Probably it was OFAC
::tired sigh:: I have read the thread. Gawdamighty, have I ever read the thread. If you’ll recall, I’m the one who posted something along the lines of “at least we all agree that it’s a stupid law.”
Perhaps I should rephrase myself. What I meant to say was that by not recognizing this embargo, several countries have passed laws in response that have great potential for conflict. As we’ve seen.
Am I beating a dead horse? I don’t know. All I know is that there’s a very large grey area here (IMO) that I really wish could get cleared up. As I mentioned in the OP, for the most part I have no beef with the U.S. Some aspects of its foreign policy drive me nuts, and this is one of them.
**And on my own preview:
Zoff**, I agree, other countries can be jingoistic (look at how I’ve been acting). As to whether the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act argument is a smokescreen, probably. But unfortunately, it’s still a law on the books, and as such, must be addressed.
Yeah, the jury rejected his intention arguments, and I’d really like to see why they determined he was funnelling. Unfortunately, I only have newspaper reports to go on. Maybe someday I’ll get a court transcript and all will be made clear.
The prosecution of the 7 counts from when he was in Canada, when they already had enough to convict for his American actions was what I found arrogant. They already had him going away for a hell of a long time and the Canadian charges did nothing but raise a whole shitload of shackles when it wasn’t particularly necessary.
For which I am eternally grateful. My ache with it is that it has not been stricken and is therefore still a large item of contention. Bush had considered dropping the suspension and I probably would’ve got my ass banned had he done that.
Yup, my knee jerked. I still have issues with this whole thing, but I do not have the training nor the time to be able to address them all coherently. As such, I will reserve my gripes regarding this whole issue for home, where only my wife will suffer. Put it down to a great desire that the embargo be lifted so that we don’t even have to worry about this kind of crap.
Let me clarify. I understand that the law is a fact, but I think the argument in the papers that he would have been violating FEMA if he didn’t do it is simply PR to try to arouse anger.
I’d be interested to see if anybody’s ever been prosecuted under FEMA and how, exactly, the Crown proved the case. It seems to me that proving violation of FEMA involves proving that a Canadian didn’t trade because of Helms-Burton. While there might be instances where there is a paper trail with a Canadian looking to trade with Cuba then backing off because of Helms-Burton it seems unlikely. I think the law was passed to show displeasure as much as anything else. That’s fine, Canada can do what they want, but to argue that this guy had the Sword of FEMA dangling over his head seems a bit implausible.
I would prefer that he wasn’t prosecuted at all, but this is more of a political than legal issue. My only point in this thread has been that the prosecution was not the result of some brand-spankin’-new legal theory invented by the imperialists to exert hegemonic dominion over the world. I’m pretty confident Canada has a number of extraterritorial laws as well and that’s fine.
So, I think we generally agree on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of the underlying law. But the prosecution itself, whether you agree with it or not in this specific instance, is nothing inherently evil. Yet people were coming in and accusing the US of arrogance, and apologizing on behalf of the country. It all seemed a little hysterical. I understand your view and why the case made you mad. I just hope you see the point I was trying to make.
Well, ZOFF, I think that kind of second guessing is probably how the man got in trouble in the first place. According to this link:
Therefore, if the man would otherwise have traded with Cuba, but he doesn’t, he may be in violation of FEMA. And any time a person imagines s/he might even possibly be violating national/federal law, s/he should [Monty Python] run away! Run away! [/MP] (meaning: Don’t do it). It really isn’t up the the citizen to decide if the law has teeth or not.
As far as the prosecution history of FEMA goes, IANACL, so I can’t answer that.
I’m just stepping in to say ‘howdy’ and ‘gladtoseeya’ to Jodi
on the OP, I don’t think it’s too terribly odd to try some one for a crime that occured in this country while they were some where else (doesn’t that description fit NOriega?).
Had he stayed in Canada, Canada could have quite rightly, refused to extradict, basing their objection on the concept that the action was not illegal where he was committing it.
