Here’s the full, classic version of the “Green Thing” story—often titled “We Didn’t Have the ‘Green Thing’ Back in Our Day”. It’s shared widely and underscores how older generations lived sustainably long before “going green” was a trend:
Full Text: “The Green Thing” We didn’t have the “green thing” back then…
Yesterday at the supermarket checkout, a young cashier suggested to a much older lady that she should bring her own shopping bags because plastic bags aren’t good for the environment. The woman apologized and said, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.” The young clerk replied, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”
She sighed and said he was right—“Our generation didn’t have the ‘green thing’ in its day.” Then she continued:
Reusable bottles: Back then, we returned milk, soda, and beer bottles to the store. They were sent back to the plant to be washed, sterilized, and refilled—truly recycled. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.
Paper bags reused: Grocery stores packaged groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for many things. Most memorable was using them to cover school books—to protect public property and personalize it with our own art. Too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then.
Walking vs. driving: We walked up stairs because escalators weren’t in every store or office. We walked to the grocery store instead of getting into a 300‑horsepower car for two blocks. But she was right—we didn’t have the “green thing.”
Reusable diapers & solar drying: We washed baby diapers since disposable diapers didn’t exist. We dried clothes on a line, not with energy-guzzling dryers—wind and solar did the job. Kids wore hand-me-down clothes from siblings, not always brand-new. But again, no “green thing” back then.
One TV/radio per home: There was one TV or radio in the house—not one in every room. Screens were small—handkerchief-sized, not football-pitch sized. We blended and stirred by hand—no electric mixers. We packed fragile items in old newspapers, not Styrofoam. We mowed lawns with push mowers powered by human energy and got exercise by working—not by using treadmills at health clubs. Still no “green thing.”
Fountains, refillable pens, and blades: We drank from fountains or taps instead of plastic bottles. We refilled pens with ink and replaced razor blades instead of tossing the entire razor. Still, no “green thing.”
Public transport & minimal gadgets: We took buses or streetcars. Kids rode bikes or walked to school, not turning moms into 24-hour taxi services with SUVs costing as much as a house. There was one electrical outlet per room—not banks of sockets to power dozens of gadgets. And we didn’t need space-age tech to locate the nearest leisure park. But why lament our so-called wastefulness when we never had the “green thing”?
I visited the Maritime Museum in Bayfield Wisconsin, right on the shores of Lake Superior. The curator of the museum gave me some information on the wreck, which was mind-blousing considering I have never seen it released before, he was present during the investigation, but not part of the investigation.
I did quite a bit of research that night, but did not come to a final conclusion.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, invested in the iron and minerals industries on a large scale, including the construction of Edmund Fitzgerald, which represented the first such investment by any American life insurance company.[9] In 1957, they contracted Great Lakes Engineering Works (GLEW), of River Rouge, Michigan, to design and construct the ship “within a foot of the maximum length allowed for passage through the soon-to-be completed Saint Lawrence Seaway.”[10] The ship’s value at that time was $7 million (equivalent to $58.1 million in 2023).[11]Edmund Fitzgerald was the first laker built to the maximum St. Lawrence Seaway size,[12] which was 730 feet (222.5 m) long, 75 feet (22.9 m) wide, and with a 25 foot (7.6 m) draft.[13] The moulded depth (roughly speaking, the vertical height of the hull) was 39 ft (12 m).[5] The hold depth (the inside height of the cargo hold) was 33 ft 4 in (10.16 m).[5][6] GLEW laid the first keel plate on August 7 the same year.[14]
With a deadweight capacity of 26,000 long tons (29,120 short tons; 26,417 t),[6] and a 729-foot (222 m) hull, Edmund Fitzgerald was the longest ship on the Great Lakes, earning her the title Queen of the Lakes[12] until September 17, 1959, when the 730-foot (222.5 m) SS Murray Bay was launched.[15]Edmund Fitzgerald‘s three central cargo holds[16] were loaded through 21 watertight cargo hatches, each 11 by 48 feet (3.4 by 14.6 m) of 5⁄16-inch-thick (7.9 mm) steel.[17] Originally coal-fired, her boilers were converted to burn oil during the 1971–72 winter layup.[18] In 1969, the ship’s maneuverability was improved by the installation of a diesel-powered bow thruster.[19]
By ore freighter standards, the interior of Edmund Fitzgerald was luxurious. Her J.L. Hudson Company–designed furnishings[20] included deep pile carpeting, tiled bathrooms, drapes over the portholes, and leather swivel chairs in the guest lounge. There were two guest staterooms for passengers. Air conditioning extended to the crew quarters, which featured more amenities than usual. A large galley and fully stocked pantry supplied meals for two dining rooms. Edmund Fitzgerald‘s pilothouse was outfitted with “state-of-the-art nautical equipment and a beautiful map room.”[21]
Name and launch
Flag of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald
Northwestern Mutual wanted to name the ship after its president and chairman of the board, Edmund Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald’s own grandfather and all great uncles had themselves been lake captains,[22] and his father owned the Milwaukee Drydock Company, which built and repaired ships.[23] Fitzgerald had attempted to dissuade the naming of the ship after himself, proposing the names Centennial, Seaway, Milwaukee and Northwestern. The board was resolute, and Edmund abstained from voting; the 36 board members voted unanimously to name her the SS Edmund Fitzgerald.[24] More than 15,000 people attended Edmund Fitzgerald‘s christening and launch ceremony on June 7, 1958. The event was plagued by misfortunes. When Elizabeth Fitzgerald, wife of Edmund Fitzgerald, tried to christen the ship by smashing a champagne bottle over the bow, it took her three attempts to break it. A delay of 36 minutes followed while the shipyard crew struggled to release the keel blocks. Upon sideways launch, the ship created a large wave, dousing the spectators, then crashed into a pier before righting herself. Other witnesses later said they swore the ship was “trying to climb right out of the water”.[25] On September 22, 1958, Edmund Fitzgerald completed nine days of sea trials.[26]
Career
SS Edmund Fitzgerald under way
