This is also absurd

[Oceansandmts]

Interesting. I think I remember most of us were in favor of the actions of the Florida boater who deliberately broke the town ordinance against anchoring in order to get the case tried in court. We all cheered when the town lost and the boater won. Why is the present case different?

Testing the law by breaking it should only result in the law being changed when it was unjust, unconstitutional, etc. Thus the bank robber example would probably result in the robber's conviction being upheld; most higher level courts would probably agree that there should be a law against bank robbery!

[Amgine]

::shrug:: There are people on this board who are not consistent. One of the more interesting things I've seen in this thread is the repetition of the word "whiners".

None of the people involved in this case have been whining. Unless maybe it's the BIS. Or the people complaining about whiners.

[Stillraining]

One of the most forgotten and profound powers we as a people have is the power of a jury..When we take the jury bench we have the power to over turn a bad law regardless of what the Judge tries to tell you.

[svHyLyte]

Humm...

...I remember most of us were in favor of the actions of theFlorida boater who deliberately broke the town ordinance against anchoring in order to get the case tried in court. We all cheered when the town lost and the boater won. Why is the present case different?

For one thing, the "Local Ordinances" that were adopted were/are in direct conflict with over riding FloridaState and Federal Law(s) and deprived people of rights granted and ensured by same. Regrettably, despite such Ordinances being unlawful, local police authorities, who respond to the dictates of their employers and not their oath of office ('to uphold the Constitution of the Unted States of America and ...Florida'), were enforcing them. It would have been possible to file actions in State and Federal Court to enjoin local authorities’ usurpation and for Writs that would have forced them to enforce the prevailing, over riding, law but that is a time consuming and costly process compared with a test case.

And for another, Federal Law as relates to policy toward Cuba and other hostile foreign states, has been tested in Court, and affirmed, in prior actions. The unfortunate thing is that the law was not uniformly or consistently enforced until the, now waning, Bush Administration took office and the Country was attacked. Post 9/11, enforcing laws pertaining hostile foreign powers became an imperative.

As I stated in an earlier response to this discourse, I do not necessarily agree with the Country’s policy toward Cuba, but it is the law and now, more than ever, I think people should understand some, if not all, of the logic. For one thing, the Cuban government is desperate for hard currency for foreign imports and Cuban currency is essentially worthless in international trade. US dollars spent in Cuba by well intended but uninformed US citizens make their way to the Cuban government, supporting that regime. Moreover, the government of Cuba is very friendly with the Chavez regime (if for no other reason than it needs the subsidies); and, Chavez is very friendly with the Iran regime (Iran need’s Chavez’s gasoline and Chavez views Iranian support as a sign of his import in the World scene, to say nothing of a source of dollars to support his own regime). Accordingly, rest assured that, if Iran asks Chavez to arrange for the transit of some Iranian “missionaries” through Cuba to the “the Great Satan” US, Chavez, and Castro’s government, will have no compunctions about doing so. A yacht would be an easy and convenient means of transporting these Missionaries, no?

FWIW…

s/v HyLyte

[Factor]

Originally Posted by David M

Whether or not you agree with a law, you still have to abide by the law otherwise we push our society towards anarchy. You don't change laws by ignoring them, you change them by letting your representatives know thats what you want. I don't have much sympathy.

No I firmly agree - And this is a well established principle.

Its called the Nuremburg defence - I really didnt want to gas those jews, I was just following orders.

Goodness me. Saying a law is wrong or bad is not anarchy - its democracy.

[Southern Star]

As I recall, your laws do not prohibit travel to Cuba, only spending money there. There have been a number of Americans who have travelled to Cuba as passengers on the boats of others and done so legally, so long as the owners of the vessels confirmed that they had provided for all expenses of the Americans on board while in Cuban waters. In any case, the parties here were acquitted of personally violating the laws, but then later had an administrative finding made against them for aiding or abetting the commission of an offence by others who were never charged.

'Abetting' is defined as encouraging - taken to its extreme (for example, in a police state) the authorites could also attempt to pursue those on this site who encourage breaking this law by others who are tempted to sail to Cuba.

Are there valid reasons for the law as it exists? Perhaps (although the Chavez argument does seem rather specious to the extent that Chavez does not need to sell his gasoline to Iran, that there have been ZERO instances of Venezuela being a party to terrorist acts in the US and because one would not need to use an American yacht, let alone one departing Cuba, in order to attempt to smuggle in terrorists).

The real issue, as has been pointed out by others, is the selective enforcement of the law and the efforts by the authorities to pursue people who were acquitted of personally breaking the laws. It does suggest a vengeful approach in law enforcement; of an effort to use all the resources of the state to pursue and ultimately wear down the opposition of people who were found not guilty after a criminal trial.

Brad

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by Factor

No I firmly agree - And this is a well established principle.

Its called the Nuremburg defence - I really didnt want to gas those jews, I was just following orders.

Goodness me. Saying a law is wrong or bad is not anarchy - its democracy.

Saying a law is wrong or bad is not anarchy---but breaking them is.
As SVHyLyt said..this is not a reprehensiblie law.
But it is a law against a reprehensible government. The Nuremburg analogy is more appropriatly "I didn't want to execute all those Cubans and re-distribute the wealth. I just wanted to cruise to Havana"

[David M]

I really surprises me how many believe its okay to break whatever law they disagree with.

What if everyone did this?

[Amgine]

svHyLyte: a local ordinance is law. The embargo of Cuba is a foreign policy which has some support via laws, but is not itself law nor is it recognized by the US Constitution. And it has been tested in courts, where it has generally failed, excluding those elements relating to trade and taxation.