 to

criminalize his conduct pursuant to its Article I powers.

                 The government does separately argue that Aybar waived

his right to bring this challenge because he conceded in the plea

colloquy that the vessel he was on board was "without nationality"

-- which is one of the MDLEA's definitions for a "vessel subject

to    the     jurisdiction       of   the   United   States."    46   U.S.C.

§ 70502(c)(1)(A).        But, as we read the record, Aybar conceded only

that his conduct fell within the MDLEA's scope and not that the

MDLEA was athat conduct and the United States.4                And Aybar bases

that       argument    entirely   on    an   assertion    about    the   way    that

international law -- which he appears to treat as having been



       4Specifically, Aybar asserts the following:          He was
"interdicted in a vessel in international waters"; "no offense
occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States"; his vessel neither departed from nor was bound for the
United States; "there is no evidence that the cocaine aboard the
vessel was