Mr Champlin and the Navy - Essay Example

These guidelines are contained in a publication entitled “Guidelines for Archeological Research Permits on Ship and Aircraft Wrecks under the Jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy” and are published by the US Environmental protection agency.  According to the guidelines, Navy ships and aircraft wrecks remain governmental property to be administered by the Navy until such time as there is a formal action brought by the Navy with regards to the disposal of the ships or aircraft wrecks.  The custody of all lost or considered abandoned ships and aircraft remain with the U.S. Navy irrespective of whether they were lost or considered abandoned in U.S., foreign or international waters.  These guidelines are based on the US Constitutional and international maritime laws and the ownership is consistent with Articles 95 and 96 of the Laws of the Sea Convention.  These articles delineate the terms of immunity of warships in international waters.  Additionally, the statutes as they stand with regards to federal property dictate that all lost or presumed abandoned ships and aircraft should not be disturbed or removed without a formal application and approval of said application before the property is moved.  Operating under this tenet, the actions of Mr. Champlin proved to be in violation of the law.  Essentially, he was ignorant of the law but this does not relieve any responsibility for its compliance.  I find it presumptuous of Mr. Champlin to ask for a refund when he blatantly violated several statutes with regards to presumably abandoned governmental property.

Should he (or the general public for that matter) have known about this special rule regarding federal property?

            I feel that Mr. Champlin should make it his business to be appraised with regards to the special rules of federal property especially in light of the fact that he intended to gain possession of it.  Essentially knowing the rules dictates ownership and ownership should not be presumed.  It should be something that is definitely known especially when one plans to undertake a large expenditure to retrieve that property.  I feel that Mr. Champlin was extremely negligent in not seeking out the information especially since we live in the age of technology when obtaining information is relatively simple and is not time-consuming.  Five minutes of research could have saved Mr. Champlin a great deal of money and time associated with the retrieval of the aircraft.  I feel that the general public should make themselves aware of this special rule if it is their intent to attempt to retrieve government property. 

Consider whether there should be a time limit or statute of limitations regarding the forfeiture or non-forfeiture of title. Also, consider whether the property should be considered lost or abandoned by the failure to protect or attempt recovery of the property.

            In examining the notion of whether there should be a time limit or statute of limitations regarding the forfeiture or non-forfeiture of the title, I feel that there should be no time limit.  I feel that the current procedure is one that works best in that it serves to clearly delineate ownership.  In so doing, there is no ambiguity in the law.  The law clearly states that the property remains the possession of the Navy until a formal application is made.  This not only protects the Navy against individuals within the country but it offers protection against foreign interests.  This comes into play when one thinks about the fact that the Navy ships and aircraft may possess the information or its contents may prove to breach the security of the nation.  In setting a clear procedure for the relinquishment of ownership the Navy is aware of the fact that a ship or aircraft is located and can a cognizant choice to relinquish ownership of that ship and whatever secrets it may contain.

.  I feel that the ownership of the property by the federal government should warrant some special consideration as well as the fact that it may be lost.  The presumption of abandonment is one that should not be made.  Attempting to move or enter federally owned ships or aircraft should only be done with the knowledge of the federal government.  This just makes strategic sense especially in light of the threat of terrorism.