I understand that the law makes it illegal to help the US embargo. I’m simply a bit skeptical that the law was a consideration for this guy. If he had chosen not to go through with the trading how would Canada prove it was because of Helms-Burton? I just think the law is so vague as to be meaningless to the citizens of Canada.
The issue of FEMA is given prominent play in the articles but I just don’t see the guy frozen with fear of prosection by the Canadians once the sale was mentioned.
Aguecheek
Yes, it has (suffered an adverse action).
minty green
I think that it’s obvious that everyone in this thread knows it’s illegal. What’s at issue is whether it should be illegal.
Zoff
But in this case the crime did not occur in the US.
I think that allowing Canadians to be legally killed is a greatly contemptuous act, and Canada should not stand for it. But if they agree to it, then they don’t have the right to change their minds arbitrarily. If the US feels so strongly about Cuba, they should have taken stronger actions, such as making compliance with their laws a requirement for NAFTA. Charging someone with a crime for something they did in another country, when they have no affiliation with the US, is an act of last resort for when all other options have been exhausted, which is clearly not the case.
Also, I’d like to remind people that the H-M bill was in response to Cuba violating US sovereignty, and other countries being complicit in that.
Again, we all agree that Helms-Burton is a lousy idea but the fact is that it is the law. The fact is that this is not a guy abroad going about his own business This guy was convicted of helping an American company break an American law. If he is a Canadian, living in Canada, unrelated to anything American, then he’d have a stronger case in my eyes. But he is residing in the US and helping a US company break US law. He had it coming.
Or let’s use a more apt analogy. Let’s say China says it’s illegal to communicate with anyone in Japan, and you, being an American, living in America, maintain a certain company’s server. Someone in America then e-mails someone in Japan through that server. Now let’s say you go to China, where you are arrested because you aided a company aid a person in breaking Chinese law.
In that case, it would be ridiculous, just as, IMO, this case is, and I’m sure there would be public outrage over what happened – regardless of the fact that you broke Chinese law. You may have broken that law, but are you obligated to honour every other countrys’ laws while standing on US soil? It’s a matter of jurisdiction. Sure you are obligated to honour the laws the second you step onto Chinese soil, but are you obligated to honour their laws elsewhere?
Now, forget analogies for a minute and let’s go to a “what if” scenario. What if this were common place – that US companies all worked around the embargo by shipping goods up to Canada, where Canadians would then ship them to Cuba? There, too, would be public outrage. But regardless of “criminal intent” (and I use that term very loosely) on the part of the Canadians, who should be prosecuting whom? The US companies are the ones that broke US laws, by intending to avoid the law, and should be penalized under US law. The Canadians, nonetheless, broke no laws.
I see sailor’s analogy, and although I would not be outraged at an American being prosecuted once he stepped onto Canadian soil for doing that, I would think that prosecuting him would be wrong. It is the smuggler (regardless of nationality) who actually broke the law, and it is he or she who should be penalized for doing so by the country IN WHICH he or she broke the law. Now, if let’s say the Americans have a chance to catch this smuggler, go ahead, and throw the book at him for whatever laws he broke while in the US (if any), but let Canada handle the punishment for the laws he broke while in Canada. In short, we’ll take care of our business. I also really think this analogy was completely inept. I also think that the extreme analogies that people are making is quite laughable, and although I realize people are trying to show that the law is the law, I still think it’s quite extreme that people are comparing people selling water coolers to child molestors.
Also, let me add to the ridiculous analogies. I think that it’s illegal, in China, to sell a stone Buddha. If an American once sold the said item in America, yet goes to China, should he or she be prosecuted for that act?
I realize how well-known the US-Cuba embargo is, but while we’re at it, what if all other countries made a bunch of other idiotic “international” laws – am I responsible for knowing the “international” laws of EVERY OTHER country while NOT IN them? Do I have to consult my lawyer before selling a stone Buddha? Some would say not only do I have to, but I have to check with multiple lawyers to make sure my advice is accurate. I think the contrary.
