Bush signs off...

[DaveM2]

Pulled from the Vintage mailing list.....

New Protection For Sunken Military Vessels And Aircraft Enacted

Story Number: NNS041124-07
Release Date: 11/24/2004 10:35:00 AM

>From Naval Historical Center Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- On October 28, 2004, President George W. Bush signed
the fiscal year 2005 National Defense Authorization Act. Title XIV of
the Act (Public Law Number 108-375), preserves the sovereign status of
sunken U.S. military vessels and aircraft by codifying both their
protected sovereign status and permanent U.S. ownership regardless of
the passage of time Oct. 28.

The purpose of Title XIV, generally referred to as the Sunken Military
Craft act (SMCa), is to protect sunken military vessels and aircraft and
the remains of their crews from unauthorized disturbance.

"Thousands of U.S. government warships and military aircraft lie in
waters around the world," said Dr. Robert Neyland, Underwater
Archaeology Branch, Naval Historical Center. "Recent advances in
technology have made these wrecks accessible to looters,
treasure-hunters, and others who may cause damage. With this legal
protection, the potential for irreversible harm to important historical
resources is significantly reduced."

Moreover, many military wrecks are the final resting places of Americans
who died defending our country. Unauthorized disturbance threatens the
sanctity of these war graves.

"This issue is a growing concern both nationally and internationally
because in addition to war graves, many sunken warships and aircraft
contain objects of a sensitive archaeological or historical nature",
said Neyland.

The new law codifies commonly understood principles of international law
and existing case law confirming that sunken U.S. military vessels and
aircraft are sovereign property. This new statute provides for
archaeological research permits and civil enforcement measures,
including substantial fines, to prevent unauthorized disturbance. The
Department of the Navy will issue implementing regulations authorized
under this law consistent with present permitting procedures.

This law does not affect salvage of commercial merchant shipwrecks. It
does not impact the traditional uses of the sea, including commercial
fishing, recreational diving, laying of submarine cables and pipelines,
and the routine operation of ships.

Information regarding Department of the Navy policy and procedures with
regard to sunken Navy ship and aircraft wrecks is available online at
www.history.navy.mil under the Underwater Archaeology Branch section.
The current application guidelines for archaeological research permits
on ship and aircraft wrecks under the jurisdiction of the Department of
the Navy are located in 32 Code of Regulations Chapter VI, Part 767.

For related news, visit the Naval Historical Center Navy NewsStand page
at www.news.navy.mil/local/navhist.

[HarvardIV]

I'm sure this isn't the end of it. Also, I talked to a retired Lt Cdr about it, and he feels that every law put out on behalf of the DoD has a loophole somewhere.

[STURMVOGEL 262]

I do hope it's a bloody big loop hole .
What about the plane's and junk dumped everywhere after the lend/lease ran out , nobody died in these, but it seem's they too are covered by this Navy Law as well .
Just my 2 bob's worth, Cheer's all, Tally Ho! Phil.

[HarvardIV]

There are many ways to skin a cat, even a Navy hellcat. Excuse the pun. I can think of too many..

[Brett]

Lend-lease aircraft were never the property of the US Navy, so they have no claim over these particular wrecks. The Lead-lease arrangements were between the US and other governments, rather than any particular branch of the armed forces.

However, the agreement required that equipment to be destroyed, returned, or payment made in full. If you went and recovered a Lend-lease item, the US government could ask the government who received it to continue to honour the original agreement.

So you probably wouldn't be much better off.

Cheers,

Brett

[dj51d]

I'm no lawyer but if I'm reading this right, weather or not lend-lease aircraft are covered depends on who officially held the title at the time the aircraft was lost. If the title was still officially held by the US Government, then the new law applies, if the title was held by the allied country the law does not apply.

[Chuck Giese]

Does this apply only for Naval aircraft, or is it for any military aircraft?

Chuck

[HarvardIV]

Noooooooo make it stop...Yes this one again. I was listening to Hannity's talk show today, and he was asking 19 year old college kids if they voted for Kerry or if they would have sex with more than 100 people...

Anyway, he mentioned that Bush signs a lot of bills off. In addition, he mentioned that a president who wasn't paying attention signed off a goofy bill forty or so years ago, and it's been next to impossible to change it.

So the question was raised if Bush even reads the Bills he signs? Hmm, doubtful..

In addition, I talked to the curator of the local museum--he's French Canadian. (Adds diversity). He told me that the gov't will not release any planes even T-37s to any museum. In his opinion the U.S. has a paranoid gov't at this point that is passing any and every bill to insure any form at all possible of what it considers security at every cost possible. I'd have to agree.

[HarvardIV]

Hi Rob:

Your Musuem may not be USAFM Qualified to recieve aircraft, that might be the reason you can't get a T-37 or any other USAF Aircraft.

Not true, based on what the curator said, the Air Force will not sell or trade a T-37 to any museum.

[HarvardIV]

Your right they don't sell anything off anymore because of the above Reagan Era Law. Which I said in the beginning of my post.

Rob, you are correct in saying this. However, the loophole was that the DRMO acquires all aircraft that the Air Force gets rid of, and demils the fighters. They are allowed to sell trainers as non-tactical aircraft complete. However, under the bush administration all current obsolete trainers are sold to foreign countries or totally destroyed. Under Reagan the DRMO sold complete trainers to licensed parties such as museums.

[Martin Edwards]

Hi all,
A little off topic however during past trips to the UK and infomation gathered around the net it seems policies like this aren't new. Look at the extremely low preservation rate of British Phantoms in comparison to their USA counterparts. The excuses that they had to be scrapped under various SALT treaties or whatever applied equally to both sides of the pond. I just think it was the undertones of the US DOD connection that resulted in such a small survival rate. I hope upon the retirement of Australias F-111s the same thing doesn't happen.
Regards Martin

[Jeffrey]

Hi all,
A little off topic however during past trips to the UK and infomation gathered around the net it seems policies like this aren't new. Look at the extremely low preservation rate of British Phantoms in comparison to their USA counterparts. The excuses that they had to be scrapped under various SALT treaties or whatever applied equally to both sides of the pond. I just think it was the undertones of the US DOD connection that resulted in such a small survival rate. I hope upon the retirement of Australias F-111s the same thing doesn't happen.
Regards Martin

unfortunately based on past performance I think it might. all you got to do is check out how many ex air force airframes we have around the place compared to ex RAN air frames.

we can hope though that at least a few are sent to museums instead of simply reduced to coke cans.