7/28/2003: 1951 Chevy Truck-Raft
 

http://cellar.org/2003/cubantruckraft.jpg

Now this is ingenuity: 12 Cubans were detained and sent back to Cuba after piloting this thing towards the US last week. They actually attached a propeller to the drive shaft and got about 8 MPH out of it. It's all held afloat by empty 55-gallon drums.

Trouble is, it's too big. It was spotted 40 miles south of Key West, which means they only made it about halfway before being picked up and sent back.

You can't stay in the US at all unless you actually make it to shore. But this level of thinking and effort should be rewarded... I say this is exactly the kind of immigrant we want, and they should have been allowed to stay.

it's disposal
 

Did you happen to see how the Coast Guard disposed of the truck? I saw news footage of them using the machine gun to blow it up! Pretty cool! You could hear all of the crewmen yelling "Whoa!" when it exploded on the water and then sank to the bottom.

Re: it's disposal
 

Say it ain't so! Dang, that was a cool rig.

I'm with you, Griff. It looked like a lot of careful planning went into the effort with life jackets and everything. I think it's a shame to blow up that rig. Hell it's a shame to even stop them. If they can cross 90 miles of open ocean then they're smart enough to be an asset to us, or is that U.S..

Yep.

I'm thinking the life jackets were supplied by the Coast Guard.

You're probably right there. I doubt that you'd use much highly reflective tape if you didn't want to be seen.

Holy crap, that looks exactly like something you'd see on Junkyard Wars.

Re: 7/28/2003: 1951 Chevy Truck-Raft
 

...so that they can become criminals with ingenious ideas.

Maybe, but I saw another picture that was taken from some ways off, that showed them. And three of the men don't have them on.
What about that bright yellow tarp?
That's the first racist statement I've ever heard from you.:(

Thank god they weren't on their way to Australia, we have enough of that happening over here. But I like their idea, couldn't part with the car hey!.:rattat:

Enough criminals?

I'll try to sum this up as simply as possible...and a number of my 4800 posts along with various members of the Cellar will back me up:

--El sicómoro is not a racist.
--I make fun of damned near anything and everything.

I wonder if the truck would have been drivable? Were they just using it to float over on or did they hook up a propellar to the drive shaft.

Too bad they didn't have AAA!:)

They made it drivable--reread the info under the photo.

I know you're not. That's why I was surprised by that statement.
OK, then I won't ask Rho to slap you.:D

Re: 7/28/2003: 1951 Chevy Truck-Raft
 

40 miles out and they were picked up? By what authority? That's international waters. America and do shit about me in a bath tub, 5 miles out, snorting coke if I feel like it. So how exactly were they "allowed" to pick them up?

Quzah.

Rules are for other people...we're Americans, damn it, and we run the planet...ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.....!

Come to think of it, I'd like an answer to that as well. I thought you could run a floating whorehouse with impunity in international waters.

Make that 200 miles. ;)

Hey, what a great idea!! Think of it, 'Spode... we'd make millions. <i>Millions!!</i>

Yeah, but you'd still earn less than dave!

LOL!

Earn?;)

Re: 7/28/2003: 1951 Chevy Truck-Raft
 

The rich kind? Big truck, fresh coat of paint, few dozen gallons of fuel .. that couldn't have been cheap.

They would have been intercepted by the Navy, been shot at until they jumped overboard and then been used by the Howard propaganda machine to win the next election.....

Rule of Law
 

By what rule of law was their vehicle seized?

If they were 40-50 miles from either shore, they were in international waters. I think it is a fine truck. Since when did people lose the right to cruise international waters in their choice of water craft? I might even go so far as to understand telling them to turn back, but destroying the truck was uncalled for. Just the feds out of control again.

If you dare to exist in this world in a way that is outside the expectations of the US government, then they will sink your sorry ass. Your tax dollars at work.

