A canadian might now suffer the lost of his family and friends because the US government got a punch in the nose 40 years ago. He is now waiting the verdict of a jury in a trial about his dealings with Cuba. The alleged offences took place while he was working in Canada and dealing with the Cubans. It is perfectly legal to deal with Cuba in Canada but the Helms-Burton law is set up to prosecute anyone in the world who deals with this evil country. http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSLaw0203/28_canadian-cp.html
I like this part
quote: He asked the jury, "What are U.S. citizens in a (Pennsylvania) office doing talking, even in cryptic terms, about Cuba?"
Apparently the US government (who the District Attorney is part of) thinks you can't even talk about Cuba, what's next can't think about Cuba.
A quote from a great american "Let my people go!"
[ April 02, 2002, 12:23: Message edited by: Grokca ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
What's next? Arrest everyone in Cuba for buying and selling products in Cuba?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Isn't there some international law precedent that says that a person living in a country is expected to obey the laws of that country?
I don't think they have a case (or they shouldn't) with the 32 counts that happened while the man was in Canada. The rest of the 76 charges, however, if they took place when he resided in the US, would be clear violations of the law (and thusly, violations of OUR sovreignty.)
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
There were only 32 counts against him the rest of the 76 charges were against the company and the american exec.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That's not what the article says.
quote:The former Hamilton salesman along with one Bro-Tech executive and the corporation itself were charged with 76 counts of violating the 1919 U.S. Trading with the Enemy Act and a single count of conspiracy.
"Along with" generally means that he was charged with them too, although the article isn't perfectly clear on the matter.
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Sabzali moved to Pennsylvania and joined Bro-Tech in 1996, although 32 charges against him stem entirely from Canadian activity.
You really should learn to read a whole article.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Haven't read the article, not that interested at this point. That sentence that Groka's quoted just caught my attention. It should be "the 32 charges" or "32 of the charges", but not the current "32 charges". We have no idea whether that sentence refers to a part or the entirity of the charges because of its poorly-layed-out structure. Except, of course, from context, which I have no intention of touching.
[ April 03, 2002, 08:20: Message edited by: Omega ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Grocka: I already said above that those 32 are probably invalid and should be dropped.
HOWEVER, those 32 are not, apparently, the only charges against him.
(If it said "THE 32 charges against him," you'd have a case. But it doesn't.)
There are 76 charges. Of these, we subtract 32. This leaves 44 charges, which apparently are for things that he/they did while he was IN the U.S., and thusly subject to our laws.
[ April 03, 2002, 12:51: Message edited by: First of Two ]