Does this seem petty to anybody else?

[Goofball]

This is just astounding. Apparently the U.S. government now has the resources to monitor foreign hotel guestbooks and make sure no lousy, stinking Cubans are darkening good American linen.

I hope the Mexicans do shut down this hotel, so that the U.S. gov't can explain to its American shareholders why the value of their investment has dropped in value.



Mexico says it could close hotel that expelled Cubans


LISA J. ADAMS
Associated Press

Mexico City — Mexico issued a complaint Tuesday against an American-owned hotel that -- under pressure from the U.S. government -- expelled a group of Cuban businessmen meeting with U.S. energy executives, saying the company violated investment and trade protection laws.
The U.S. Treasury Department confirmed that the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton in Mexico City was told to expel the Cuban delegation in compliance with the U.S. embargo against business with Cuba or Cubans. The meeting was moved to a Mexican-owned hotel Saturday.
“The hotel in Mexico City is a U.S. subsidiary, and therefore prohibited from providing a service to Cuba or Cuban nationals,” said Brookly McLaughlin, a spokesman for the department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. He was referring to the Helms-Burton law, which tightened U.S. trade sanctions first imposed against Cuba in 1961.
aPs="boxR";var boxRAC = fnTdo('a'+'ai',300,250,ai,'j',nc);
“The hotel acted in accordance with U.S. sanctions,” he said.
The hotel -- part of the chain of Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide Inc. -- said in a statement it “deeply regrets this incident and any inconvenience it may have caused.”
The statement said Starwood's policy “is not to discriminate against any person because of their nationality or any other reason, and to always respect the laws of countries where its hotels are located.”
Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said the Mexican government is considering a diplomatic complaint against the United States in the case.
He said his department had formally started a complaint process against the Sheraton for violating investment and trade protection laws, and that the hotel would have 15 days to respond. The hotel could face fines of nearly $500,000 (U.S.) or even be shut down, officials said.
“I think that there was evident contempt for Mexican law on the part of the Hotel Maria Isabel Sheraton ... and it is going to be punished for discrimination, consumer fraud and, moreover, for applying laws that do not apply in Mexico,” Mr. Derbez told reporters in London, where he is on an official visit.
About 30 people protested outside the hotel on Tuesday, waving Mexican and Cuban flags and yelling “Get out Yankees!” The demonstrators plastered the glass doors with signs reading “Shut down” and “Closed for bowing to U.S. imperialism and harming national sovereignty.”
U.S. efforts to extend its embargo of Cuba across international borders led to a burst of patriotic indignation in Mexico, Canada and other countries in 1996, producing “antidote laws” meant to outlaw compliance with the U.S. measures.
For the most part, the laws went largely unenforced. But now the hotel chain finds itself trapped between a U.S. government intent on punishing Cuba and a Mexican government fearful of seeming weak in an election year.
Other U.S. companies could face a similar dilemma.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had been contacted by Mexico regarding the incident. He declined to give more details.
Kirby Jones, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association, which hosted the event, noted that a Starwood-owned hotel in Cancun, Mexico, had hosted similar conferences between Cuban officials and U.S. business representatives without incident.
The three-day energy meeting, which wrapped up Saturday, was the first private-sector oil summit between Cuba and the United States.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060208.wmexcuba0208/BNStory/International/home

[Watchman]

Agreed - it does seem rather petty. Kind of childish, even.

[Papewaio]

Very petty. Also seems an abusive. I thought the stink about Muslims applying their laws to other countries was bad enough... surely this is in the same manner of applying ones own laws to other countries...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hmm. The US forbids private dealings with Cuba. This was an American company, and thus subject to American laws. The US is merely enforcing its embargo on Cuba.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

Hmm. The US forbids private dealings with Cuba. This was an American company, and thus subject to American laws. The US is merely enforcing its embargo on Cuba.

Crazed Rabbit

Surely this is happening in Mexico therefore Mexican laws apply.

Also what happened to free enterprise?

Wouldn't a Cuba that is doing lots of business deals rip out the very heart of communism?

Why the double standard with China vs Cuba?

