Warbird Information Exchange

as quoted from march issue military trader magazine...... president george w. bush signed the fy2005 national defense authorization act that contained title xiv (public law number 108-375) preserving the sovereign status of sunken u.s. military vessels & aircraft. the law codifies the permanent u.s. ownership of the vessels regardless of the passage of time. the SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT ACT (SMCA) is designed to protect military vessels & aircraft as well as the remains of their crews from unauthorized disturbance. the status provides for archaeological research permits & civil enforcement measures. the department of the navy will issue implementing regulations.(I CAN HARDLY WAIT!!!!) for more info visit www.history.navy.mil. best, tom . with all the terror threats this is real high priority legislation!!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

I have a question.

Does this legislation infer that irrespective of where the wreck might be in the world, it remains US property irrespective of sovereign nation rights. for all time?

This seems a little bizare. A lot of Paific Island Nations would give this piece of American arrogance the one finger salute.

Let me qoute from the PNG War Surplus Material Act 1958

" All war surplus material is the property of the State"

And I certainly would like to see the Vietnamese and North Koreans attitude to this stuff. They milk the whole JPAC thing for every dollar they can.

Please illuminate me on this bizare state of affairs.

no clue. but the long arm of the u.s. government stretches pretty far. regarding aviation history....... especially the the u.s. naval aviation museum pensacola florida, who wouldn't give up a rivet from a plane wreck at 20,000 feet in the ocean 10,000 miles away!! they have a real historical public relations problem as a museum with us folks who are trying to preserve what little is left for future generations. what is the navy gonna do?? offer scuba tours at 1000 feet to explore old military wrecks?? don't think so!! blithering idiots!!

_________________
tom d. friedman - hey!!! those fokkers were messerschmitts!! * without ammunition, the usaf would be just another flying club!!! * better to have piece of mind than piece of tail!!

As it is written, this legislation applies to any US Military craft that is underwater, no matter where it may be. Don't ask me how they expect to be able to enforce that.

See this thread, which has the text of the law.

_________________
Dan Johnson

If a public official is involved in questionable or unethical laws, it is legal to publicly expose them.

Chris

Rob:

Public officials are in the public domain, so they are subject to public scrutiny.

I deal with them every day.

She technically is, if she is working in conjunction with or a contractor for the gov't.

Rob, you are an American, as such you are not supposed to fear the gov't intervening on your rights.

And I thought that in the USA freedom of speech was rule no. 1

Cees

Cees,


Actually, freedom of speech is pretty sarcred over here but there are some limits. For instance it is perfectly legal to say "we ought to throw out the current government". However it is strictly illegal to engage in talks as part of an active plot to violently overthrow the government.
Materials that feature children in danerous and inappropriate situations are also strictly prohibited.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have strong belief that successful libel/slander cases are relatively rare in the US. To be found guilty, the issue is whether or not the offending remarks are stated as fact or opinion. If you said "So and so is retarded", you'd have to prove in court that person met the legal definition of retarded. On the other hand if you said, "I think so and so is retarded", then that is a factual statement of your opinioin (which may be wrong). I suspect the libel case that may of shut down the previous board occurred in the UK where they have different standards for libel/slander that are easier to meet. The American propensity for lawsuits is mostly related to personal injury and property damage, not libel.

As far as this board is concerned, I think sometimes folks get sloppy about the stanadards and may cross the line when they passionately express themselves. At a minimum, folks should make sure disparaging remarks are stated as opinion rather than fact unless they're prepared to provide legal proof. However, we shouldn't put Scott at risk of legal problems unless he chooses to take on the battle. It is probably best to minimize personal attacks. The legal costs of successfully defending a libel suit would probably be substantial. A "disparaged" plaintiff could use the mere threat of a suit to attempt behavior change in the offending person(s). Of course, as this is a international medium, I'm not sure who has jurisidiction involving conflicts between people in different countries. I would assume the subject of this thread would come under US jurisidiction.

There is another issue besides libel that might affect messages on this board. Since there are existing laws concerning salvage, e-mails that discuss specific plans to recover a plane may constitute conspiracy. I suggest things be discussed in theoretical terms rather specific. I think most do this.

Enough armchair, unqualified opinion. Hopefully a real lawyer will set us straight. These opinions are offered for the consideration of WIXers to help foster better communications on the board. I don't have much specific aircraft knowledge to share, but I love to lurk and learn here. I'd hate to see Scott shut it down because of unecessary headaches.

Jeff

Jeff

Thanks Jeff,

Well put.

Cheers

Cees

Hi Jeff; very well put, but I got a little excited.

NHC:

Why do you have fear of the NHC? I believe they are the most harmful thing to the preservation of Naval Aviation history on this earth. The only reason Mr. England doesn't see it is he is busy fighting a war, he has a few other important things on his mind.

The Act:

If you read that Act you will see that it contains some really nasty things. I am sure that Congress did not realize what they were doing when they enacted it. An example:

It determines that the Law of Finds no longer applies when it comes to the aircraft.

What I forsee is the using of that language to justify misuse of senitive aircraft position data which was given by persons or companies, in the past, inorder to secure recovery permits. It seems that Congress may have become party to the morally wrongful (they seemed to have made it legal) taking of privately funded intellectual property.

I do not think writing your Congress person is helpful, what is helpful is going to see that person on Capitol Hill with a well thought out presentation. While you are there go see Representative Duncan Hunter and Senator John Warner, they are the chairmen of the Armed Services Committees.

Taras

_________________
www.ATRecovery.com

For Col Rohr.

Any chance of you using a spell-check or grammar-check program? It would make your comments much easier to read.

Thanks