General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am not pro or anti Israel...but
Last edited Wed Jul 19, 2017, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)
How can a law banning joining a boycott against Israel be legal?
Wouldn't that infringe upon the 1st Amendment?
Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: anyone guilty of violating its prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000, and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison.
https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark
sinkingfeeling
(51,473 posts)that the Arab Spring would open up more personal freedom. Now the opposite is happening. Look at Turkey.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)I think it got in the way of the plan which was to continue escalating war.. any middle eastern war.
Without the dictators there would be democracy. If democracy were to happen peace would break out. Peace doesn't make for centralized power and money western oligarchs want.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Unfortunately, the Arab Spring largely ate itself.
I think you have a lot of crazy fucking people all over this planet- many of them driven by fucked up, outdated religious beliefs- who absolutely do NOT want democracy, nor do they want individual citizens to be free to make their own decisions.
In our country, they're called "Religious Right Republicans"
defacto7
(13,485 posts)but I also agree with eveything you wrote. In addition there are western infuences who do not want democracy either there or here for that matter. I can think of plenty of reasons why that also include those you mentioned.
Nice to hear from you again Warren D.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)my feeling around the Arab Spring has, sadly, been kind of how I felt with Tienanmen Square and later with the evolution of post-Communist Russia into a crony criminal kleptocracy.
Missed opportunities. Big ones.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)For some reason I doubt this bill does anything like what he claims it does.
freddyvh
(276 posts)and here are the penalties
(c) Violations Of Section 8(a).Section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. 4610) (as continued in effect pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)) is amended
section 50 of the US code
§1705. Penalties
(a) Unlawful acts
It shall be unlawful for a person to violate, attempt to violate, conspire to violate, or cause a violation of any license, order, regulation, or prohibition issued under this chapter.
(b) Civil penalty
A civil penalty may be imposed on any person who commits an unlawful act described in subsection (a) in an amount not to exceed the greater of-
(1) $250,000; or
(2) an amount that is twice the amount of the transaction that is the basis of the violation with respect to which the penalty is imposed.
(c) Criminal penalty
A person who willfully commits, willfully attempts to commit, or willfully conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of, an unlawful act described in subsection (a) shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $1,000,000, or if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I strongly doubt that if you're a company that chooses not to do business with, say, Israel, that's going to apply.
If you're a company that gets big US Government contracts and you're publicly broadcasting about being on Team BDS, different story maybe.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)It's about other countries that boycott Israel. If you do business with a country that boycotts Israel they may ask you to agree to not to business with Israel. That's what is what companies can't comply with.
No one has to do business with Israel. The reasoning is that the US government makes foreign policy and the boycott language/request is an attempt to use US businesses as leverage to change US policy.
It should be noted that anti-boycott language applies to any country that the US government doesn't have a boycott against, not just Israel. A business can't agree to a Chinese request to boycott Taiwan.
Under current law a business cannot agree to a boycott that is not aligned with US policy, even if they don't do business with that country anyway, and also must report such requests.
I work for a company that sells and exports items to many countries that boycott Israel. Every employee as part of our annual compliance training includes export training covering anti-boycott laws.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sure sounds that way.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)I admit to not reading the current proposed language.
atreides1
(16,093 posts)Section 8A
(A) Refusing, or requiring any other person to refuse, to do
business with or in the boycotted country, with any business
concern organized under the laws of the boycotted country,
with any national or resident of the boycotted country, or with
any other person, pursuant to an agreement with, a requirement
of, or a request from or on behalf of the boycotting country.
The mere absence of a business relationship with or in the
boycotted country with any business concern organized under
the laws of the boycotted country, with any national or resident
of the boycotted country, or with any other person, does
not indicate the existence of the intent required to establish a
violation of regulations issued to carry out this subparagraph.
Except as provided
in subsection (b) of this section, whoever knowingly violates
VerDate Nov 24 2008 15:58 Dec 14, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 9001 Sfmt 9001 F:COMPEAA79TEAAO1.BEL HOLCPC
December 14, 2015
F:COMPEAA79THE EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979.XML
As Amended Through P.L. 108-458, Enacted December 17, 2004
Sec. 11 EXPORT ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1979 58
or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of this Act or
any regulation, order, or license issued thereunder shall be fined
not more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$50,000, whichever is greater, or imprisoned not more than 5
years, or both.
(b) WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.(1) Whoever willfully violates or
conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of this Act or any
regulation, order, or license issued thereunder, with knowledge
that the exports involved will be used for the benefit of, or that the
destination or intended destination of the goods or technology involved
is, any controlled country or any country to which exports
are controlled for foreign policy purposes
(A) except in the case of an individual, shall be fined not
more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$1,000,000, whichever is greater; and
(B) in the case of an individual, shall be fined not more
than $250,000, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Any person who is issued a validated license under this Act
for the export of any good or technology to a controlled country and
who, with knowledge that such a good or technology is being used
by such controlled country for military or intelligence gathering
purposes contrary to the conditions under which the license was
issued, willfully fails to report such use of the Secretary of Defense
Section 11
(A) except in the case of an individual, shall be fined not
more than five times the value of the exports involved or
$1,000,000, whichever is greater; and
(B) in the case of an individual, shall be fined not more
than $250,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) Any person who possesses any goods or technology
(A) with the intent to export such goods or technology in
violation of an export control imposed under section 5 or 6 of
this Act or any regulation, order, or license issued with respect
to such control, or
(B) knowing or having reason to believe that the goods or
technology would be so exported,
shall, in the case of a violation of an export control imposed under
section 5 (or any regulation, order, or license issued with respect
to such control), be subject to the penalties set forth in paragraph
(1) of this subsection and shall, in the case of a violation of an export
control imposed under section 6 (or any regulation, order, or
license issued with respect to such control), be subject to the penalties
set forth in subsection (a).