It is petty on some many fronts the people pushing this should be ashamed.

[Watchman]

And regardless of reasonings... it still looks awfully petty.

[Goofball]

Hmm. The US forbids private dealings with Cuba. This was an American company, and thus subject to American laws. The US is merely enforcing its embargo on Cuba.

True, but the U.S. law in question also tries to stop non-U.S. owned companies from doing business with Cuba, and this particular incident took place outside of the U.S. Add to that the reality that the only ones really being punished in this case are the shareholders of the hotel, and you have nothing more than a petulant act of childishness on the part of the American government.

[Watchman]

It's not like they couldn't just bunk up in another hotel and continue the negotiations in the bar downstairs, either. So the "enforcing embargo" thing looks sort of hollow.

[solypsist]

not true - there are a hundred u.s. citizen owned businesses (mostly banks) that exist overseas and these operate under local provisions and tax codes.


Hmm. The US forbids private dealings with Cuba. This was an American company, and thus subject to American laws. The US is merely enforcing its embargo on Cuba.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It certainly is petty of us to enforce our laws.


a group of Cuban businessmen meeting with U.S. energy executives,

What I want to know is who were these U.S. energy executives and what were they doing there talking to the Cubans in the first place. Did they recieve any punishment for this?

[Goofball]

It certainly is petty of us to enforce our laws.

It is when they are only enforced selectively and (in this case) apparently with the only possible intent being to inconvenience and embarrass people.


What I want to know is who were these U.S. energy executives and what were they doing there talking to the Cubans in the first place. Did they recieve any punishment for this?

A question which further emphasizes the point I made above.

[Proletariat]

I think this here just makes plain sense.

Petty is keeping Cuba out of the World Baseball Classic. This is like keeping England out of a soccer tournament. Plus I wanted to see Cuba get it's ass kicked at baseball and watch all their players defect at the first game they played on US soil.

Stupid Treasury Department. :furious3:

Edit: Whaddya know? While looking for a link for this story, I find that the US has decided to let the Cubans get demolish- er play ball.


Major League Baseball's first application was denied in mid-December by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, but the commissioner's office and the players' association reapplied Dec. 22 after Cuba said it would donate any profits it receives to victims of Hurricane Katrina.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/worldclassic2006/news/story?id=2299485

[Watchman]

It certainly is petty of us to enforce our laws.It is certainly time you went and looked up the term "sovereignity". Mexico City. Mexican laws. Not US.

If this silliness is indicative of the general attitude I have an easy time understanding why Latin Americans are often mentioned to resent their "big brother to the north" for arrogance.

[Beirut]

Castro may be a pervert and a tyrant and have B.O., leprosy and Clasyphilaids, but I adore the way a guy living on a small bankrupt island with no real power to speak of can piss off the toughest guy on the block to the point of apoplexy (year after year after year after year after... ).

There is something satisfying about watching the little guy drive the big guy ab-so-lutely bonkers.

[Watchman]

The old fart gets points for sheer attitude if nothing else, I'll grant you that.

[GoreBag]

Castro may be a pervert and a tyrant and have B.O., leprosy and Clasyphilaids, but I adore the way a guy living on a small bankrupt island with no real power to speak of can piss off the toughest guy on the block to the point of apoplexy (year after year after year after year after... ).

There is something satisfying about watching the little guy drive the big guy ab-so-lutely bonkers.

We're agreed. He has a certain degree of class. It must come with the smug satisfaction of knowing this.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is certainly time you went and looked up the term "sovereignity". Mexico City. Mexican laws. Not US.


It was a US company thats bound by US law not Mexican when it comes to these matters.

[Papewaio]

So why pick on little Cuba and not big old China?

Surely if trade can help make China better, surely it would make Cuba better?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I dont like trading with China either. Besides their two very different animals. Chinas leaders arent going to die or go away very soon. With Cuba its just a matter of time until the Tyrant passes on.

Plus I dont think China comes under the Monroe Doctrine.

[GoreBag]

Yeah, China's a big animal that'll fight back, more like.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

There is something satisfying about watching the little guy imprison dissenters.

