Reply With Quote
I was tongue-in-cheek referring to the proliferation of federal criminal statutes of which most citizens could not be expected to know and abide by.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, glad to amuse.
Yet, neither country is complaining about the wood, either.
Sounds like the federal government selectively enforces the law...that it also interprets to suit its political agenda.
Sorry, I have absolutely no confidence this administration was behaving in good faith when it raided Gibson.
I was tongue-in-cheek referring to the proliferation of federal criminal statutes of which most citizens could not be expected to know and abide by.
But, glad to amuse.
Manny is so easily amused.
I have come to learn that he just laughs when he has no intelligent response.
He still refuses to answer my questions any more, probably because he knows I was right when he implies I'm wrong.
Again, neither country has a mechanism to lodge a complaint. That's not how CITES works.
Previous administrations spanked Gibson for this. Gibson did not stop the practice. Gibson subsequently gets spanked harder. It's not an adminstrative objective. It's a progression of spanking that Gibson had complete control of but decided to continue anyway.
Was it worth the laid off workers?
Also, Justice Dept != Fish and Wildlife.
Non Sequitur.
But if you must know...ask Gibson.
I get that but, it would seem to me one of the two countries from which the wood came would have some dog in the hunt. My point being, if Madagascar and India don't give a , why does Uncle Sam?
Perhaps it's an odious and complicated rule by which to abide.
I still don't understand why - other than the potential introduction of foreign contaminants - the U. S. Government would care if Gibson buys wood from Madagascar or India, if Madagascar and India don't care.
Sound's to me like the Lacey Act is just some mechanism, dreamed up by feds -- with input from environmental whack nuts -- to go after Americans engaged in legitimate commerce with foreign companies.
I think we've exhausted the topic but, you're welcome to continue. I'll read up on the case more and, perhaps, I'll change my mind.
Justice Department AND Fish and Wildlife = Federal Government. If you're going to tell me an attorney from the Fish and Wildlife Department and not a Justice Department Attorney would be prosecuting this case, then I'm just going to respond that we have too many agencies.
Look, I'm a musician. I'm predisposed to defend Gibson. I just can't. They were not engaged in legitimate commerce, unless legitimate commerce entails finding a source for the timbers sizable enough to fill a shipping crate. Find a ship to move it without do entation and have the contents mislabeled and not refer to Gibson.
I prefer Martin myself but I've played some Gibsons that almost made me spend WAY too much money.
, I'm a keyboard player primarily. Burn 'em all.
Don't ever change WC.
A lot of Americans used to go overseas for child pros ution, but they made a rule in the US outlawing that.
If these overseas locations don't care though, why should Uncle Sam?
Really, I wasn't aware? Citation?
[edit] I read a story that didn't cite the specific law but basically said what you claimed. I was heartened to see that an organization, to which I contribute, was heavily involved in identifying and securing the arrest of offenders [/edit]
Humans != trees?
[edit] In the story I read, the foreign country -- in this case Colombia -- was integral to prosecution. I'm not sure the U.S. would have much authority to prosecute someone that exploited children in a country that "didn't care."
But, it wouldn't bother me if they tried.[/edit]
Last edited by Yonivore; 08-07-2012 at 05:59 PM.
lol yoni asking for a citation
Thanks. I have no problem with it where sexual exploitation of children are concerned. I think the government should have the authority to drag them out back and shoot them.
I don't see any authority to arrest or charge for acts committed in another country unless they're construing "...crosses a State line..." as giving them such authority but, generally, that is just used to distinguished State criminal acts form federal criminal acts.(c) With Children.— Whoever crosses a State line with intent to engage in a sexual act with a person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, ins ution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly engages in a sexual act with another person who has not attained the age of 12 years, or knowingly engages in a sexual act under the cir stances described in subsections (a) and (b) with another person who has attained the age of 12 years but has not attained the age of 16 years (and is at least 4 years younger than the person so engaging), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this le and imprisoned for not less than 30 years or for life. If the defendant has previously been convicted of another Federal offense under this subsection, or of a State offense that would have been an offense under either such provision had the offense occurred in a Federal prison, unless the death penalty is imposed, the defendant shall be sentenced to life in prison.
Back to Gibson...
The Christian Science Monitor reported:
As Reason reported at the time:“We felt compelled to settle as the costs of proving our case at trial would have cost millions of dollars and taken a very long time to resolve,” CEO Henry Juszkiewicz said in a statement late Monday night.
“This allows us to get back to the business of making guitars,” he said, noting that the settlement would allow them to continue sourcing rosewood and ebony from India as it has for decades.
So, its not even an environmental or endangered species issue?The feds raided Gibson for using an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India, which is a violation of the anti-trafficking statute known as The Lacey Act. At issue is not whether the wood in question was endangered, but whether the wood was the correct level of thickness and finish before being exported from India. “India is wanting to ensure that raw wood is not exported without some labor content from India,” says [Gibson CEO Henry] Juskiewicz.
Again, if India doesn't care, why do we?
So is it or is it not a good excuse?
Even with your tongue in your cheek, it looks like you are talking or of both sides of your mouth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