Re: Rule of Law
 

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect that the CG sank that excellent vessel because it represented a hazard to navigation. After all, we can't just have '51 Chevy pickup trucks floating around, unattended, in our coastal waters, can we?

Just parts.

Re: Re: Rule of Law
 

With all the other crap in the ocean, what's one more pickup truck?

The point is that something might hit it, retard.

Oh. The other crap might hit it.

Yeah, and they might also hit a 50-foot whale, dingleberry.

...whereas if they sink it, it's not going to get hit.

Also, I think a whale is probably not as hard as a 1951 Chevy Truck.

Of course it makes sense to get rid of it somehow. I'm not sure destroying it was the best thing to do, but I'm not a mariner.

As far as the damage the truck could inflict on a boat, it would depend on the size of the boat. It could probably take out a pontoon or a motorboat...maybe a cutter? But a huge merchant ship? I doubt it.

And I don't think the "hardness" of a whale would necessarily matter. If a deer can total a car, imagine what a whale could do to a boat or ship.

Whales aren't as hard as deer. :)

Somebody needs to read Moby Dick.

[beavis and butthead snickering]

He said "Moby."

[/beavis and butthead snickering]

Well, they're trying again
 

This was posted today on CNN's Offbeat News site:

"The Cubans who converted a 1951 Chevy pickup into a boat and sailed it to within 40 miles (65 kilometers) of Florida last week got another truck and drove it to the U.S. Interests Section on Wednesday to try a new -- and legal -- bid to go to the United States."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americ....ap/index.html

-Alex

Sometimes a harpoon is just a harpoon.

If the crew hadn't been illegally shanghaied it wouldn't be an issue. All they had to do is tell them to turn around because they wouldn't be allowed to land in the U.S..:p

This is a rather interesting topic if you think about it. What exactly would be the violation here? Let's assume they actually made it into waters where America legally had a prayer, because what they did is outright wrong. You cannot board, sink, or capture some other craft in international waters just because you feel like it. Danger or no, it's not your property, you have no legal right to capture, board, or do shit, to anything in international waters.

But let's assume they actualy were in "our coastal waters". (Some one needs to pay attention here, 40 miles out is NOT "our coastal waters".)

1) What right does the coast guard / navy have when it comes to randomly boarding vessels? Can they just because they feel like it?

2) Equate this to a boatload of Canadians tooling around in a vessel. Who says they can't hit port and put around whatever town they like? Are you required to immediately visit the customs office or something, just because you happen to have entered port?

3) What consists of a viable sea-worthy vessel? Who gets to decide that I can't float my Ford pickup around? People make rafts out of all kinds of shit. If I tie a bunch of logs together, that's fine for me to cruise around with, but if I use a Ford, I can't?

I still say there's no way in hell that that would fly were they to do it to some rich American who had lawyers. So if you're bored, rich American, grab a pickup and some oil drums, tow it 40 miles out, turn around and head towards shore and let me know what happens.

Quzah.

I suppose the Coast Guard gets to decide.

I imagine that one could make the argument that the truck-raft full of Cubans in the middle of the Florida Strait were being rescued, not arrested. Their subsequent return to Cuba was the natural (and desirable) conclusion of their rescue. Because it would be racist and wrong of us to assume that the occupants of the truck-raft were attempting to enter the United States illegally, wouldn't it?

Or, as an alternative, one could argue that the captain of the CG vessel suspected that the truck-raft full of Cubans in the middle of the Florida Strait was engaged in piracy which, according to Admiralty law, is jus gentium and falls under the jurisdiction of any interested warship. In which case, he was well within his rights to board and seize the vessel in question.

Or, as yet another alternative, one could argue (in a wrong and racist sort of way) that a truck-raft full of Cubans in the middle of the Florida Strait must surely be attempting to enter the United States illegally, and that the captain of the CG vessel was acting reasonably the prevent the commission of a crime. And besides, the captain and crew of the Coast Guard cutter probably get tired of fishing the dead, bloated Cubans that didn't make it out of the drink, and they thought it might be nice to come back with some survivors for a change.