Fixed! :2thumbsup:

[Soulforged]

Hmm. The US forbids private dealings with Cuba. This was an American company, and thus subject to American laws. The US is merely enforcing its embargo on Cuba.
No. Associations must respect and uphold the law of the country in wich they're operating. In the case of a real estate, it's subject to the regulations of the country in wich it's placed.

I really want to know what is this law that forbids dealings with cubans, if it's what it seems, then it's incredible discriminatory. Besides that, USA has no imperium in mexican territory, what they did was stealing sovereingty.

If this silliness is indicative of the general attitude I have an easy time understanding why Latin Americans are often mentioned to resent their "big brother to the north" for arrogance.Silliness? I think it's full of intention, it's not silly at all. Though I loved the use of the expression "big brother", though this has many implications, I consider the US to be the father of the world.~;)

[Zalmoxis]

If they paid for their hotel room they should be allowed privacy, that's all I'm gonna say.

[ajaxfetish]

I don't even know why we still have an embargo against Cuba. It's been over 40 years since the missile crisis and the bay of pigs. We haven't held this same level of stubborn retribution against many other nations, and in nearly every diplomatic spat we get in with Castro, he manages to humiliate us. Whatever our intentions may be, our actions aren't proving very successful. As far as I'm concerned, this is about an argument from two of my lifetimes ago, and I'm ready to be over it. Furthermore, I'm upset about Muslim nations trying to enforce their opinions within other nations, and I absolutely hate hypocrisy.

Ajax

[Watchman]

It was a US company thats bound by US law not Mexican when it comes to these matters.So, are you for example claiming it's entitled to the same extraterritorial rights as embassies ?

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And more to the point obey the Roman laws and not your icky foreign barbarian ones, or it's rods-and-axes for you.

[Red Peasant]

I don't even know why we still have an embargo against Cuba. It's been over 40 years since the missile crisis and the bay of pigs. We haven't held this same level of stubborn retribution against many other nations, and in nearly every diplomatic spat we get in with Castro, he manages to humiliate us. Whatever our intentions may be, our actions aren't proving very successful. As far as I'm concerned, this is about an argument from two of my lifetimes ago, and I'm ready to be over it. Furthermore, I'm upset about Muslim nations trying to enforce their opinions within other nations, and I absolutely hate hypocrisy.

Ajax

A grown-up response to Cuba from an American, I never thought I'd hear that. Move on.

:bow:

[Beirut]

Fixed! :2thumbsup:

I wonder which country, the US or Cuba, has the higher percentage of it's own citizens in jail? Just curious.

Let's be honest - this US/Cuba thing has nothing, nada, nyet, less than zero to do with morals and freedom. It's all about money & power.

[Don Corleone]

Worse than that, Beirut. The Cuba embargo is all about getting the Cuban-American vote in Florida. It's disgusting.

I think the embargo against Cuba is one of the most idiotic, counter-productive (on it's stated goal), ridiculous policy the US has ever come up with. Unless the stated goal is appeasing Cuban American voters in South Florida, it has been any abysmal failure. It's about as contrary to American principles as any policy we've had, and we've had some doozies.

That being said, CR is 100% correct. While it remains the law of the land, we are legally obligated to honor it. I'm not even allowed to buy a Cuban cigar in Hong Kong and smoke it there. I could theoretically get arrested by a consulate official. I'm a law and order kinda guy, and while I may not agree with a particular law, unless obeying it would hurt an innocent party, I strongly believe it's incumbent on me to work to change the law, not ignore it.

[Beirut]

Worse than that, Beirut. The Cuba embargo is all about getting the Cuban-American vote in Florida. It's disgusting.



Yep, it's really a shame.

And what's sad as well is that the second Castro dies, an invasion of American lawyers will descend upon Cuba to "reclaim" all that lovely beachfront real estate. "Your commie stole it from our mobsters and we want it back!"

The locals will be reduced to being waiters in their own country. Again.

[Ronin]

Worse than that, Beirut. The Cuba embargo is all about getting the Cuban-American vote in Florida. It's disgusting.

