to vessels owned by the United States OR vessels owned by US citizens.

And finally, the first passage cited nullifies anything thereafter. It clearly states that maritime laws only apply when "out of the jurisdiction of any particular State". We are all under the jurisdiction of our respective states, or whichever one we may be in at the moment (speaking strictly to US citizens who aren't in the ocean on their private yachts at the moment).

I'm not a debunker or some government agent (not that saying such a thing holds any water- no pun intended) and in fact I believe in a fair amount of conspiracies and far-out things. But in this case, I think you're just grasping at straws. There's nothing in the passages cited, unless blatantly misread, that calls US citizens "vessels" or subjects them to maritime laws when they're on land. That being said, I think it's really cool that the OP is taking the time to read through all of this stuff and expand his knowledge. Keep on digging, you may stumble onto something after all.

Originally posted by Rasputin13
As far as the "or any citizen thereof" portion, again, it comes down to simple English comprehension. No one could legitimately argue that the passage is referring to citizens as vessels rather than referring to vessels owned by US citizens. It's Grammar 101. If for some strange reason they were trying to put a loophole there, well, they failed miserably. The passage clearly refers to vessels owned by the United States OR vessels owned by US citizens.

Correct.

Vessels have nationalities, the nationality of the vessel helps Law Enforcement officials such as the USCG, CBP, ICE, and NOAA (office of law enforcement) determine jurisdiction, and applicable laws/regulations.

Would it be fair if the US Coast Guard boarded, and enforced US Laws on an Italian Vessel on the high seas?

Would it be fair if the US Coast Guard boarded, and enforced US numbering, and safety requirements for a Australian vessel temporarily transiting through our waters?

Should a Japanese commercial fishing fleet be allowed to enter our territorial sea and heavily fish our waters?

These are all examples of situations that could occur; where vessel nationality plays a critical role.

Microcosm.



[edit on 3/19/10 by microcosm]

Well thank you for your replies you guys.

I was thinking that the passage was referring to U.S. Citizens who owned a "vessel." I just had a question about the grammar so I posted it here.

No better place to discuss these things than ATS.