You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Submissions should be about Q drops or a subject that has been mentioned by Q. Meta posts about Voat or the community are generally off-topic & subject to removal as unmentioned by Q; use submail for concerns or questions.
Freedom of speech is your right. Being a dick is our reason to remove this content. This includes concern-trolling; drama, gossip, or posts about other users; personal attacks; attacks on the community.
Voat Rules
Content violates spam guidelines
Content contains or links to content that is illegal
Content contains personal information that relates to a Voat users real world or online identity
Yes, I know we have fought a bunch since 2001. No we have not declared war. I cited the official authority on that, the Congressional Research Service. I have nothing more to say.
You are pulling the distraction game with the Global Magnitsky Act.
No. I am laying out the facts and correcting your misunderstanding.
The Executive Order National Emergency wasn't about foreigners.
The executive order is the about implementing the Global Magntisky Act and that only applies to non US persons. When the EO was issues Treasury sanctioned 13 foreginers along with 39 associated people/entities.
December 21, 2017
New Executive Order Implements Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act,
Provides for Treasury Sanctions Against Malign Actors Worldwide
So now that it's clear that this executive order is about implementing the Global Magnitsky Act, how do I know it only applies to foreigners? It's directly from the law itself. Here's the entire definition of what this Act is
The part of the law giving the Presiden the authority to issue sanction only mentions "foreign person."
AUTHORIZATION OF IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS.
(a) In General.—The President may impose the sanctions described in subsection (b) with respect to any foreign person....
This law does not apply to US persons. Why? It's because the law is intended for folks outside the reach of American Justice, for US persons, they could just be arrested and tried for their actual crimes in civilian courts and asset forfeiture is already part of the civilian courts if you can show the assets are the results of the crime like seizing a drug dealer's house.
If you reread the Act, it pertains to "Foreign Persons" and "United States Persons". The actions pertaining only to Foreign Persons would only apply to them.
No you may want to reread it. United States Person is mentioned four times. Three times is defining US or foreign persons and here where they detail the blocking all property and interests in property of a foreign person.
BLOCKING OF PROPERTY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The blocking, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), of all transactions in all property and interests in property of a foreign person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.
The sanction only applies to foreign people and the property can be blocked if
A. The property is in the US. You own a ranch in Montana and an oil company in South Dakota
B. The property comes into the United States: You ship your Piccasso to a bank vault in Miami
C. The property comes into the possession on control of a United States Person. You put your Picassos in the bank vault of an American Bank in the Dominican Republic.
The Executive Order National Emergency wasn't about foreigners. It was about Human Rights abuses involving Human Trafficking and seizing assets involved in that.
It's not about Human Trafficking at all. The Executive Order never mentions this and the Global Magnitsky act doesn't mention this. There was a later executive order about human trafficking and I think folks get them confused.
Here are the crimes mentioned
(1) is responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights committed against individuals in any foreign country who seek—
(A) to expose illegal activity carried out by government officials; or
(B) to obtain, exercise, defend, or promote internationally recognized human rights and freedoms, such as the freedoms of religion, expression, association, and assembly, and the rights to a fair trial and democratic elections;
(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph (1);
(3) is a government official, or a senior associate of such an official, that is responsible for, or complicit in, ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing, acts of significant corruption, including the expropriation of private or public assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, bribery, or the facilitation or transfer of the proceeds of corruption to foreign jurisdictions; or
(4) has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services in support of, an activity described in paragraph
I actually don't think human trafficking is covered by this. I'm not a lawyer, but based on what I read "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" has a very specific legal meaning covering in another law that is decades old.
It's actually multi-faceted. Since the EO about 13,000 pedophiles have been arrested, their rings shut down, property and moneirs seized, and numerous children rescued. Most recently in Detroit, Michigan where 123 children were taken from their captors.
I very much doubt your numbers and the case of the 123 is most definitely wrong, but you are wrong on your larger point, not a single one of these cases relied on the executive order. Most of these came from long standing multi agency stings using federal and local law enforcement and laws that have been on the books for years. Many of these operations happen year after year. You need to back up your claim that properties and monies were seized and that that had to do with the executive order.
The 123 children in Detroit was not a case of 123 victims of sex trafficking. It was about 123 missing kids. One kid was homeless and living in an abandoned building.
The boy was discovered in the house during a Sept. 26 missing kids sweep initiated by state police, who identified 301 missing child cases in Wayne County to investigate. Two-officer teams from more than 20 police departments were deployed to find the children, all under age 17, Krebs said.
During the eight-hour operation, police located 107 of the kids on the list. All but four of them were found safe with their parents or guardians, Krebs said.
103 kids were listed as missing, but were not. There probably were missing for a bit, but returned home and the official channels were never notified.
There's possibly three and possibly zero kids involved in sex trafficking.
Police were concerned three of the missing kids had been used by sex traffickers, although Krebs said it's not yet been determined if that's true, and FBI agents continue questioning them.
All the kids who were found were asked whether anyone had tried to traffic them for sex, Krebs said.
"Sometimes kids will run away from home and then they don't tell anyone (they'd been used for sex trafficking)," she said. "So we question each of them individually."