I think the embargo against Cuba is one of the most idiotic, counter-productive (on it's stated goal), ridiculous policy the US has ever come up with. Unless the stated goal is appeasing Cuban American voters in South Florida, it has been any abysmal failure. It's about as contrary to American principles as any policy we've had, and we've had some doozies.

That being said, CR is 100% correct. While it remains the law of the land, we are legally obligated to honor it. I'm not even allowed to buy a Cuban cigar in Hong Kong and smoke it there. I could theoretically get arrested by a consulate official. I'm a law and order kinda guy, and while I may not agree with a particular law, unless obeying it would hurt an innocent party, I strongly believe it's incumbent on me to work to change the law, not ignore it.

Absolutelly.....the embargo more than anything is what keeps Fidel´s regime going, without the american "boogeyman" for him to talk about and such things I think that he would have been overthrown by now.

On the subject of a law....how the hell can a country have a piece of legislation that is applicable outside it´s borders????? that´s just nuts.

[Watchman]

I wonder which country, the US or Cuba, has the higher percentage of it's own citizens in jail? Just curious.I think the former is a safe bet. (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_pri_per_cap&b_map=1) China is #71 on the list; even if you assume their numbers are generously rounded downwards due to unreliable sources, that's still saying something.

[Beirut]

The US is #1

Cuba is #157

Good Lord. Never would have thought there was that much of a difference.

(Happy to be #73. :canada: Hope we're #74 next year.)

[Watchman]

Well Cuba is listed as "0 per 100,000", which I take to mean "no data". Which is why I said "safe bet" - the actual number can actually be pretty high, but it's practically impossible for it to be as high as the US one.

In part because to my knowledge the US is the only one that's made a growth industry out of prisons. But let's not go into the prison-hyperghetto complex issue here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good comments earlier. Don C summed up the basic nature of the embargo well (both as a law and as to its silliness). We'd end up with more leverage and less communist dictatorism if we let the market forces work.

As to the imprisonment figures, I would be remiss as a freedom-loving conservative if I did not note that, by my standards, Cuba & North Korea are both prisons in their totality. :laugh4:

[drone]

US Trade Embargo on Cuba for Dummies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_embargo

It's a stupid, petty embargo. It should have been lifted with the collapse of the USSR. But hey, it's the law. Don't know why you Canadians are complaining, plenty of Yanks go north to acquire cigars.

[Kraxis]

Interesting situation American hotel chains (and other real estate businesses) can get into regarding Cubans.

American law says that it applies everywhere, thus you must follow it. In this case: NO DAMN CUBANS ALLOWED!!!

Local law must be followed, and it says: NO DAMN DESCIMINATION!!!

American companies in a world of trouble no matter what they do. Get kicked out of the most profitable countries, or get the home branch locked down.

[Don Corleone]

On the subject of a law....how the hell can a country have a piece of legislation that is applicable outside it´s borders????? that´s just nuts.

So when you work overseas, you don't have to pay taxes to Portugal (the EU?) or whomever else it is to you pay taxes to when you reside in Lisbon? Maybe it is uniquely American, but Americans are expected to obey all federal laws, even when we do not reside with the USA's boundaries. Even if we're listed as a permanent resident. Most Americans are unaware of this, but it is a crime for them to smoke hash in Amersterdam. America's not claiming the right to enforce it's laws against foreign places or people. It claims the right to enforce it's laws against it's citizens, even when they're outside it's boundaries.

Do you think if a Chinese athlete made a speech about the evil of the party while at the Winter Olympics, he'd be absolved because it didn't happen while on Chinese soil?

[Crazed Rabbit]

not true - there are a hundred u.s. citizen owned businesses (mostly banks) that exist overseas and these operate under local provisions and tax codes.

And if I had said 'businesses owned by Americans', you'd be right. But you're wrong. American companies are those with their headquarters in the USA, and subject to US laws.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

That being said, CR is 100% correct. While it remains the law of the land, we are legally obligated to honor it. I'm not even allowed to buy a Cuban cigar in Hong Kong and smoke it there. I could theoretically get arrested by a consulate official. I'm a law and order kinda guy, and while I may not agree with a particular law, unless obeying it would hurt an innocent party, I strongly believe it's incumbent on me to work to change the law, not ignore it.