Northwestern Mutual’s normal practice was to purchase ships for operation by other companies.[27] In Edmund Fitzgerald‘s case, they signed a 25-year contract with Oglebay Norton Corporation to operate the vessel.[16] Oglebay Norton immediately designated Edmund Fitzgerald the flagship of its Columbia Transportation fleet.[21]
Edmund Fitzgerald was a record-setting workhorse, often beating her own milestones.[6] The vessel’s record load for a single trip was 27,402 long tons (30,690 short tons; 27,842 t) in 1969.[6] For 17 years, Edmund Fitzgerald carried taconite from Minnesota’s Iron Range mines near Duluth, Minnesota, to iron works in Detroit, Toledo, and other ports. She set seasonal haul records six different times.[7] Her nicknames included “Fitz”, “Pride of the American Side”,[28] “Mighty Fitz”, “Toledo Express”,[29] “Big Fitz”,[30] and the “Titanic of the Great Lakes”.[31] Loading Edmund Fitzgerald with taconite pellets took about four and a half hours, while unloading took around 14 hours. A round trip between Superior, Wisconsin, and Detroit, Michigan, usually took her five days and she averaged 47 similar trips per season.[32] The vessel’s usual route was between Superior, Wisconsin, and Toledo, Ohio, although her port of destination could vary.[29] By November 1975, Edmund Fitzgerald had logged an estimated 748 round trips on the Great Lakes and covered more than a million miles, “a distance roughly equivalent to 44 trips around the world.”[33]
Up until a few weeks before her loss, passengers had traveled on board as company guests. Frederick Stonehouse wrote:
Stewards treated the guests to the entire VIP routine. The cuisine was reportedly excellent and snacks were always available in the lounge. A small but well-stocked kitchenette provided the drinks. Once each trip, the captain held a candlelight dinner for the guests, complete with mess-jacketed stewards and special “clamdigger” punch.[34]
Because of her size, appearance, string of records, and “DJ captain,”[6]Edmund Fitzgerald became a favorite of boat watchers throughout her career. Although Captain Peter Pulcer was in command of Edmund Fitzgerald on trips when cargo records were set, “he is best remembered … for piping music day or night over the ship’s intercom system” while passing through the St. Clair and Detroit Rivers.[6] While navigating the Soo Locks he would often come out of the pilothouse and use a bullhorn to entertain tourists with a commentary on details about Edmund Fitzgerald.[6]
In 1969, Edmund Fitzgerald received a safety award for eight years of operation without a time-off worker injury.[6] The vessel ran aground in 1969, and she collided with SS Hochelaga in 1970. Later that same year, she struck the wall of a lock, an accident repeated in 1973 and 1974. On January 7, 1974, she lost her original bow anchor in the Detroit River.[35] None of these mishaps were considered serious or unusual.[36]Freshwater ships are built to last more than half a century, and Edmund Fitzgerald would have still had a long career ahead of her when she sank.[9]
Final voyage and wreck
The National Transportation Safety Board map of probable course of Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson
Ernest M. McSorley (September 29, 1912 – November 10, 1975) was the last captain of the SS Edmund Fitzgerald, perishing along with the other 28 members of his crew on November 10, 1975.[37][38]Edmund Fitzgerald left Superior, Wisconsin, at 2:15 p.m. on the afternoon of November 9, 1975,[39] under the command of Captain McSorley. She was en route to the steel mill on Zug Island, near Detroit, Michigan,[40] with a cargo of 26,116 long tons (29,250 short tons; 26,535 t) of taconite ore pellets and soon reached her full speed of 16.3 miles per hour (14.2 kn; 26.2 km/h).[41] Around 5 p.m., Edmund Fitzgerald joined a second freighter under the command of Captain Jesse B. “Bernie” Cooper, Arthur M. Anderson, destined for Gary, Indiana, out of Two Harbors, Minnesota.[42] The weather forecast was not unusual for November and the National Weather Service (NWS) predicted that a storm would pass just south of Lake Superior by 7 a.m. on November 10.[43]
SS Wilfred Sykes loaded opposite Edmund Fitzgerald at the Burlington Northern Dock #1 and departed at 4:15 p.m., about two hours after Edmund Fitzgerald. In contrast to the NWS forecast, Captain Dudley J. Paquette of Wilfred Sykes predicted that a major storm would directly cross Lake Superior. From the outset, he chose a route that took advantage of the protection offered by the lake’s north shore to avoid the worst effects of the storm. The crew of Wilfred Sykes followed the radio conversations between Edmund Fitzgerald and Arthur M. Anderson during the first part of their trip and overheard their captains deciding to take the regular Lake Carriers’ Association downbound route.[44] The NWS altered its forecast at 7:00 p.m., issuing gale warnings for the whole of Lake Superior.[45]Arthur M. Anderson and Edmund Fitzgerald altered course northward, seeking shelter along the Ontario shore,[42] where they encountered a winter storm at 1:00 a.m. on November 10. Edmund Fitzgerald reported winds of 52 knots (96 km/h; 60 mph) and waves 10 feet (3.0 m) high.[46] Captain Paquette of Wilfred Sykes reported that after 1 a.m., he overheard McSorley say that he had reduced the ship’s speed because of the rough conditions. Paquette said he was stunned to later hear McSorley, who was not known for turning aside or slowing down, state that “we’re going to try for some lee from Isle Royale. You’re walking away from us anyway … I can’t stay with you.”[44]
At 2:00 a.m. on November 10, the NWS upgraded its warnings from gale to storm, forecasting winds of 35–50 knots (65–93 km/h; 40–58 mph).[47] Until then, Edmund Fitzgerald had followed Arthur M. Anderson, which was travelling at a constant 14.6 miles per hour (12.7 kn; 23.5 km/h),[42] but the faster Edmund Fitzgerald pulled ahead at about 3:00 a.m.[48] As the storm center passed over the ships, they experienced shifting winds, with wind speeds temporarily dropping as wind direction changed from northeast to south and then northwest.[46] After 1:50 p.m., when Arthur M. Anderson logged winds of 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph), wind speeds again picked up rapidly, and it began to snow at 2:45 p.m., reducing visibility; Arthur M. Anderson lost sight of Edmund Fitzgerald, which was about 16 miles (26 km) ahead at the time.[49]
Shortly after 3:30 p.m., Captain McSorley radioed Arthur M. Anderson to report that Edmund Fitzgerald was taking on water and had lost two vent covers and a fence railing. The vessel had also developed a list.[50] Two of Edmund Fitzgerald‘s six bilge pumps ran continuously to discharge shipped water.[51] McSorley said that he would slow his ship down so that Arthur M. Anderson could close the gap between them.[50] In a broadcast shortly afterward, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) warned all shipping that the Soo Locks had been closed and they should seek safe anchorage. Shortly after 4:10 p.m., McSorley called Arthur M. Anderson again to report a radar failure and asked Arthur M. Anderson to keep track of them.[52]Edmund Fitzgerald, effectively blind, slowed to let Arthur M. Anderson come within a 10-mile (16 km) range so she could receive radar guidance from the other ship.[53]