(4) Any person who takes any action with the intent to evade
the provisions of this act or any regulation, order, or license issued
under this Act shall be subject to the penalties set forth in subsection
(a), except that in the case of an evasion of an export control
imposed under section 5 or 6 of this act (or any regulation,
order, or license issued with respect to such control), such person
shall be subject to the penalties set forth in paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
(5) Nothing in this subsection or subsection (a) shall limit the
power of the Secretary to define by regulations violations under
this Act.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)thank you.
Crunchy Frog
(26,630 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I usually agree with the ACLU, but I also usually agree with Sen. Wyden, who is generally trustworthy on 1st and 4th Amendment matters.
Hmmm.
Iggo
(47,565 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)This is basically an extension/strengthening of current law introduced back in March. The Israel boycott laws were passed in the '70s.
freddyvh
(276 posts)i understand part of the law.
such as "Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality."
but if i decide to personally or have my business not do business with an Israeli company or their government, I could be prosecuted under this law.
why?
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)That could fly.. we all know how much they love business.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)I meant the GOP people who administrate such a law... I meant that when the law comes knocking, this is what you tell them rather than say it was a stand against something or the other. In no way did I intend to tap into a stereotype. I should have thought better and communicated better.
Sorry again
JI7
(89,264 posts)uriel1972
(4,261 posts)If not my mistake.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It was kind of an open-ended statement. No worries.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)JI7
(89,264 posts)huh ? who are you referring to here ?
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)Here are the 14 democrats that are co-sponsoring this bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/720/cosponsors?q=%7B%22party%22%3A%22Democratic%22%7D
This is disturbing.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Personally, I trust Ron Wyden's judgment far more than I do Glenn Greenwald's.
Don't you?
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)I don't care who the author of the article is. I don't really care about the article period. What I care about is that free speech thing.
Do you care about it at all? Maybe you're on the wrong board?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm "on the wrong board" for agreeing with Ron Wyden?
Actually, you should educate yourself as to what the law- really, this is a modification of existing law, not a new law, anyway- actually does, and does not do. There is plenty of information right here, in this very thread.
It has zip diddly shit to do with "free speech".
And Greenwald is relevant because he's pushing a false narrative of what this thing does, and people who like to opine on certain geopolitical and other situations while only having a fingernail's worth of actual understanding of them (cough) will eat it up because it scratches the bellies of their preconceived biases.... without bothering to do further research.
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #27)
Post removed
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,711 posts)This has always been government policy. It doesn't prohibit criticism of them.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)nikibatts
(2,198 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You appear confused by posters simply unwilling to choose A or B simply because sacred cows do.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)What a brilliantly condensed piece of gibberish.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Since America is basically pro-Israel. A fine is just money. Bad publicity is a lot more.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)please, elaborate
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Where a large proportion of Dems support Israel ?
What did you think I meant?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It is not a regional thing.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)That Israel embodies more so than its neighboring states. Also a lot of us would rather visit Tel Aviv than Tehran. That has a lot to do with how people feel about countries overall. It's why we are sadder when Paris has a terrorist attack vs Nairobi.
I know you guys think you are going to trip me up in some anti Semitic statement, but you are not as smart as you think you are
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, come on.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I would probably have better hobbies.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and the ACLU hires constitutional lawyers who also think this is illegal
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)which was your question to me
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Gotta love Congress. Making more work for news reporters and lawyers.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)In reality, though, it's a modification to existing, well-established law. And doesn't infringe upon 1st Amendment rights whatsoever.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,630 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Have to remember that the next time there's a thread about "blasphemous" cartoons or sex scenes on HBO.
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Just watch. This country loves locking up leftists.
Get your passports, folks.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)This legislation doesnt do what the hyperbolic claims say it does.
Response to DemocraticWing (Reply #43)
Post removed
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)This video was made by the "Americans for Peace and Tolerance," which has repeatedly been labeled an Islamophobic hate group by both Muslims and Jewish organizations that oppose racism.
EllieBC
(3,041 posts)I always have my passport ready. I don't trust the right or the left anymore.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Criticizing a countries government is one thing, calling for the destruction of a country is another.
In America, we criticize our government all the time, but no one calls for the destruction of America.
no_hypocrisy
(46,182 posts)PERMANENTLY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!!
Paging Kris Kobach . . . . . .
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,182 posts)My question is would this conviction be treason to this country or to Israel?
http://www.nonprofitvote.org/voting-in-your-state/special-circumstances/voting-as-an-ex-offender/
Duppers
(28,127 posts)boycott Indonesia too? Say they were killing whales as Japan does? Since that country has the highest population of Muslims (209.1 million), could that not be construed as religious discrimination?
Some countries have some horrible policies. Without boycotts how can we oppose those policies as private citizens and businesses?
Citizens should be able to boycott policies not based on racism or religious discrimination. And this should be applicable to Israeli *policies*. Left leaning J Street has opinions on this as they oppose many of Israel's rightwing policies.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BDS is advocating for the total destruction of Israel, full stop.
It's not just about the territories or the occupation. As far as BDS is concerned, all of Israel is "occupied".