As AdrianII is fond of saying: Hammer meets nail.

The hotel now faces the possibility of $500,000 in fines and possibly being shut down because it complied with this heavy-handed, discriminatory, nonsensical, spiteful U.S. law.

[Ronin]

So when you work overseas, you don't have to pay taxes to Portugal (the EU?) or whomever else it is to you pay taxes to when you reside in Lisbon? Maybe it is uniquely American, but Americans are expected to obey all federal laws, even when we do not reside with the USA's boundaries. Even if we're listed as a permanent resident. Most Americans are unaware of this, but it is a crime for them to smoke hash in Amersterdam. America's not claiming the right to enforce it's laws against foreign places or people. It claims the right to enforce it's laws against it's citizens, even when they're outside it's boundaries.

Do you think if a Chinese athlete made a speech about the evil of the party while at the Winter Olympics, he'd be absolved because it didn't happen while on Chinese soil?

No....if i´m working outside of Portugal I have to pay taxes to the government of the country i´m working at...in accordance with local law, the Portuguese Government doesn´t receive taxes from that.(if I want to retire back in Portugal there are agreements between the countries to figure out pension funds and such)

Portuguese law is valid in physical space that constitutes this country(along with diplomatic representations in other countries etc), those laws don´t apply if i´m outside of Portuguese territory.

The Portuguese government might hold me accountable for breaking international law outside Portugal(in accordance to the various treaties signed tough).....ohhh I almost forgot, I think you can be charged with treason for actions commited abroad against my country.....but that´s about it.(and I honestly can´t remember a single case of someone being tried for treason....must be 30 years plus.

what I find weird about that piece of american law is that at least to me it gives the impression that the american state "owns" you in a way.....remember "even if you go abroad we´ll be watching" *shakes finger*, besides assuming that you have jurisdiction over something that happens outside your borders comes off as a little conceded.
Again...it´s a bit like radical muslims assuming that Saria(spelling?) applies everywere....it doesn´t apply over here thank you very much.

The actions of the chinese goverment hardly constitute an example for correct behaviour.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Im still more interested in who the US executives were who were meeting with the Cubans and what happened to them if anything.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As AdrianII is fond of saying: Hammer meets nail.

The hotel now faces the possibility of $500,000 in fines and possibly being shut down because it complied with this heavy-handed, discriminatory, nonsensical, spiteful U.S. law.

Heavy-handed = yes. Spiteful = of a certainty. Nonsensical = at least since the fall of the USSR, if not before. Discriminatory = yes, but that's more or less by definition with an embargo -- the only way to be non-discriminatory in an embargo would be to embargo everybody.:laugh4:

[Major Robert Dump]

America is always right. Those of you who question US policy are communists who hate freedom. Cuba brings instability to the entire region and we must form a coalition of the willing to remove this evil dicator from power. We can not allow that regime to recieve novelty trade items such as diapers and bottled water when just the other day they got my Whopper wrong at Burger King! Raise the minimum wage pshaw!!!!

[Tribesman]

Im still more interested in who the US executives were who were meeting with the Cubans and what happened to them if anything.
A good place to look might be the association that ran the event , the 6th one it has held BTW , its membership includes 350 companies and corporations from all over the states , some very major corporations for that matter and others which the government itself has interests in.
Or possibly two of the other affiliated organisations who have 500 and 650 companies as members .

The next proper seminar they are holding is scheduled for Florida in march , though they have two more prior to that in Texas and Louisiana but they are going to be tele-conferences , the next sectors of industry up for talks are Biotechnology , I.T. and Travel/tourism .

So its bad to do business with Cuba or to talk with Cubans about business , but they do business with Cuba and talk with Cubans about business .

So is the action in Mexico petty ? Yep
Is it pure hypocritical bullshit ? damn right it is .

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So its bad to do business with Cuba or to talk with Cubans about business , but they do business with Cuba and talk with Cubans about business .