For a time, Arthur M. Anderson directed Edmund Fitzgerald toward the relative safety of Whitefish Bay; then, at 4:39 p.m., McSorley contacted the USCG station in Grand Marais, Michigan, to inquire whether the Whitefish Point light and navigation beacon were operational. The USCG replied that their monitoring equipment indicated that both instruments were inactive.[54] McSorley then hailed any ships in the Whitefish Point area to report the state of the navigational aids, receiving an answer from Captain Cedric Woodard of Avafors between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. that the Whitefish Point light was on but not the radio beacon.[48] Woodard testified to the Marine Board that he overheard McSorley say, “Don’t allow nobody on deck,”[55] as well as something about a vent that Woodard could not understand.[56] Some time later, McSorley told Woodard, “I have a ‘bad list’, I have lost both radars, and am taking heavy seas over the deck in one of the worst seas I have ever been in.”[57]
By late in the afternoon of November 10, sustained winds of over 50 knots (93 km/h; 58 mph) were recorded by ships and observation points across eastern Lake Superior.[58]Arthur M. Anderson logged sustained winds as high as 58 knots (107 km/h; 67 mph) at 4:52 p.m.,[52] while waves increased to as high as 25 feet (7.6 m) by 6:00 p.m.[59]Arthur M. Anderson was also struck by 70-to-75-knot (130 to 139 km/h; 81 to 86 mph) gusts[58] and rogue waves as high as 35 feet (11 m).[60]
At approximately 7:10 p.m., when Arthur M. Anderson notified Edmund Fitzgerald of an upbound ship and asked how she was doing, McSorley reported, “We are holding our own.” She was never heard from again. No distress signal was received, and ten minutes later, Arthur M. Anderson lost the ability either to reach Edmund Fitzgerald by radio or to detect her on radar.[55]
Search
One of Edmund Fitzgerald‘s lifeboats, on display at the Valley Camp museum ship
Captain Cooper of Arthur M. Anderson first called the USCG in Sault Ste. Marie at 7:39 p.m. on channel 16, the radio distress frequency. The USCG responders instructed him to call back on channel 12 because they wanted to keep their emergency channel open and they were having difficulty with their communication systems, including antennas blown down by the storm.[61] Cooper then contacted the upbound saltwater vessel Nanfri and was told that she could not pick up Edmund Fitzgerald on her radar either. Despite repeated attempts to raise the USCG, Cooper was not successful until 7:54 p.m. when the officer on duty asked him to keep watch for a 16-foot (4.9 m) boat lost in the area.[62] At about 8:25 p.m., Cooper again called the USCG to express his concern about Edmund Fitzgerald[63] and at 9:03 p.m. reported her missing.[64] Petty Officer Philip Branch later testified, “I considered it serious, but at the time it was not urgent.”[65]
Lacking appropriate search-and-rescue vessels to respond to Edmund Fitzgerald‘s disaster,[65] at approximately 9:00 p.m., the USCG asked Arthur M. Anderson to turn around and look for survivors. Around 10:30 p.m., the USCG asked all commercial vessels anchored in or near Whitefish Bay to assist in the search.[66] The initial search for survivors was carried out by Arthur M. Anderson, and a second freighter, SS William Clay Ford. The efforts of a third freighter, the Toronto-registered SS Hilda Marjanne, were foiled by the weather. The USCG sent a buoy tender, Woodrush, from Duluth, Minnesota, but it took two and a half hours to launch and a day to travel to the search area. The Traverse City, Michigan, USCG station launched an HU-16 fixed-wing search aircraft that arrived on the scene at 10:53 p.m. while an HH-52 USCG helicopter with a 3.8-million-candlepower searchlight arrived at 1:00 a.m. on November 11.[67]Canadian Coast Guard aircraft joined the three-day search and the Ontario Provincial Police established and maintained a beach patrol all along the eastern shore of Lake Superior.[68]
Although the search recovered debris, including lifeboats and rafts, none of the crew were found.[69] On her final voyage, Edmund Fitzgerald‘s crew of 29 consisted of the captain; the first, second, and third mates; five engineers; three oilers; a cook; a wiper; two maintenance men; three watchmen; three deckhands; three wheelsmen; two porters; a cadet; and a steward. Most of the crew were from Ohio and Wisconsin;[70] their ages ranged from 20 (watchman Karl A. Peckol) to 63 (Captain McSorley).[71]
Edmund Fitzgerald is among the largest and best-known vessels lost on the Great Lakes,[72] but she is not alone on the Lake Superior seabed in that area. In the years between 1816, when Invincible was lost, and 1975, when Edmund Fitzgerald sank, the Whitefish Point area had claimed at least 240 ships.[73]
Wreck discovery and surveys
A USCG drawing of the relative positions of the wreck parts
Wreck discovery
A U.S. Navy Lockheed P-3 Orion aircraft, piloted by Lt. George Conner and equipped to detect magnetic anomalies usually associated with submarines, found the wreck on November 14, 1975 in Canadian waters close to the international boundary at a depth of 530 feet (160 m). Edmund Fitzgerald lies about 15 miles (13 nmi; 24 km) west of Deadman’s Cove, Ontario; about 8 miles (7.0 nmi; 13 km) northwest of Pancake Bay Provincial Park; and 17 miles (15 nmi; 27 km) from the entrance to Whitefish Bay to the southeast.[55] A further November 14–16 survey by the USCG using a side scan sonar revealed two large objects lying close together on the lake floor. The U.S. Navy also contracted Seaward, Inc., to conduct a second survey between November 22 and 25.[74]
Underwater surveys
From May 20 to 28, 1976, the U.S. Navy dived on the wreck using its unmanned submersible, CURV-III, and found Edmund Fitzgerald lying in two large pieces in 530 feet (160 m) of water. Navy estimates put the length of the bow section at 276 feet (84 m) and that of the stern section at 253 feet (77 m). The bow section stood upright in the mud, some 170 feet (52 m) from the stern section that lay capsized at a 50-degree angle from the bow. In between the two broken sections lay a large mass of taconite pellets and scattered wreckage lying about, including hatch covers and hull plating.[75]
In 1980, during a Lake Superior research dive expedition, marine explorer Jean-Michel Cousteau, the son of Jacques Cousteau, sent two divers from RV Calypso in the first manned submersible dive to Edmund Fitzgerald.[76] The dive was brief, and although the dive team drew no final conclusions, they speculated that Edmund Fitzgerald had broken up on the surface.[77]
