On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead. What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might "upset" people?
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-block/index.html

There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.

On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead. What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might "upset" people?
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-block/index.html
>
>There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.

I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?

Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
vessels in international waters.

On 9/2/23 4:43 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead. What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might "upset" people?
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-block/index.html
>>
>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>
> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>
> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
> vessels in international waters.
>

As I already said... that's NOT what happened.

> "Lawyers pointed to legislation enacted in 2020, in tandem with the U.K. government, which restricts people from entering the hull sections and removing artifacts from outside the hull of the Titanic."

It was a joint venture.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 01:43:07 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
><davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead. What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might "upset" people?
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-block/index.html
>>
>>There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>>attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>
>I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
>Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
>its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
>in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
>Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
>2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
>international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
>get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>
>Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>vessels in international waters.

The answer is in the article:

RMS Titanic Inc. obtained the salvage rights through an order entered
by the US District Court in Norfolk, Virginia, in June 1994, according
to the filing.

Since they got the rights to conduct the salvage from a US court (and
so are likely a US based company) they are under the governance of US
law. Also from the same article there's some sort of international
agreement that covers the Titanic that may cover this as well for
ships from other countries but the article didn't go into the details
of the international agreement.

In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
> >> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead.
> >> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might
> >> "upset" people?
> >>
> >> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bloc
> >> k/index.html
> >
> >There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
> >attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>
> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?

Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?

So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
States or any other country.

And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.

> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
> vessels in international waters.

Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
authority over them.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead.
>>>> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might
>>>> "upset" people?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bloc
>>>> k/index.html
>>>
>>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>>
>> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
>> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
>> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
>> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
>> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
>> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
>> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
>> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>
> Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?
>
> So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
> abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
> ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
> States or any other country.
>
> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>
>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>> vessels in international waters.
>
> Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
> to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
> authority over them.
>

Why do the so-called “native” Americans get to claim jurisdiction over
remains more than 1000 years old on the basis that they claim to be
non-human magic creatures raised from the mud by their imaginary Gods?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<654574215.715389193.671067.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
> > The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
> >> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:

> >>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead.
> >>>> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might
> >>>> "upset" people?
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bl
> >>>> ock/index.html
> >>>
> >>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
> >>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
> >>
> >> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
> >> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
> >> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
> >> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
> >> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
> >> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
> >> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
> >> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
> >
> > Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?
> >
> > So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
> > abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
> > ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
> > States or any other country.
> >
> > And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
> > discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
> > has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
> > discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
> >
> >> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
> >> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
> >> vessels in international waters.
> >
> > Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
> > to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
> > authority over them.
> >
> Why do the so-called "native" Americans get to claim jurisdiction over
> remains more than 1000 years old on the basis that they claim to be
> non-human magic creatures raised from the mud by their imaginary Gods?

Because hwite people are evil.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <654574215.715389193.671067.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>
>>>>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead.
>>>>>> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might
>>>>>> "upset" people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bl
>>>>>> ock/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>>>>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
>>>> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
>>>> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
>>>> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
>>>> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
>>>> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
>>>> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
>>>> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>>>
>>> Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?
>>>
>>> So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
>>> abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
>>> ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
>>> States or any other country.
>>>
>>> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
>>> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
>>> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
>>> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>>>
>>>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>>>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>>>> vessels in international waters.
>>>
>>> Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
>>> to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
>>> authority over them.
>>>
>> Why do the so-called "native" Americans get to claim jurisdiction over
>> remains more than 1000 years old on the basis that they claim to be
>> non-human magic creatures raised from the mud by their imaginary Gods?
>
> Because hwite people are evil.
>

Oh, yeah. Good point.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

[lots snipped]

> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.

Since Ballard was actually being funded by the US Navy, a lot
would depend on what the contracts actually said.

There's a good chance he signed off on his "salvage rights"...

(hmmmm... might be time for a FOIL)
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 9/2/23 6:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <654574215.715389193.671067.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>
>>>>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead.
>>>>>> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might
>>>>>> "upset" people?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bl
>>>>>> ock/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>>>>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
>>>> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
>>>> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
>>>> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
>>>> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
>>>> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
>>>> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
>>>> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>>>
>>> Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?
>>>
>>> So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
>>> abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
>>> ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
>>> States or any other country.
>>>
>>> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
>>> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
>>> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
>>> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>>>
>>>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>>>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>>>> vessels in international waters.
>>>
>>> Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
>>> to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
>>> authority over them.
>>>
>> Why do the so-called "native" Americans get to claim jurisdiction over
>> remains more than 1000 years old on the basis that they claim to be
>> non-human magic creatures raised from the mud by their imaginary Gods?
>
> Because hwite people are evil.