So is the action in Mexico petty ? Yep
Is it pure hypocritical bullshit ? damn right it is .


Either that or oil execs have more pull.:laugh4: Nah couldnt be.

[Watchman]

Speaking of American oil execs, weren't some of them negotiating pipeline plans with Kabul still in something like 2000 until the beardy guys got tired and called it off (or Osama bitched them off it) ?

[Soulforged]

And if I had said 'businesses owned by Americans', you'd be right. But you're wrong. American companies are those with their headquarters in the USA, and subject to US laws.And you're wrong. I took the time to answer that earlier.

Here's the full text of the Helms-Burton law of 1961 (http://www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=276). Surely the americans already know something but I think it's interesting.
Besides some misinformations, some propaganda and the usually absolute approach to this matters, this quotes are important (this is in the descriptive part of the act): (11) The Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 calls upon the President to encourage the governments of countries that conduct trade with Cuba to restrict their trade and credit relations with Cuba in a manner consistent with the purposes of that Act.It seems that it was really an "encouragement" in the beggining. The following items really present an image in wich the purpose tends to be the protection of their own interest than the establisment of the "better" form of government. Including the obligation of the ex-communist block of the East to close all kind of dealings with Cuba (the obligation was in exchange for economical support). A problem regarding the dealings tha Cuba held with narcotics and with escaped american criminals. A supposed treat generated by the government of Cuba, concerning the creation of bodies apt on terrorism acts. This next quote might seem a little ironic: (15) The Castro government has utilized from its inception and continues to utilize torture in various forms (including by psychiatry), as well as execution, exile, confiscation, political imprisonment, and other forms of terror and repression, as means of retaining power.In the descriptive part there's a lot more that isn't clearly decriptive. Beyond that the list of human rights violation continues as well as the refusals and apathy of the cuban government.
The list of purposes begins with this statement:
(1) to assist the Cuban people in regaining their freedom and prosperity, as well as in joining the community of democratic countries that are flourishing in the Western Hemisphere;Wich is false. A reality check is enough.
(4) to encourage the holding of free and fair democratic elections in Cuba, conducted under the supervision of internationally recognized observers;It appears that the objectives of such law went beyond a simple commercial separation. It was actually a full scale boycot against the government in defense of cubans freedom to vote.
Enforcement:
Again a sign of mere encouragment is present here:(1) Restrictions by other countries.--The Congress hereby reaffirms section 1704(a) of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, which states that the President should encourage foreign countries to restrict trade and credit relations with Cuba in a manner consistent with the purposes of that Act.
Including santions to those who don't follow the encouragment: (2) Sanctions on other countries.--The Congress further urges the President to take immediate steps to apply the sanctions described in section 1704(b)(1) of that Act against countries assisting Cuba.. The part of "Trading with the enemy" title (very apelative and emotional) is pretty interesting, showing a low value of private property on US policy at that time.
The text continues with instructions, prohibitions and procedures.
Basically no american can deal with any cuban while the regime of Castro is still active. But the sanctions extend beyond the local region of law application. Though the US cannot "enforce" a law where it has not imperium, it can finish any economical support (subsidiary for example) given to any country. Still this is irrelevant to the situation of the hotel, because the associations always are subject to the regulations in wich they operate.

[Papewaio]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/02/10/chebikini_narrowweb__300x445,0.jpg

I think based on this image Cuba would be good for capitalism and capitalism good for Cuba. :laugh4:

viva-che-the-comandante-of-capitalism (http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/viva-che-the-comandante-of-capitalism/2006/02/09/1139465799877.html)

[Crazed Rabbit]

And you're wrong.
...
Still this is irrelevant to the situation of the hotel, because the associations always are subject to the regulations in wich they operate.

And your point is...?

I'm not saying the embargo is good or bad. But America shouldn't be called petty for enforcing its laws.

Crazed Rabbit

[Beirut]

And your point is...?

I'm not saying the embargo is good or bad. But America shouldn't be called petty for enforcing its laws.