Take your pick.

Unless, of course, you'd have us believe that the truck-raft full of Cubans in the middle of the Florida Strait were simply out for pleasant days' sailing (as so many Cubans are wont to do), and that they were planning to turn and head back for Havana once they'd finished their lunch under the bright yellow tarpaulin?

I believe, actually, that via some treaty (I don't remember which), nations are allowed to claim something like 200 miles of water surrounding them. As I recall, the United States claims 50. If that's the case, then yeah, 40 miles out could be considered our coastal waters.

Of course it wouldn't. They're citizens. They pay taxes. They're <b>supposed</b> to be in the country. You think the Coast Guard would turn them around?

That being the case, if they got caught, I'm certain they'd get a citation or whatever the hell is supposed to happen when someone floats a truck into the country.

There was a thread on this freaky anarchist site which I visit but don't post on. They were fantasizing about buying an oil tanker as an offshore platform for various capitalist gambling and dope growing operations. They were pretty concerned with transport in and out of coastal waters but few of them recognized that they really couldn't set up shop anywhere but way into the Pacific and way off normal traffic routes otherwise they're going down. On the other hand, setting up in such a place might put your operation outside the reach of the RIAA. :)

Unregistered watercraft plus probably safety violations, within 200 miles.

I see now. Since they made it half way, the coast guard hang out on the 40 mile marker (1/2 way between Cuba and the USA), and as soon as they cross the half way point, they bag them.

See, as per the above, this would work. Cuba takes 200 miles, the USA takes 200 miles, but since they overlap, they have to take half of the difference between the two countries. :D

It's still pretty lame. Why should I care if Cubans come over here? They're not going to take my job. My job went to India.

Quzah.

It's incredibly cruel to just sink something that someone's obviously put a whole lot of time into.

Saw this in the local news today. Our fair and impartial immigration dept is hard at work!


Two on floating truck get chance for visas
Associated Press

HAVANA -- Two of the people who converted a 1951 Chevy pickup into a boat in a failed bid to reach American shores were granted interviews giving them a chance to get U.S. visas, one of the men said Wednesday.

Ariel Diego and Luis Grass received letters from the U.S. Interests Section inviting them to interviews on Dec. 3. Such interviews do not guarantee being granted a visa.

"At least this is an option we have," Diego told journalists. "The possibility still exists."

The U.S. Coast Guard sent the group back to Cuba in July after a U.S. Customs plane spotted their unusual truck-boat floating south of Key West in the Florida straits. The craft came within 40 miles of the U.S. coast.

Under U.S. immigration policies, Cubans who reach U.S. shores are allowed to stay while those caught at sea are usually returned.

Help 'em out. Write your congressman.:D

The U.S. Coast Guard (news - web sites) is seen intercepting a group of Cuban migrants sailing towards the Florida Straits on a modified 1959 Buick Tuesday February 3, 2004. The pilots were the same two men who tried to sail a converted 1951 Chevy flatbed truck to the U.S. last year. Nine other migrants, including wives and children. (AP Photo/photo released by CBS4 )

Well you have to hand it to these guys , they don't give up !!!!!

And they like green. I suppose they'll sink the Buick, too.:(

It could be the Vodka, but that BRIGHT GREEN TRUCK floating across the water just rocks! Wouldn't that be a trip to see? Especially high. That'd be great. Sitting on the beach, a bright green truck floats by!

Quzah.

Wouldn't it have been easier for them to use an original VW bug?

That's too damn funny. Reminds me a lot of a guy in Venice who makes floating cars.

Here's that Venice dude.

http://www.sambarcroft.com/pages/Liv.../preview13.jpg

The original Bug floated on it's own. Didn't need to be made out of wood. It's how they were constructed.

I remember those magazine ads.

"It floats"

Damn, I'm old.

i thought Dali was dead:confused:

Has a little pointy thing in front.
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...b.w020483a.jpg