The Michigan Sea Grant Program organized a three-day dive to survey Edmund Fitzgerald in 1989. The primary objective was to record 3-D videotape for use in museum educational programs and the production of documentaries. The expedition used a towed survey system (TSS Mk1) and a self-propelled, tethered, free-swimming remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV). The Mini Rover ROV was equipped with miniature stereoscopic cameras and wide-angle lenses in order to produce 3-D images. The towed survey system and the Mini Rover ROV were designed, built and operated by Chris Nicholson of Deep Sea Systems International, Inc.[78] Participants included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Geographic Society, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society (GLSHS), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the latter providing RV Grayling as the support vessel for the ROV.[79] The GLSHS used part of the five hours of video footage produced during the dives in a documentary and the National Geographic Society used a segment in a broadcast. Frederick Stonehouse, who wrote one of the first books on the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck, moderated a 1990 panel review of the video that drew no conclusions about the cause of Edmund Fitzgerald‘s sinking.[80]
Canadian explorer Joseph B. MacInnis organized and led six publicly funded dives to Edmund Fitzgerald over a three-day period in 1994.[81]Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution provided Edwin A. Link as the support vessel, and their manned submersible, Celia.[79] The GLSHS paid $10,000 for three of its members to each join a dive and take still pictures.[82] MacInnis concluded that the notes and video obtained during the dives did not provide an explanation why Edmund Fitzgerald sank.[83] The same year, longtime sport diver Fred Shannon formed Deepquest Ltd., and organized a privately funded dive to the wreck of Edmund Fitzgerald, using Delta Oceanographic’s submersible, Delta.[84] Deepquest Ltd. conducted seven dives and took more than 42 hours of underwater video[85] while Shannon set the record for the longest submersible dive to Edmund Fitzgerald at 211 minutes.[86] Prior to conducting the dives, Shannon studied NOAA navigational charts and found that the international boundary had changed three times before its publication by NOAA in 1976.[87] Shannon determined that based on GPS coordinates from the 1994 Deepquest expedition, “at least one-third of the two acres of immediate wreckage containing the two major portions of the vessel is in U.S. waters because of an error in the position of the U.S.–Canada boundary line shown on official lake charts.”[88]
Shannon’s group discovered the remains of a crew member partly dressed in coveralls and wearing a life jacket alongside the bow of the ship, indicating that at least one of the crew was aware of the possibility of sinking.[89][90] The life jacket had deteriorated canvas and “what is thought to be six rectangular cork blocks … clearly visible.”[91] Shannon concluded that “massive and advancing structural failure” caused Edmund Fitzgerald to break apart on the surface and sink.[40]
MacInnis led another series of dives in 1995 to salvage the bell from Edmund Fitzgerald.[92] The Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians backed the expedition by co-signing a loan in the amount of $250,000.[93] Canadian engineer Phil Nuytten‘s atmospheric diving suit, known as the Newtsuit, was used to retrieve the bell from the ship, replace it with a replica, and put a beer can in Edmund Fitzgerald‘s pilothouse.[94] That same year, Terrence Tysall and Mike Zee set multiple records when they used trimix gas to scuba dive to Edmund Fitzgerald. The pair are the only people known to have touched the Edmund Fitzgerald wreck. They also set records for the deepest scuba dive on the Great Lakes and the deepest shipwreck dive, and were the first divers to reach Edmund Fitzgerald without the aid of a submersible. It took six minutes to reach the wreck, six minutes to survey it, and three hours to resurface to avoid decompression sickness, also known as “the bends”.[95]
Restrictions on surveys
Under the Ontario Heritage Act, activities on registered archeological sites require a license.[96] In March 2005, the Whitefish Point Preservation Society accused the Great Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society (GLSHS) of conducting an unauthorized dive to Edmund Fitzgerald. Although the director of the GLSHS admitted to conducting a sonar scan of the wreck in 2002, he denied such a survey required a license at the time it was carried out.[97]
An April 2005 amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act allows the Ontario government to impose a license requirement on dives, the operation of submersibles, side scan sonars, or underwater cameras within a designated radius around protected sites.[98][99] Conducting any of those activities without a license would result in fines of up to CA$1 million.[100] On the basis of the amended law, to protect wreck sites considered “watery graves”, the Ontario government issued updated regulations in January 2006, including an area with a 500-meter (1,640 ft) radius around Edmund Fitzgerald and other specifically designated marine archeological sites.[101][102] In 2009, a further amendment to the Ontario Heritage Act imposed licensing requirements on any type of surveying device.[103]
Hypotheses on the cause of sinking
Extreme weather and sea conditions play a role in all of the published hypotheses regarding Edmund Fitzgerald‘s sinking, but they differ on the other causal factors.[104]
In 2005, NOAA and the NWS ran a computer simulation, including weather and wave conditions, covering the period from November 9, 1975, until the early morning of November 11.[105] Analysis of the simulation showed that two separate areas of high-speed wind appeared over Lake Superior at 4:00 p.m. on November 10. One had speeds in excess of 43 knots (80 km/h; 49 mph) and the other winds in excess of 40 knots (74 km/h; 46 mph).[106] The southeastern part of the lake, the direction in which Edmund Fitzgerald was heading, had the highest winds. Average wave heights increased to near 19 feet (5.8 m) by 7:00 p.m., November 10, and winds exceeded 50 mph (43 kn; 80 km/h) over most of southeastern Lake Superior.[107]
Edmund Fitzgerald sank at the eastern edge of the area of high wind[108] where the long fetch, or distance that wind blows over water, produced significant waves averaging over 23 feet (7.0 m) by 7:00 p.m. and over 25 feet (7.6 m) at 8:00 p.m. The simulation also showed one in 100 waves reaching 36 feet
A smug attitude rooted in good looks or “designer DNA.”
Gene Aristocracy
Beauty or privilege framed as an inherited ruling class.
Hot Privilege
Getting perks in life for being attractive, like “pretty privilege” but more meme-y.
DNA Flex
When someone (or a brand) shows off their genes like they earned them.
Chromosome Clout
Social power gained by having ideal traits, naturally or surgically enhanced.
Beauty Bourgeoisie
The elite class of those who live above average due to their face card.
Genetic Gloating
Publicly basking in the glow of one’s DNA fortune.
Aesthetics Autocracy
A society ruled by the genetically gifted.