Crazed Rabbit

Many countries have laws that they do not enforce simply because it would be petty if they did. Each country decides which of its laws it will enforce and which it will not, it makes that decision for itself and cannot use the "I was just following orders" routine to escape the responsibility of its actions.

Enforcing a law simply because it is a law is like kicking everything that's round under the assumption that it must be a ball.

[Don Corleone]

Enforcing a law simply because it is a law is like kicking everything that's round under the assumption that it must be a ball.

Not true. A law is known to be a law. In your analogy, said kicker is assuming everything to be a ball.

Look, you're not going to get anyone to agree that the US embargo makes any sense (unless we have some right wing Cuban nationals who happen to reside in Miami these days on the board).

The question is about the rule of law. If you don't enforce some laws and enforce others, as the enforcer feels like, the country is run by the whim of the enforcer, not the rule of law. I think the embargo is one of the dumbest policies we've ever implemented, and I would pay cold hard cash from my own pocket to end it. But until it ends, it is the law of the land and it's citizens, wherever they may roam.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Many countries have laws that they do not enforce simply because it would be petty if they did. Each country decides which of its laws it will enforce and which it will not, it makes that decision for itself and cannot use the "I was just following orders" routine to escape the responsibility of its actions.

Enforcing a law simply because it is a law is like kicking everything that's round under the assumption that it must be a ball.

If a law isn't meant to be enforced, it shouldn't be a law in the first place.

Crazed Rabbit

[Beirut]

There are many laws the government (yours and mine) decide not to enforce. Agreed, they should be taken off the books if not enforced, but until they are, they are best ignored, not blindly adhered to.

It's like the cop who stops you and says, "Sorry, I have no choice." when he gives you a ticket. What a crock. He has a choice and he and I both know it. It simply makes it easier for him to say he's just following orders. The cops, like the government, and all systems of authority, decide which laws they will enforce and which they will let slip by based on their own moral code or lack thereof.

If all the laws on the books were actually enforced to the letter, both our countries would probably come to a screaching halt.

[Haudegen]

There is an ancient Roman proverb:

Minima preator non curat

A judge doesn´t care about petty things.

(Especially if petty things happen outside of his jurisdiction)

[GoreBag]

If a law isn't meant to be enforced, it shouldn't be a law in the first place.

Crazed Rabbit

Indeed. The problem is not believing in the greatness of the law because it's a law, however. That's a little backwards.

[drone]

If a law isn't meant to be enforced, it shouldn't be a law in the first place.
This is a great argument for expiration dates on laws. Enforce it until it expires or is repealed, don't let it rot in the books encouraging the enforcers to get wishy-washy.

[Soulforged]

And your point is...?
My point is exactly what I expressed. Your point is that US has the right to enforce their laws in any territory, even if they've no imperium. My point is the point of law, wich is: No you can't, the associations are subject to the law of the country in wich they operate. If the central house is on US then the operations realized in US will be dealed with US law. If dependence B is on Mexico then the operations realized on Mexico are subject to the mexican law. The only exception is when the deal treats with operations involving a real estate (sell, buy, transfer, donation, etc), wich is not the case.

[A.Saturnus]

So when you work overseas, you don't have to pay taxes to Portugal (the EU?) or whomever else it is to you pay taxes to when you reside in Lisbon? Maybe it is uniquely American, but Americans are expected to obey all federal laws, even when we do not reside with the USA's boundaries. Even if we're listed as a permanent resident. Most Americans are unaware of this, but it is a crime for them to smoke hash in Amersterdam. America's not claiming the right to enforce it's laws against foreign places or people. It claims the right to enforce it's laws against it's citizens, even when they're outside it's boundaries.

Jesus! America is no only not the land of the free, you're virtually dragging a weight on a chain as long as you have an American passport ~:eek:



Do you think if a Chinese athlete made a speech about the evil of the party while at the Winter Olympics, he'd be absolved because it didn't happen while on Chinese soil?

Well, China is a tyranny.

[solypsist]

the u.s. is not petty; it's hypocritical. its agents selectively enforce laws.



And your point is...?

I'm not saying the embargo is good or bad. But America shouldn't be called petty for enforcing its laws.

Crazed Rabbit