• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US agents raid Gibson Guitar over ebony

Ok so you do not know what you are taking about, yet, you wish for the Lacey Act to stay in force because some other guy (Gibson CEO ) wants the law to stay intact.
You don't know what the government requires for action either... therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

So are you being purposefully obtuse? Probably... for what purpose? Dunno... but you're starting to bore me.


I do not.
Yet, you continue to put the burden on Gibson. :think:

You stated that, [you] do not know what is required for the government to take action". You are clear in your bias and outrage, but, not your factual analysis.
I'm certainly biased against unreasonable actions taken by a government which has yielded no charges and a loss of millions of dollars, with no day in court. Definitely biased against that, you caught me.


Enforcement of the Lacey Act itself is not clear either , indeed, "How enforcement resources will be allocated is yet to be determined; in general, enforcement priorities and plans are not discussed in detail. In most enforcement work, if information is developed indicating a high likelihood of violations of a particular type, enforcement resources will likely focus on those types of activities".
So you're citing yet more government inadequacies. I quite agree.


I seem to have missed the other guitar companies who have been raided since 2008. And since there were none (I'll just skip the witty reparte of the next few posts if you don't mind), I'm sure you'll admit that Gibson has been singled out.
 
You don't know what the government requires for action either... therefore you don't know what you're talking about.

So are you being purposefully obtuse? Probably... for what purpose? Dunno... but you're starting to bore me.


Yet, you continue to put the burden on Gibson. :think:

I'm certainly biased against unreasonable actions taken by a government which has yielded no charges and a loss of millions of dollars, with no day in court. Definitely biased against that, you caught me.


So you're citing yet more government inadequacies. I quite agree.


I seem to have missed the other guitar companies who have been raided since 2008. And since there were none (I'll just skip the witty reparte of the next few posts if you don't mind), I'm sure you'll admit that Gibson has been singled out.


It seems to me that you simply want to argue with someone additionally, ascribe behaviors and position to me that are simply not true.

My position is that the procedural aspect of the law needs to be more direct so all parties have a fair opportunity to defend their case. According to the the "Act" , "any plant or plant product imported in violation of the import declaration requirements may be subject to forfeiture." That seems to be what occurred here.


The standard is as follows: "Forfeiture. The Lacey Act’s civil forfeiture provisions are enforced on a strict liability basis. If illegal timber or a product made from illegal timber (and/or illegal wildlife or fish) is brought into the U.S., that timber or timber product may be seized whether or not the person from whom it is seized knew of the illegal nature of the product. Nonetheless, the government must still show that a plant, plant product, or wildlife has been imported or received in violation of a State or foreign law or regulation." Where the government can or has proved their burden is unknown at this point.

As far as certification, the Forest Stewardship Council did certify the wood, but, according to the Act, "Although most certification systems for forest products include legality of harvest among their criteria, these are voluntary, private sector systems, the accuracy of which cannot be readily determined by the government. Nevertheless, such certification systems may provide information useful to manufacturers and importers in their efforts to exercise due diligence regarding sources and species of timber."


Gibson and the Lacey both need to revise their respective internal procedures.
 
It seems to me that you simply want to argue with someone additionally, ascribe behaviors and position to me that are simply not true.
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.

It's real simple. Either you get it or you don't. And you don't. :shrug:



Not my problem.
 
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.

It's real simple. Either you get it or you don't. And you don't. :shrug:



Not my problem.


Indeed, your problem is reading comprehension. I have stated this position multiple times.

My position is that the procedural aspect of the law needs to be more direct so all parties have a fair opportunity to defend their case.

time limitations for which all are given the opportunity to present their case.
 
I'm stating I want to see Gibson get their day in court, and the government to produce charges or, drop it and stop trying to intimidate company's by using the law as a baseball bat.

It's real simple. Either you get it or you don't. And you don't. :shrug:



Not my problem.

The bottom line seems to be that trees now have more rights than American citizens.
 
Indeed, your problem is reading comprehension. I have stated this position multiple times.

Indeed, you cannot grasp my argument, even after posting it multiple times. I can lead the horse to water but cannot make him think. :shrug:

Your claims that Gibson was not singled out, wrong. You're inability to grasp basic concepts of the argument - wasted. You're knowledge about what the government's process is - none and no better than mine. Sorry you're so lost... but there's nothing more I can help you with. (BTW - feel free to get in the last word, you know, to garner those fictional "forum" points you tally up.)
 
The bottom line seems to be that trees now have more rights than American citizens.

"Crucify them" I believe is the mantra of the current government.
 
Indeed, you cannot grasp my argument, even after posting it multiple times. I can lead the horse to water but cannot make him think. :shrug:

Your claims that Gibson was not singled out, wrong. You're inability to grasp basic concepts of the argument - wasted. You're knowledge about what the government's process is - none and no better than mine. Sorry you're so lost... but there's nothing more I can help you with. (BTW - feel free to get in the last word, you know, to garner those fictional "forum" points you tally up.)
and your "proof" that gibson was singled out for enforcement action consists of what?
 
Strawman... I'm not claiming proof.


I'm not going to retype it - read the following link:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...bson-guitar-over-ebony-10.html#post1060452199
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]

then what we find is that there is no proof that gibson was singled out

yet you post
... Your claims that Gibson was not singled out, wrong. Y ...

do you even understand what it is you are posting?
 
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]

then what we find is that there is no proof that gibson was singled out

yet you post


do you even understand what it is you are posting?