Vanity Vector
The idea that hotness propagates through media like a virus.
BioNarcissism
Narcissism sourced from biology, not behavior.
The Genome Gap
The growing divide between the “genetically gifted” and the rest.
Insta-Eugenics
Selection of influencers and models by algorithmic beauty standards.
Born Beautiful Bias
Subtle (or not-so-subtle) cultural favoritism for naturally attractive people.
Looks Meritocracy Myth
The lie that beauty is earned.
Mitochondria Chic
The meme version of “beauty energy” — a nod to the powerhouse of the cell.
Gene Supremacy
A dangerous level of hotness-fueled self-worth.
Would you like a short graphic or meme image mockup that uses some of these? Or would you like them turned into a table or Word doc for blog or social post use?
stock here: Ugly females are the worst, they don’t get any societal benefit from being desirable, and they are pissed about that….not enough to change, but enough to take it out on people anyway they can.
The video is at the bottom. Even Musk has weighed in on this “show me the context” of your shit hole city. The female “police chief” already has a lawsuit against her for discrimination against whites. What money and wokeness can “accomplish”
—————————————————— Here are 3 of the perps, one released this month on 4 serious charges, with a $400 bond, 1 day of crack.
don’t seem to understand along with all the commenters about how we don’t understand what happened first….. that the context is skewed We actually did see it and fully understand that the white guy started the issue slapping the other man And if the police want to arrest him for assault then they are well within their rights The PROBLEM is what happened next…. the FACT that at least a dozen thugs that had nothing to do with it jumped in to assault and try and kill multiple people The FACT that one thing took it upon herself to hit and severely hurt a woman that was looking to diffuse the situation The FACT that one thug came up behind someone and sucker punched a guy and then ran away like a coward The FACT that multiple thugs kept trying to kill the guys by stomping on his head when he was on the ground defenseless and injured already The FACT that the crowd of thugs were delighting in watching this mob hurt people simply because of their race
is TERRIFIED and angry that this one is viral and instead of just sweeping it under the rug she WILL be forced to arrest thugs for this and she is afraid of the violence that will result This video was HORRIBLE for you all and you know it
🎯 Tariffs Are Indirect Taxes on Citizens While tariffs are technically taxes on imported goods, the economic reality is that the cost is almost always passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. So when one country imposes a tariff:
Importers pay the tariff at the border.
They then raise the price of those goods to maintain profit margins.
You, the consumer, end up paying more at the store — not the foreign company being targeted.
🌐 Mutual Tariffs = Mutual Citizen Punishment When two countries engage in tit-for-tat tariffs (say, U.S. vs. China or EU vs. UK), it becomes a:
Political tool (to protect local industries or retaliate).
Distraction from domestic issues — politicians can say “We’re being tough on China” even while the price of electronics or tools rises locally.
So while tariffs are presented as a foreign punishment, the effects are domestic and immediate:
Who Pays? How They Pay Consumers Higher retail prices Importers Upfront duties (later passed on) Exporters (indirectly) Through reduced market access Workers In some sectors, via layoffs or reduced hours
📊 Example: U.S. Tariffs on Washing Machines (2018) The Trump administration imposed a tariff on imported washing machines.
Prices of all washing machines (including U.S.-made) went up ~$86 on average.
Fewer choices, higher prices — citizens bore the cost.
🧠 Bottom Line Yes, mutual tariffs are a form of indirect taxation, often justified as economic protectionism or leverage — but they disproportionately hurt the people, not the governments. It’s taxation disguised as patriotism.
The Israeli record of massacres, extrajudicial killings and daily harassment of Palestinian comprises a continuum of criminal behavior over the past 67 years. Given the overwhelming evidence, the prosecution team therefore decided to focus on key cases, which were extensively reported in the news media and/or were subject of investigations. These included:
– the September 1982 massacre of Palestinians, mainly women and children, at the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in a southwest district of Beirut, Lebanon;
– lethal firing of teargas canisters and “rubber” bullets by Israeli Defense Forces that resulted in the deaths of unarmed civilians during the Intifada campaigns and subsequent protests; and
– intensive and indiscriminate aerial bombing and artillery shelling of civilian quarters in the Gaza Strip in 2008.
Among the witnesses who testified in person or via video transmission included:
– a former university student who was shot without warning at a peaceful protest by an Israeli sniper firing a fragmentary bullet that caused extensive and permanent damage to his internal organs;
– a Christian resident of the West Bank who was repeatedly imprisoned and tortured on grounds of subversion;
– a female resident of Nablus who suffered mental anxiety due to her imprisonment and subsequent social ostracism; and
– two men from the Al Sammouni clan of Gaza, which lost 21 family members, mainly children and women, in an Israeli commando raid on their home.
– a Palestinian physician who conducted studies on the psychological trauma inflicted, particularly on children, as result of constant intimidation, massive violence and state terror during and following the second Intifada;
– expert witness Paola Manduca, an Italian chemist and toxicologist, who found extreme levels of toxic contamination of the soil and water across the Gaza Strip caused by Israeli weapons made of heavy metals and cancer-causing compounds.
Killing Fields
Professor Pappe said that the mass killing of defenseless civilians trapped without avenues of escape within a cordon or enclosure is clear evidence of genocidal policy, as happened inside the Beirut refugee camps surrounded by Israeli tanks and hostile Phalangist militiamen and inside Gaza cities that are ringed by a wall-fence.
For the Beirut atrocity, Israeli Defense Force commander General Amos Yaron was charged in absentia for crimes against humanity and genocide. Among the witnesses who testified in person on the Camps Sabra and Shatilla events were:
– Chahira Abouardini, a widow whose husband and three children were murdered by Israeli-allied militiamen at Camp Shatilla, provided a graphic account of the carnage, describing piles of bullet-riddled bodies and, in one case, of a pregnant women whose belly had been slit open and with her dead unborn child left on top of her corpse. She recounted how refugees were rounded up from their homes and lined against walls for summary execution by automatic weapons fire.
– Dr. Ang Swee Chai, a London-based Singaporean surgeon and medical volunteer at the time at a hospital run by the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, with the aid of the International Committee of the Red Cross, testified that another Beirut hospital had been bombed by Israeli jets, all Palestinian facilities including schools and hospitals were deliberately destroyed by artillery barrages and explosive charges, and ambulances were intercepted and their drivers shot dead. She stated that an Israeli observation post positioned in the 7-storey Kuwaiti Embassy, located on a hilltop, had an unobstructed view of the refugee camp, indicating that the Israeli forces were directing a joint operation to exterminate the refugees left behind under the international plan to withdraw the PLO from Lebanon. In her forensic investigation of the bullet wound that injured a male nurse at her hospital, Dr. Ang determined that the sniper fire had come from the Israeli-occupied Embassy building.
