I am not pro or anti Israel...but

[freddyvh]

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]

1. I truly believe democracy is on the wane world wide. I was so hopeful

that the Arab Spring would open up more personal freedom. Now the opposite is happening. Look at Turkey.

[defacto7]

2. I don't think certain western powers wanted an Arab Spring.

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]

13. I think that's a vast oversimplification, if not a total misrepresentation of what happened.

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I think you have a lot of crazy fucking people all over this planet- many of them driven by fucked up, outdated religious beliefs- who absolutely do NOT want democracy, nor do they want individual citizens to be free to make their own decisions.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]

16. It very well may be oversimplified...

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]

22. You, too

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]

3. Glenn Greenwald, huh?

For some reason I doubt this bill does anything like what he claims it does.

[freddyvh]

6. here is the text of the law

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1697/text

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]

8. fine, those are the penalties. And what specifically constitutes an unlawful act under section 8(a)?

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]

10. Anti-boycott legislation isn't about companies that personally boycott Israel.

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]

11. Thanks. It seems I was right about Greenwald misrepresenting this legislation, then.

Sure sounds that way.

[tammywammy]

15. My post was about the current anti-boycott laws.

I admit to not reading the current proposed language.

[atreides1]

58. Here you go.

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]

61. An actual answer

thank you.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. I don't trust Greenwald either, but the ACLU is another matter.

https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-senate-opposing-israel-anti-boycott-act

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Hmmm.

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]

4. You mean How can it be legal, right?

[Bradical79]

5. It already is in cases

https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac

This is basically an extension/strengthening of current law introduced back in March. The Israel boycott laws were passed in the '70s.

[freddyvh]

7. after reading your link

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]

9. Claim it is a business decision...

That could fly.. we all know how much they love business.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. How much who loves business?

[uriel1972]

18. I am very sorry I didn't even think about that...

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]

20. but what does the GOP have to do with this ?

[uriel1972]

21. Aren't they the people who enforce things these days?

If not my mistake.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Got it. FWIW, I wasn't making any assumptions, just looking for clarification.

It was kind of an open-ended statement. No worries.

[tammywammy]

14. Please see post 10.

[JI7]

17. "we all know how much they love business."

huh ? who are you referring to here ?

[HarmonyRockets]

19. 14 Democrats

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]

24. What, specifically, is disturbing about it?

Personally, I trust Ron Wyden's judgment far more than I do Glenn Greenwald's.

Don't you?

[HarmonyRockets]

25. This isn't about Glenn Greenwald one way or the other

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]

27. Oh, yeah, I'm totally against free speech. You've got my number right there.

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.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. So by extrapolation, how would you characterize Senator Ron Wyden, co-sponsor of this legislation?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. As I understand the law it prohibits corporations from blackballing Israel.

This has always been government policy. It doesn't prohibit criticism of them.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. Exactly.

[nikibatts]

30. Although Israel blackballs many companies in many countries. You just don't know it.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. So I take it you disagree with Senators Wyden, Gillibrand, Schumer, etc then?

[LanternWaste]

57. You appear confused by posters simply unwilling to choose A or B

You appear confused by posters simply unwilling to choose A or B simply because sacred cows do.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Wow.

What a brilliantly condensed piece of gibberish.

[McCamy Taylor]

34. Who is blackballing Israel? You can hurt them more by naming them than by fining them.

Since America is basically pro-Israel. A fine is just money. Bad publicity is a lot more.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. it's def not legal, i think it plays well in NY so they are trying it on for size

[Warren DeMontague]

32. "it plays well in NY"

please, elaborate

[La Lioness Priyanka]

37. They are both from the state of new York

Where a large proportion of Dems support Israel ?

What did you think I meant?

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Most Democrats support Israel nationwide.

It is not a regional thing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

45. I bet if you polled it would be higher here

[grossproffit]

49. Why would that be?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

52. A large Jewish population and people who are allies to the principles of liberal democracy

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]

65. to be fair, nobody's THAT smart.

I mean, come on.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. Doesn't stop you from trying though.

[Warren DeMontague]

67. If I was as smart as I think I am

I would probably have better hobbies.

[grossproffit]

47. Are you a constitutional lawyer?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

50. No, but I understand the first amendment just fine

and the ACLU hires constitutional lawyers who also think this is illegal

[grossproffit]

54. The ACLU also supports Linda Sarsour. I don't have much faith in them any longer.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. just because they dont support your political views, does not negate their understanding of law

which was your question to me

[McCamy Taylor]

33. It's sound and fury, signifying nothing. Something for the ACLU to do if they get bored.

Gotta love Congress. Making more work for news reporters and lawyers.

[Warren DeMontague]

36. It might relate to the ACLU if the law actually did what Greenwald is claiming.

In reality, though, it's a modification to existing, well-established law. And doesn't infringe upon 1st Amendment rights whatsoever.

[McCamy Taylor]

35. Oh, and who let a thread on Israel out of the Israel forum?

[Crunchy Frog]

39. This is a thread about proposed American legislation.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. It is refreshing to see such concern for the 1st Amendment, here.

Have to remember that the next time there's a thread about "blasphemous" cartoons or sex scenes on HBO.

[DemocraticWing]

43. They are going to use this to throw BDS activists in jail.

Just watch. This country loves locking up leftists.

Get your passports, folks.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. 14 Democratic Senators co-sponsored, incl. Wyden, Schumer, and Gillibrand

This legislation doesnt do what the hyperbolic claims say it does.

[DemocraticWing]

59. Why are you posting hate group propaganda on DU?

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]

64. As someone Jewish

I always have my passport ready. I don't trust the right or the left anymore.

[grossproffit]

46. Good. Anti-Zionism is the new face of antisemitism. Actually, it's not new.

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]

51. AND . . . in addition to incarceratin and a big financial penalty, as a felon you

PERMANENTLY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE!!!

Paging Kris Kobach . . . . . .

[grossproffit]

53. This isn't true. Once your probation ends you are able to reregister to vote.

[no_hypocrisy]

55. Possibly. The exception is a conviction of treason.

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]

62. This is ridiculous! Can we then make it illegal to

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]

63. J street doesn't support BDS.

http://jstreet.org/policy/boycott-divestment-and-sanctions-bds/#.WXKtkemQyUk

J Street advocates for a two-state solution and a secure, Jewish, and democratic future for Israel. The Global BDS Movement does not support the two-state solution, recognize the right of the Jewish people to a state, or distinguish between opposition to the existence of Israel itself and opposition to the occupation of the territory beyond the Green Line. Further, some of the Movement’s supporters and leaders have trafficked in unacceptable anti-Semitic rhetoric. The Movement is not a friend to Israel, nor does its agenda, in our opinion, advance the long-term interests of either the Israeli or Palestinian people.

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".