Then please, provide me a link that shows another guitar company since 2008 was raided. I'll wait.
 
Then please, provide me a link that shows another guitar company since 2008 was raided. I'll wait.

and that proves what, exactly
other wood fabricators had to have violated the lacy act for gibson to have done so?
notice how that makes no sense?
well, that absence of logic is also true of your "argument"
 
and that proves what, exactly
other wood fabricators had to have violated the lacy act for gibson to have done so?
notice how that makes no sense?
well, that absence of logic is also true of your "argument"

Obviously it would prove that Gibson was not singled out, as you claim. I don't see a link though.... did you forget to paste it in your post?
See, without evidence, my point will be correct... and as you've no doubt already Googled it... you'll see that Gibson has been the only guitar company in the past 4 years, singled out twice for raids.


I rest my case.
 
[emphasis added by bubba as the forum member apparently cannot recall what he has posted]

then what we find is that there is no proof that gibson was singled out

yet you post

do you even understand what it is you are posting?

As already pointed out to you. Only Gibson has been targeted. You are otherwise asking posters to prove a negative, that being that those not targeted were not targeted by some deliberate action. That the government has yet to charge Gibson is strongly indicative of an over-reaching Justice Department.
 
For those that do not know the history of the Lacey Act


US LACEY ACT

"The Lacey Act was introduced in 1900 to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured wildlife across state lines. It has been amended several times, most recently in June 2008 when US Congress extended the Act to plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.

This made the USA the first country to prohibit the trade in timber which is illegal according to the laws of the country from which it is sourced."

US LACEY ACT

If I am not mistaken, Obama was not president in June of 2008.
 
For those that do not know the history of the Lacey Act


US LACEY ACT

"The Lacey Act was introduced in 1900 to prohibit the transportation of illegally captured wildlife across state lines. It has been amended several times, most recently in June 2008 when US Congress extended the Act to plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.

This made the USA the first country to prohibit the trade in timber which is illegal according to the laws of the country from which it is sourced."

US LACEY ACT

If I am not mistaken, Obama was not president in June of 2008.

The Presidency and who held office is irrelevant to the context and subject matter, as you well know.
 
As already pointed out to you. Only Gibson has been targeted. You are otherwise asking posters to prove a negative, that being that those not targeted were not targeted by some deliberate action. That the government has yet to charge Gibson is strongly indicative of an over-reaching Justice Department.


and there is nothing to suggest that gibson is the only one thus targeted because it is now found to be the only manufacturer violating the lacey act
 
and there is nothing to suggest that gibson is the only one thus targeted because it is now found to be the only manufacturer violating the lacey act

Then post the other guitar company's who were raided. It's real simple...
 
Then post the other guitar company's who were raided. It's real simple...

why would federal agents raid other manufacturers if they had no basis to believe they were violating the lacey act
one again, your post is devoid of any logic
 
why would federal agents raid other manufacturers if they had no basis to believe they were violating the lacey act
one again, your post is devoid of any logic

No more responses to your attempts to change the subject until you post a link... :D
 
......... The standard is as follows: "Forfeiture. The Lacey Act’s civil forfeiture provisions are enforced on a strict liability basis. If illegal timber or a product made from illegal timber (and/or illegal wildlife or fish) is brought into the U.S., that timber or timber product may be seized whether or not the person from whom it is seized knew of the illegal nature of the product. Nonetheless, the government must still show that a plant, plant product, or wildlife has been imported or received in violation of a State or foreign law or regulation." Where the government can or has proved their burden is unknown at this point.....

We may be in some agreement here. Unfortunately, the above standard places an onus on the importer to verify and attest to that which it cannot attest. If there is government corruption in another country during the chain of possession, it is impractical beyond reason to punish the importer.

As noted by another who said that "plants and animals have more rights than people", there is merit to this argument. The initial public outcry of the late 60's and early 70's over the harvesting of such as rhino horns and elephant ivory led to the creation of both our own endangered species list, and the empowerment of our USF&W with extraordinary reach, but also the creation of CITES, based out of Switzerland, and now with over 120 member countries. CITES is like a worldwide Endangered and Threatened Species Act. It has no enforcement authority, except to make recommendations to its member countries. Many of those member countries enforce the CITES recommendations in complete agreement. Others not so much. Others are so poor and corrupt it can be as a joke.

The animal and plant police are probably the closest thing we have to a Gestapo in the US. Its the same over-reach that we read about almost daily where American citizens lose their livelihood by the thousands because of some useless minnow.

The Lacey Act is one huge over-reach, in that it enables the Federal Government with all manner of excessive power without what most would view as due process. Gibson Guitar is a most perfect example.
 
The Presidency and who held office is irrelevant to the context and subject matter, as you well know.

Some have been trying to say this investigation is due to Obama and his justice department. So that is the reason I made it clear the law was amended by Congress in June 2008 to include plants, including timber, paper and other forest products.
 
No more responses to your attempts to change the subject until you post a link... :D

there is no link to post
and that is because the federal agents have found no basis to pursue another manufacturer for violation of the lacey act

but prove me wrong
point to another manufacturer and its violation(s) of said act
 
and there is nothing to suggest that gibson is the only one thus targeted because it is now found to be the only manufacturer violating the lacey act

It has not been found to have violated the Lacey Act.
 
It has not been found to have violated the Lacey Act.

it is the only one believed to be in violation of the lacey act, hence the federal raids to which you have objected
 
Back
Top Bottom