Under the law of armed conflict, do you agree with the following statement, that if a person is detained who is properly identified to accepted legal procedures under the law of armed conflict as a part of the enemy force, there is not requirement based on a length of time that they be returned to the battle or released? In other words, if you capture a member of the enemy force, is it your understanding of the law that you have to, at some period of time, let them go back to the fight?
Drop 2380 discussed military law v civilian law then Enemy Combatant.
Who cares? Lindsay Graham always talks about enemy combatants. Did a purge happen in 2009 or 2010 or 2013? What about 2016 and 2017? No, it didn't and his asking again is no indication a purge will occur in 2018.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Are_we__sure ago
Yes, I know we have fought a bunch since 2001. No we have not declared war. I cited the official authority on that, the Congressional Research Service. I have nothing more to say.
No. I am laying out the facts and correcting your misunderstanding.
The executive order is the about implementing the Global Magntisky Act and that only applies to non US persons. When the EO was issues Treasury sanctioned 13 foreginers along with 39 associated people/entities.
How do I know the executive order is about implementing the Global Magnitsky act? Because the Trump admistration told us several times. The web page on the Treasury site is called "Issuance of Global Magnitsky Executive Order" https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx
It's the first thing after the date in the Press Release. https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0243
It's the Title of the FAQ
And mentioned in the first answer
So now that it's clear that this executive order is about implementing the Global Magnitsky Act, how do I know it only applies to foreigners? It's directly from the law itself. Here's the entire definition of what this Act is
The part of the law giving the Presiden the authority to issue sanction only mentions "foreign person."
This law does not apply to US persons. Why? It's because the law is intended for folks outside the reach of American Justice, for US persons, they could just be arrested and tried for their actual crimes in civilian courts and asset forfeiture is already part of the civilian courts if you can show the assets are the results of the crime like seizing a drug dealer's house.
No you may want to reread it. United States Person is mentioned four times. Three times is defining US or foreign persons and here where they detail the blocking all property and interests in property of a foreign person.
(A) IN GENERAL.—The blocking, in accordance with the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), of all transactions in all property and interests in property of a foreign person if such property and interests in property are in the United States, come within the United States, or are or come within the possession or control of a United States person.
The sanction only applies to foreign people and the property can be blocked if
A. The property is in the US. You own a ranch in Montana and an oil company in South Dakota B. The property comes into the United States: You ship your Piccasso to a bank vault in Miami C. The property comes into the possession on control of a United States Person. You put your Picassos in the bank vault of an American Bank in the Dominican Republic.
It's not about Human Trafficking at all. The Executive Order never mentions this and the Global Magnitsky act doesn't mention this. There was a later executive order about human trafficking and I think folks get them confused.
Here are the crimes mentioned
Human trafficking is never mentioned. Here's the list of the original 52 people/entities sanctioned. None are sanctioned for human trafficking. https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/OFAC-Enforcement/Pages/20171221.aspx
One person is sanctioned for Organ trafficking.
I actually don't think human trafficking is covered by this. I'm not a lawyer, but based on what I read "gross violations of internationally recognized human rights" has a very specific legal meaning covering in another law that is decades old.
I very much doubt your numbers and the case of the 123 is most definitely wrong, but you are wrong on your larger point, not a single one of these cases relied on the executive order. Most of these came from long standing multi agency stings using federal and local law enforcement and laws that have been on the books for years. Many of these operations happen year after year. You need to back up your claim that properties and monies were seized and that that had to do with the executive order.
The 123 children in Detroit was not a case of 123 victims of sex trafficking. It was about 123 missing kids. One kid was homeless and living in an abandoned building.
103 kids were listed as missing, but were not. There probably were missing for a bit, but returned home and the official channels were never notified.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/wayne-county/2018/10/09/boy-found-squatting-abandoned-detroit-house/1584201002/
There's possibly three and possibly zero kids involved in sex trafficking.
[–] Rocky_Bindhamer ago (edited ago)
Did you not listen to Lindsey Graham talking to Brett Kavanqh about "Enemy Combatants" and if it could pertain to US citizens in wartime?
Kavanaugu said yes
Why would Graham bring that up?
Drop 2380 discussed military law v civilian law then Enemy Combatant.
You don't comprehend the sign up significance? What ever. I'm done with you. Believe what you want to believe.
[–] Are_we__sure ago (edited ago)
Dunno. Probably the same reason he wanted the NYC terrorism suspect to be held as an enemy combatant in 2017?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?436680-1/senator-graham-york-terrorist-suspect-treated-enemy-combatant
and in 2016? https://www.nytimes.com/live/new-york-explosion/senator-graham/
and i Boston in 2013?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?312311-1/senator-graham-boston-marathon-bomber
Probably the same reason he asked Sotomayor that question in 2009?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071402782.html?noredirect=on
and Kagan in 2010?
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4755129/graham-asks-kagan-enemy-combatant
Who cares? Lindsay Graham always talks about enemy combatants. Did a purge happen in 2009 or 2010 or 2013? What about 2016 and 2017? No, it didn't and his asking again is no indication a purge will occur in 2018.