Considering the Israeli checkpoints on roads and its vantage points, Brigadier General Amos Yaron as field commander of the Beirut incursion and occupation, had effective control over the camps. His close liaison with the local militia leader meant that Yaron had condoned the 36-hour rampage by militiamen, which led to an estimated 3,500 civilian deaths. No orders were issued to prevent the one-sided violence, prosecutor Aziz Rahman argued before the Tribunal. A 1983 special commission report, under its chairman Nobel Laureate Sean MacBride, concluded that Israel had “complicity in genocide.” Research findings gathered since then indicate that Yaron was not merely complicit but held personal responsibility for the massacre.
A point contested by the Amicus Curae defense team was that then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, an official of superior rank, should have been prosecuted instead of Gen. Yaron. (The prosecution had earlier declined to serve notice on Sharon, who has been in a coma for many years and is unable to testify in hisown defense. Moreover, Yaron had wide sway of authority as field commander in a battle zone outside the borders of Israel.) Prosecutor Gurdial Singh pointed out that Israel not only failed to file criminal charges against Yaron and his subordinates but subsequently awarded and repeatedly promoted the general and his circle. Yaron was therefore found guilty as accused.
Responsibility of the State
International law has traditionally taken for granted the immunity of states from prosecution by a court in another country. There are several reasons for immunity of states, even for high crimes such as genocide and serious violations of various humanitarian codes.
– International law and the treaty system are based on the principle of equality among states, which are parties to and enforcers of international agreements. The criminal conviction of a state for serious crimes would automatically weigh against the accused party, thereby causing an imbalance in relations and introducing unfairness to the international system.
-The sovereignty of states is a fundamental protection against aggression or undue interference by a foreign state or alliance of nation-states.
– As argued by defense counsel Matthew Witbrodt, prosecution of and penalties imposed on a state would result in collective punishment of all of its citizens. (Since the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, the international community has tried to avoid forms of collective punishment, including heavy war reparations.)
On the other side of the coin, total immunity for the state can encourage violations of international law by dictatorial, racist and/or bigoted regimes. The absence of legal challenge by foreign courts therefore leaves few legitimate means to pressure the offending state. The more “peaceful” methods include economic sanctions, which can be interpreted as a type of collective punishment against a victimized citizenry.
With no legal recourse to counter mass atrocities, other states then must launch interventions through extralegal and often illegal strategies of covert warfare, proxy insurgencies or biased peacekeeping operations. The subsequent invasion and occupation by self-appointed saviors can be more harmful to the people, and to the principles of law, than the original violations of the offending regime.
Thus, quoting its opinion upon the verdict, a “reason the Tribunal wishes to reject the doctrine of absolute state immunity from prosecution in matters of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity is that the existing international law on war and peace, and humanitarianism, is being enforced in a grossly inequitable manner. Small, weak nations, mostly in Africa and Asia, are periodically subjected to devastating sanctions, military interventions and regime changes. At the same time, unbearable atrocities and brutalities are inflicted on the military weak nations of Latin America, Africa and Asia by powerful nations in the North Atlantic and their allies go unscrutinized and unpunished.”
The alternative to the law of the jungle applied by self-appointed unilateral powers or coalitions of the willing is the reform of international law to balance sovereignty with the responsibility of the state for high crimes such as genocide.
Restricting Sovereignty
In its opinion on the ruling, the Tribunal therefore offered a rational method for limiting sovereignty in cases of gross crimes: “Where there is a conflict between two principles of law, the one hierarchically higher in importance should prevail. To our mind, the international law doctrine against impleading (suing) a foreign state, being lower than that that of the prohibition against genocide, resulted in the charge against the State of Israel.”
The Tribunal did not spell out how a genocide ruling can be enforced or provide a model for a reconstitution of state. Presumably and theoretically, the general effect of genocide-based restrictions on sovereignty would be to dissuade and deter state administrations from perpetrating mass atrocities with impunity. Under a legal standard for common action to stop genocide, a preventive intervention could then proceed under accepted rules of engagement and with safeguards against unwarranted violence by peacekeepers. When an inherently extreme policy is embedded in the constitution or state regulations, a lawfully grounded international authority could then abolish that state structure and reconstitute a legitimate state subject to a referendum. A legal process for constitutional change is far preferable to the current method of arbitrary regime change favorable to the interests of and politically subservient to an occupation authority. This remains hypothetical, showing only that the international community is yet to seriously consider the alternative to the present unlawful model.
Restriction of state sovereignty, as the Tribunal noted, is a new and evolving trend in international law. The U.S. permits its citizens to file lawsuits in federal court against states that harbor terrorists, and although this is covered under tort law, such cases inherently restrict the sovereignty of foreign countries. The European Union has also constrained the sovereignty of member states. Under the 1978 State Immunity Act, the British privy council ruled that vessels owned by foreign governments are subject to the same liability laws as commercial vessels.
As argued by the Tribunal panel in their opinion, “We find it rather mind-boggling when some courts can consider commercial disputes as a reason for not allowing a state to be shielded by the state immunity principle and yet strenuously protect such a state in cases of genocide or other war crimes. Human lives cannot be less important than financial gain.”
The vigorous and often well-founded arguments by the Amicus Curae team in defense of Israel were constructive criticism that greatly helped to focus the Tribunal on the complexities of international law. In heated courtroom debate, defense counsel Jason Kay Kit Leon opined that “the elephant in the room” was Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians, for instance, the launching of unguided rockets at settlements, and that Israeli forces have acted in self-defense. The thrust of his claim was based on “In Defense of Israel” by Harvard law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz.
The jurists, however, accepted the prosecution argument. “It is our finding that much of the Palestinian-generated violence is not on Israel’s own territory, but from and on Israeli-occupied Palestinian land. Much of the violence perpetrated by Palestinians is a reaction to the brutalities of the vicious racism and genocide that is a tragic feature of Palestinian life.”
The opinion went further, by stating: “We also hold that the force of the IDF is excessive, totally disproportionate and a violation of international humanitarian law. The methods used are unspeakably inhumane and amount to war crimes.”
