|
TODAY'S HEADLINES TODAY'S IN DEPTH COMMENTARY DIALOGUE INDEX |
A few news clippings that caught our eye for whatever reason, covering events |
|
Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden? It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question. |
by Helen & Harry Highwater, The Kansas City Star reports: The anti-boycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration.We ask: Why is this question forbidden? Why is any question forbidden? It sounds more like the USSR than the USA, to punish people for asking a forbidden question, or for not immediately reporting to the government that someone else asked a forbidden question. Only a few years ago, during South Africa's apartheid era, it was considered the height of good moral backbone to ask whether a product came from that country. Today, many Americans are asking such questions about products they suspect came from France, after the French government declined to join "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The article doesn't make it clear whether these restrictions apply only to US companies selling stuff outside the US, or whether the law applies to everyone. Either way, it's reprehensible. If K-Mart is having a sale on cheap plastic chess sets and we ask the clerk whether the board or pieces were made in Israel, is the clerk allowed to answer? Must the store promptly file a form with the Bureau of Industry and Security reporting that we asked? Well, we'll be asking the forbidden question in every store we enter. Not because we're boycotting Israel — we're not. Heck, if we were boycotting products from countries whose policies are abhorrent, we'd start by boycotting anything marked "made in USA." We'll be asking the forbidden question because we believe in freedom. In a free society, the government doesn't tell people what questions they can ask, and what questions they can't, and what questions must be promptly reported to the authorities. We had heard of this law before — banning people from even asking about boycotting Israeli products — but we had foolishly assumed it wasn't often enforced. According to the article, though, "more than $26 million in fines" have been levied for violations of this law, suggesting that enforcement of the Forbidden Question Law is not at all uncommon. The fine in this case was $6,000, so assuming that's average and doing the math, more than 4,000 Americans or American companies have been fined — for asking the forbidden question, or failure to report that someone else asked the forbidden question. by Dan Margolies, The department's Bureau of Industry and Security had charged that, in response to a request from a customer in Bahrain, Cook had furnished information stating that the goods being shipped were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli materials. The bureau also charged that Cook had failed to report its receipt of the request. Cook, of North Kansas City, neither admitted nor denied the allegations, but agreed to pay the $6,000 civil penalty. The antiboycott provisions bar U.S. companies from providing information about their business relationships with Israel. They also require that receipt of boycott requests be reported to the Bureau of Industry and Security, formerly known as the Bureau of Export Administration. Cook's chief executive, Charles Bennett, was in Paris this week and unavailable for comment. A spokeswoman for the company, Rita Durocher, said the fine marked the first time Cook has had a run-in with a federal agency. "If you go back and look at our record, we've been flawless with other government agencies," she said. Cook makes polyester gels and other coating resins. It operates plants throughout North America. The settlement with the Commerce Department came after the Bush administration in November warned U.S. companies not to heed calls to boycott Israeli goods and services. The warning followed a call by the 22-member Arab League to reactivate its decades-long boycott of Israel. In a statement released at the time by the department, Commerce Undersecretary for Industry and Security Kenneth Juster reminded American companies that the "U.S. government is strongly opposed to restrictive trade practices or boycotts targeted against Israel." Knowing violators of the anti-boycott provisions face fines of up to $50,000, or five times the value of the exports at issue, and possible imprisonment. Offenders can also be denied export privileges. The Bureau of Industry and Security says it has imposed more than $26 million in fines for violations of the provisions. More than a decade ago, the Commerce Department sent compliance officers to Kansas City to check out tips that Marion Merrell Dow Inc. and Marley Cooling Tower Co. may have cooperated with the Arab boycott. Nothing came of the investigation, and no penalties were imposed. In Cook's case, the Bureau of Industry and Security charged that Cook failed to report a letter of credit it received on Dec. 1, 1997, from ABN AMRO Bank in Manama, Bahrain. The letter asked it to confirm that the goods being shipped "are not of Israeli origin nor do they contain any Israeli"material. The bureau also charged that on Jan. 20, 1998, Cook, through its freight forwarder, provided a U.S. bank with a copy of a commercial invoice confirming that the goods were not of Israeli origin and did not contain Israeli material. Cook, with 558 employees overall and 120 employees locally, is one of North Kansas City's biggest employers. The company bills itself as the No. 1 producer of gel coats in the world and, together with affiliated companies, the No. 2 producer of resins. Since 1990, Cook has had a joint venture relationship with the chemicals division of TotalFinaElf, a multibillion-dollar petrochemicals giant based in Paris. YOU CAN HELP We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of money and time.HELP BEHIND THE LINKS THANK YOU OUR PRIVACY POLICY We're in favor of privacy. We never use cookies. We never send spam. We never share, sell, or even save All incoming material is deleted |
SO THE SITE Originally published by June 22, 2003 Originally published at: This material is copyrighted by its original publisher.
It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission,
solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in
accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of
U.S.C. Title 17. |
At Unknown News, we believe in liberty and justice for all, so of course, we oppose many US government policies.
We present a daily round-up of "unknown news" from credible sources, along with intelligent (we try!) commentary and dialogue on current events.
Unlike CNN and your daily newspaper, Unknown News is not "fair and impartial, objective journalism," because we'll never pretend not to care. We are deeply concerned about fading freedoms in America, and US foreign policy that exports death instead of liberty.
If you're concerned too, we'd love to say howdy and show you around.
