My point is that I don't care how many sources you toss out there, this is a pretty new bit of news and till someone in a position of legal authority chimes in, it's all just a bunch of hoo-haw.
It very well may be illegal, but unless missed something - everything presented so far is opinion of various unqualified contributors and not a legal opinion. -Cameron On 2/28/06, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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:5:198351 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