Internal Disputes
Earlier disputes within the Commission had led to a two-month adjournment of trial proceedings due to harsh and sometimes bitter accusations between participants. In the conflicted process, several judges recused themselves or were absent due to schedule conflicts and one prominent prosecutor resigned in protest of suspected tampering of the judicial panel. These controversies fortunately served to clarify rather than muddy the legal issues and court procedures, resulting in stronger arguments on both sides. Taking Israel to task is never an easy proposition.
Thereby, a stunning precedent in international law was achieved with the Tribunal’s unanimous decision to charge a state for the high crime of genocide. The arguments and verdict against the State of Israel will undoubted be a hotly debated test case for legal scholars over years to come. Since its Charter does not allow an appeal process, the case of “The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission Against the State of Israel” will stand as the nub of controversy for human-rights law and the principle of sovereignty for nation-states.
While citing several precedents, the strongest argument for implication of the state is outlined in the 2007 genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia, which covered the Sebrenica massacre of Bosnian Muslms by Serb-dominated federal armed forces. As Canadian jurist John Philpot, who earlier served on the Rwanda Tribunal, pointed out following the reading of the verdict, “Bosnia/Herzegovina clearly laid out the culpability of the state and thus served as the precedent for our judgment against Israel.”
According to the Bosnia/Herzogovina ruling, “Genocide is a international crime entailing national and international responsibility on the part of individuals and states” and “if an organ of the state, or a person or group whose acts are legally attributable to the state, commits any of the acts proscribed by Article 3 of the (Genocide) Convention, the international responsibility of that state is incurred.
A point to note: The Rwanda and Yugoslavia genocide cases, are considered by some legal experts to be flawed by the underlying covert and illegal factor of great-power interference. These cases were cited infrequently and judiciously by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, which exercised proper care in selection of appropriate passages, while relying on a much wider range of legal precedents in regard to liability of the state.
Critique: Going Beyond Reparations
Until this genocide ruling by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal, offending states and their foreign sponsors have evaded responsibility while the entire burden of guilt has been placed on the individual agents of weak nation-states. Under the Tribunal ruling, both the core state apparatus – including the executive office, military command, intelligence agencies, supportive ministries and, in many cases, the judiciary and police – bear as much and, in some cases, more criminal responsibility for genocide as individual leaders or military officers.
Yet that is still insufficient when the primary responsibility should rest on powerful sponsor states that move from supporting the offending regime toward punishing its rebellious hubris. The nexus of powerful and ruthless states and global elites, with their machinery for war-making and arms production, creates the political state of siege, the economic strangulation and the covert weapons trade that prompt weaker states to perpetrate genocide.
Barely addressed in just one paragraph of the Tribunal opinion is the reality that powerful states oppose any dilution of their absolute state immunity with the unspoken objective of preserving their war-making powers. The dominant Atlantic allies have cited genocide solely as a pretext to expand their global domain though invasions under a broad and vague “responsibility to protect” principle and have imposed new constitutions on defeated adversaries authored by foreign legal scholars while guised as the ideals of domestic political revolutions. Meanwhile, their own genocidal state structures, centered in the national-security structure and military command, categorically reject any international controls over extralegal interventions operated under the cover of humanitarian operations.
Also, in limiting its call for remedial action to reparations from Israel, the Tribunal wasted a precious opportunity to demand full justice for the Palestinian nation. What is realistically required is an international peacekeeping force to guarantee the withdrawal of the Israeli military and police force from Palestinian territory until a domestic law-enforcement and security force can take over; the elimination of wall-fences, checkpoints and other barriers to the free movement of citizens; the return of occupied land in Palestine; financial restitution for the loss of lands and property inside the boundaries of Israel; and an official apology for the countless crimes committed.
Furthermore, the continuity of genocide perpetrated by the core state structure and abetted by the complicity of much of the Israeli population demands that the offending state must be reorganized under a new constitution free of religious bias and racial discrimination to ensure legal norms that prevent a repetition of genocide. This objective should require an international occupation of Israel in event that powerful elements in Israeli society refuse to comply with international law. Israel should be spared the violence unleashed against the Third Reich, but stern justice and strong rule of law are nonetheless required in situations of ideological conformity based on the goals of genocide.
Courage and Wisdom
Whatever its few shortcomings, the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal demonstrated immense courage, foresight and wisdom in leveling the long-overdue charge of genocide against the State of Israel. The Tribunal correctly framed genocide in the context of international law rather than merely as a localized violation. The verdict, along with the sophisticated judicial opinion, provides an important initiative toward deterring the great powers from promoting and exploiting genocides among weaker nations and victimized peoples.
The Tribunal verdict raised not only a legal challenge to supporters of the Zionist cause in the United States and Europe but also appealed to universal moral principles in the tradition of high-minded rhetoric. “Much as we condemn violence and pray for peace, it must be stated that no power on Earth can douse the flame of freedom from the human spirit. As long as there is suppression, there will always be people prepared to die on their feet rather than live on their knees.”
The precedent-setting decision by the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal is a giant step forward not only for dispossessed Palestinians but also for humanity as a whole.
Yoichi Shimatsu, an East and Southeast Asia focused journalist, is former editor of The Japan Times Weekly in Tokyo.
Do you need and appreciate Black Agenda Report articles. Please click on the DONATE icon, and help us out, if you can. Donate
More Stories
Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyBlack Agenda Radio July 25, 202525 Jul 2025In this week’s segment, we discuss Canada’s role as a U.S. imperialist client state and how its image as a friendlier northern neighbor is contradicted by support for Israel’s genocide, increases in…
Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyTrump Africa Policy: Imperialism, Resource Extraction, and Deportations25 Jul 2025Our guest is Abayomi Azikiwe, editor of Pan African Newswire. He joins us from Detroit to discuss the Trump administration policy towards Africa, including the recent visit of five African heads of…
Black Agenda Radio with Margaret KimberleyVassal State Canada Partners with U.S. Imperialist and Neo-Liberal Policies25 Jul 2025El Jones is a poet and a professor at Mount St. Vincent University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. She joins us from Halifax to discuss Canadian politics and relations with the US. Despite…
Margaret Kimberley, BAR Executive Editor and Senior ColumnistBlack Agenda Report At the Belt and Road Journalism Forum in China23 Jul 2025The 2025 Belt and Road Journalists Forum in China was an opportunity for Black Agenda Report to join an international group of journalists working to promote meaningful dialogue on world issues.
stock here: note in the last paragraph, they pretend that Trump himself fired this female. A Journalism student from Northwestern University.