Is that a tribe in Africa?

On 9/3/23 7:07 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 9/2/23 6:23 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article
>> <654574215.715389193.671067.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
>>   anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <5ms5fidmmee1iciuifki6s50bhlem8uhma@4ax.com>,
>>>>   The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
>>>>> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> It's been over 100 YEARS.  F---- the existing families of Titanic
>>>>>>> dead.
>>>>>>> What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> "upset" people?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-bl
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ock/index.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>>>>>> attention.  It's a law.  Heck it's a law passed by a Republican
>>>>>> Congress.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
>>>>> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
>>>>> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
>>>>> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
>>>>> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
>>>>> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
>>>>> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
>>>>> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>>>>
>>>> Why does *anyone* get to claim jurisdiction?
>>>>
>>>> So much time has passed that under common law, the wreck is considered
>>>> abandoned property, so even the Cunard Line couldn't claim exclusive
>>>> ownership of it anymore, let alone Britain. Certainly not the United
>>>> States or any other country.
>>>>
>>>> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
>>>> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
>>>> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
>>>> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>>>>
>>>>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>>>>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>>>>> vessels in international waters.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's
>>>> hard
>>>> to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
>>>> authority over them.
>>>>
>>> Why do the so-called "native" Americans get to claim jurisdiction over
>>> remains more than 1000 years old on the basis that they claim to be
>>> non-human magic creatures raised from the mud by their imaginary Gods?
>>
>> Because hwite people are evil.
>
>
> Is that a tribe in Africa?

Yes. The Hlozers, I think.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 2023-09-02 2:43 a.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 21:58:15 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-08-31 9:49 p.m., RichA wrote:
>>> It's been over 100 YEARS. F---- the existing families of Titanic dead. What's next, you can't dig up a Civil War battlefield because it might "upset" people?
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/31/us/titanic-expedition-us-attorney-legal-block/index.html
>>
>> There is no hint in the article that the matter even came to Biden's
>> attention. It's a law. Heck it's a law passed by a Republican Congress.
>
> I don't understand - the Titanic was a British built ship (built in
> Belfast - one of my great grandfathers was a carpenter on it during
> its construction - for 4 years it was the biggest construction project
> in Belfast which you would know if you had ever visited the Harland +
> Wolff Yards who are still in business today - we were there in June
> 2016), owned by a British shipping line and which sank in
> international waters near Newfoundland so where does the United States
> get to claim jurisdiction on the matter?
>
> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
> vessels in international waters.

True, the 1986 Act only really mandated negotiations to create a treaty
to protect the wreckage. That treaty with the UK came into force 4
years ago.

On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 12:38:45 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
>discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
>has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
>discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>
>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>> vessels in international waters.
>
>Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
>to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
>authority over them.

How does the rule of "discovers a wreck" apply when the ship owner
KNOWS where the ship sunk? Heck the radiomen on the Titanic radioed
their exact location as the ship was sinking.

Now if a US company purchased (either permanently or for a fixed term)
salvage rights from the ship's owner (who is still in business) and
the salvage company is operating from a US port I can see they might
be subject to US law. However if the salvage company had been
operating from say Newfoundland (e.g. the closest land mass to the
wreckage) I wouldn't think US law would apply to even a US company
operating from a non-US port. But then IANAL ("I am not a lawyer" and
this may be why lawyers drive faster vehicles than I do)

On 2023-09-04 2:22 a.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2023 12:38:45 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> And under the internationally recognized law of the sea, the person who
>> discovers a wreck is entitled to salvage rights, so if anyone "owns" or
>> has control over the wreck at this point, it would be Bob Ballard, who
>> discovered the remains of the ship in 1985.
>>
>>> Sure the US Congress could pass laws but those would only apply to US
>>> ships based in the US. Such laws wouldn't apply to foreign flagged
>>> vessels in international waters.
>>
>> Yes, if, say, a Brazilian company wanted to explore the wreck, it's hard
>> to see how a treaty between the U.S. and Britain would have any
>> authority over them.
>
> How does the rule of "discovers a wreck" apply when the ship owner
> KNOWS where the ship sunk? Heck the radiomen on the Titanic radioed
> their exact location as the ship was sinking.

Took a bit of looking to actually find the wreckage. Currents you know.

>