Also, as said, it’s up to the country to determine which laws apply everywhere for its citizens (or is it for everyone and anyone in the world, anywhere and everywhere in the world, regardless of citizenship?); e.g., sex with a minor. Now, I’m not familiar with law, and this is a little off topic, but would, let’s say, a German pedophile be prosecuted for all the crimes commited while in Germany, assuming he has not served time for them? Or would the US just hold him in custody and send him back?
I forgot to add to my first analogy that the company in question is in China, but the server is in the US.
Yes it did. The sale was made in the US and shipped (or funneled depending on how you look at it) through Canada. The illegal act (the sale) took place in the US.
Let me explain this again. The Canadian did break an American law. Nobody’s arguing he broke a Canadian law. He broke an American law and was prosecuted when he entered the US. I think we’ve beat this issue to death.
OK. We’ll dispense with the analogies that bother you so. I’ll simply point out that your argument again goes to whether the underlying law is a good idea. Nobody’s argued it is. Whether you should be prosecuted in your example is a different debate. What we’re saying is that you can be prosecuted.
No. Only certain statutes are extraterritorial. As long as the acts were committed by a German in Germany the US isn’t going to prosecute him because the US has no connection to the crime.
What the fuck is your problem, asshole? Sixty posts after I made that point, which was in the fifth post to the entire thread, you decide to quote it and tell me that “everyone in this thread knows it’s illegal”? Look, dipshit, that point may have been established sometime in the previous sixty posts, but it most certainly was not established at the time I wrote those words. So what purpose does it serve to quote them now, other than giving you an opportunity to snidely tell me “what’s at issue”?
Goddamn, you’re an asshole, Ryan. Go play in traffic or pick lice off your fellow monkeys or something.
That the law in question is stupid is only a small part of my argument. That the application of the law, which is to people who have no obligation to honour it, is stupid, is one of the main reasons for my belief that what was done was not lawful.
>> That the application of the law, which is to people who have no obligation to honour it, is stupid, is one of the main reasons for my belief that what was done was not lawful
<<sigh>> He broke an American law. He was living in America. America gets hold of his ass and gives him what the law says. If he had stayed outside of America then America could not get hold of his ass and could do nothing. What part don’t you understand? It has been explained ad nauseam.
America says “if you have sex with children you better not let me get ahold of you”. You can live in a country where it is legal to do it and America can’t do squat about it but once you set foot US soil they can do whatever they want. The moral is that you do not have to abide by American law if you do not want to set foot in America. Simple as that. But if you set foot in America you know what the rules are.
The guy was living in America while he was helping an American company break the law. It cannot be clearer to me. Legally his ass belongs in jail. If he had stayed outside of the US he could walk up to the border every morning and laugh away, but he wanted to live in the US and break the law? Sorry.
None of us likes the law but that does not make it unlawful. It is perfectly, 100% legal. But I guess if you didn’t get it by now I should not have much hope. It’s legal. Deal with it.
From www.m-w.com:
Sailor, next time you so arrogantly assume that I don’t understand you, perhaps you should consult a dictionary to better understand others.
Maybe you can express yourself better because IMHO, when we have been discussing for two pages whether the law is in accordance with national and international laws and statutes, your choice of the word “unlawful” to mean “not morally right or conventional” is a very poor choice since the word’s primary meaning is “not in accordance with the law” and we are talking about national and international law. If you had said “not morally right” or “morally unlawful” then I would have understood but when everybody has been talking about legality and you come in and use the word in a different and much more secondary sense I think it is your responsibility to make it clear and not mine to guess.
Recommended reading: Dictionaries do not win complex debates, you asshole
Sailor, once again, your relevance is? I’ll choose not to read that link if it has anything to do with your post.
Obviously, if I said,
“That the law in question is stupid is only a small part of my argument. Nonetheless, the law is illegal.”
THAT would not make sense.
Once again, make an effort to understand others before you assume that they do not or cannot understand you.