——————————
While the circumstances of Caudle’s nomination as the replacement for Adm. Lisa Franchetti, whom Trump fired without explanation, were controversial, Caudle breezed through his hearing, suggesting he will be easily confirmed on a bipartisan basis.
——————————-
Her replacement, is suspiciously looked at as being against Marxism, in the US military. hmmmmm. Franchetti was fired by Hegseth.
Stock here: I have the answer, There is no statue of limitations for capital offenses, thoese offences for which Death is a possible option, see far bottom, for the complete blurb. This is how the Obama gang can be prosecuted.
—————————————
A capital offense includes crimes where death is a possible punishment, such as:
Murder (especially of federal officials or during federal crimes like kidnapping, rape, or terrorism)
Espionage
Treason
Large-scale drug trafficking
Certain civil rights violations resulting in death
Statute of Limitations: Sedition, Conspiracy, and Related Federal Crimes
Overview
Federal crimes are generally subject to a statute of limitations, typically 5 years under 18 U.S.C. § 3282. However, exceptions apply—especially for capital offenses, terrorism, and conspiracies involving continuing conduct. This document outlines the statute of limitations for various crimes related to sedition, conspiracy, and offenses against federal authority.
Seditious Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384)
• Carries up to 20 years imprisonment. • Standard statute of limitations: 5 years. • Exception: If part of a terrorism-related crime (e.g., causing death or serious injury), there is no statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3286.
General Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371)
• Standard statute of limitations: 5 years. • Exception: The clock resets with each ‘overt act’ committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. • Treated as a continuing offense—extends statute of limitations beyond 5 years when active involvement continues.
Crimes Against the President (18 U.S.C. § 1751)
• Includes attempts or conspiracies to kill or kidnap the President. • These are often capital or life imprisonment offenses, thus have no statute of limitations.
Additional Federal Offense Limits
• Espionage, Passport/Citizenship fraud – 10 years • Arson or use of explosives – 10 years • Major fraud against the United States – 7 years • Tax offenses (felony) – 6 years • Sexual exploitation of minors – No limitation while the victim is alive
Summary Table of Statutes of Limitation
Crime Type
Penalty Type
Statute of Limitations
Seditious conspiracy (§ 2384)
Non-capital
5 years (none if terrorism-related)
General conspiracy (§ 371)
Non-capital
5 years (resets on last overt act)
Attempt or conspiracy to kill the President (§ 1751)
Capital or life
None
Terrorism with injury/death (§ 3286)
Capital level
None
Espionage/Passport fraud
Varies
10 years
Arson/explosives
Specified
10 years
Major fraud against U.S.
Non-capital
7 years
Felony tax violations
Non-capital
6 years
Sexual exploitation of minors
Varies
Life of victim
—————————————————-
18 U.S. Code § 1751 – Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties
Whoever kills (1) any individual who is the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or, if there is no Vice President, the officer next in the order of succession to the Office of the President of the United States, the Vice President-elect, or any person who is acting as President under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or (2) any person appointed under section 105(a)(2)(A) of title 3 employed in the Executive Office of the President or appointed under section 106(a)(1)(A) of title 3 employed in the Office of the Vice President, shall be punished as provided by sections 1111 and 1112 of this title.
(b)
Whoever kidnaps any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(c)
Whoever attempts to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
(d)
If two or more persons conspire to kill or kidnap any individual designated in subsection (a) of this section and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished (1) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or (2) by death or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if death results to such individual.
(e)
Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(1) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. Whoever assaults any person designated in subsection (a)(2) shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if the assault involved the use of a dangerous weapon, or personal injury results, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(f)
The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.
(g)
The Attorney General of the United States, in his discretion is authorized to pay an amount not to exceed $100,000 for information and services concerning a violation of subsection (a)(1). Any officer or employee of the United States or of any State or local government who furnishes information or renders service in the performance of his official duties shall not be eligible for payment under this subsection.
(h)
If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.
(i)
Violations of this section shall be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistance may be requested from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.
(j)
In a prosecution for an offense under this section the Government need not prove that the defendant knew that the victim of the offense was an official protected by this section.
(k)
There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law – is a federal criminal civil rights statute. It penalizes anyone who, while acting under color of law (such as police officers, public officials, or judges), willfully deprives someone of rights protected by the Constitution or U.S. laws.
🔍 Statute of Limitations for 18 U.S.C. § 242
➤ General Rule (Felony – Non-capital cases):
5 years According to 18 U.S. Code § 3282(a), the default statute of limitations for most federal crimes is 5 years from the date of the offense.
➤ Exception (Capital offenses):
If the § 242 violation results in death or includes aggravated sexual abuse or kidnapping, it can be treated as a capital offense.
In that case, there is no statute of limitations per 18 U.S. Code § 3281.
➤ If the Violation is Classified as a Misdemeanor:
Typically 1 year applies under 18 U.S. Code § 3285, although § 242 is usually charged as a felony when bodily injury, use of weapons, or threats are involved.
⚖️ Summary Table
Offense Type
Statute of Limitations
Basic § 242 (non-lethal, non-aggravated)
5 years
§ 242 with death or potential capital offense
None (no time limit)
§ 242 classified as a misdemeanor (rare)
1 year
———————————–
🔎 Definition of a Capital Offense
A capital offense is a crime that is punishable by death under federal law. This doesn’t mean the death penalty must be imposed — only that it is legally available as a possible sentence.
📜 According to 18 U.S.C. § 3591 (Federal Death Penalty Statute):
A capital offense includes crimes where death is a possible punishment, such as:
Murder (especially of federal officials or during federal crimes like kidnapping, rape, or terrorism)
Espionage
Treason
Large-scale drug trafficking
Certain civil rights violations resulting in death
⚖️ Application to 18 U.S.C. § 242
Under 18 U.S.C. § 242, a crime becomes a capital offense if it:
“…results in death, or includes kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.”
➤ This means § 242 becomes a capital offense if:
The victim dies as a result of the deprivation of rights
The offense includes attempted murder
The conduct involves kidnapping
The offense includes aggravated sexual abuse
In these cases, 18 U.S.C. § 3281 applies, and there is no statute of limitations.
🧠 Key Point
It’s not the charge alone that makes an offense “capital” — it’s whether the death penalty could legally be applied under federal law for the specific facts of the case.
stock, this is huge news for the people of Wisconsin, there is hope. Of course, they could find someone even worse, but those odds are astronomical. Look at this ghost of a man.
