Ah. I see the problem here. You didn't notice the part where it said that there is a law on the books that fines companies that comply with the boycott. These laws are found in section 999 of the Internal Revenue Code. So the assumption that there is a US law that applies is not an assumption. The fact that they are violating the law in question is also a fact based on direct interview. Not a viewpoint of a journalist but a direct quote. But you may feel that the journalist is lying you. You may feel that his story is false. Lets use another source: http://www.bis.doc.gov/antiboycottcompliance/oacantiboycottrequestexamples.html UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Prohibited Boycott Condition in a Contract "Tenderer shall verify on his own responsibility the laws and regulations in Abu Dhabi which apply to the performance of the services, including the boycott of Israel."
Prohibited Boycott Condition in an invitation to bid "Documents to accompany tenders [include] the declaration and Israel boycott certificate. It states the tenderer must accompany his offer with the following, written signed declaration. 'We declare that we are a company which is not owned by any companies that have violated the approved rules of the boycott and that we do not own or participate in companies that are in violation of the approved rules of the boycott. Further, we do not have, nor does any of the companies that are considered to be a parent company or a branch of ours, any dealings with any Israeli party, whether directly or indirectly. Furthermore, a certificate issued by the Israel boycott office in UAE confirming that neither the supplier nor the manufacturer are blacklisted, should also be accompanied. Reportable boycott condition in a purchase order "19. Israeli Clause The seller shall not supply goods or materials which have been manufactured or processed in Israel nor shall the services of any Israeli organization be used in handling of transporting the goods or materials." So has it been proven that they comply with the boycott? > On 2/28/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > A foreign company following a Trade Embargo in a foreign country is >> > not inherently against US law. >> >> It is if the company in question is doing business with the US. If the >> company is not doing business with the US, then we can't apply our laws. >> But >> if they are, they must comply or face penalties. Unless we decide to >> ignore >> it. > > You are making the assumption that there are US laws which apply to > this situation, and that they have been broken. That is yet to be > decided, which is my point. Will definitely make it interesting if > they do apply, but so far you've only presented a journalist's > viewpoint and not a court's. > > -Cameron > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:198349 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
