issued by then-deposed Panamanian president Eric Arturo Del-valle. Although Manuel Noriega had replaced Delvalle with a puppet ruler by the time of the seizure of the Zedom Sea, the American ambassador to Panama testified that the U.S. State Department had declined to diplomatically recognize the new leadership. That fact notwithstanding, the appellants contend the SNO should have been obtained from the Noriega government. Furthermore, they argue that the validity of the SNO was a factual question that should have been submitted to the jury rather than decided by the court as a matter of law. As both parties concede, the law interpreting section 1903 and its predecessor, section 955a, is in a state of disarray. Compare United States v. Bent-Santana, 774 F.2d 1545, 1548 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>) with United States v. Ayarza-Garcia, 819 F.2d
holding that whether a vessel is subject to jurisdiction under section 955a is a question of fact holding that section 1144 is a jurisdictional limitation holding that the question of whether an existing constitutional right is infringed is strictly a question of law holding that the jurisdictional reach under section 955a is strictly a question of law holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court