undefined | Better HN

0 pointslambda11y ago0 comments

Yes. The US constitution, Article 1 section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 states:

"The Congress shall have power...

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."

Congress has passed such laws, authorizing the President to impose economic sanctions banning trade with countries which pose "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." (50 U.S. Code § 1701, 1702, and so on http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1701).

The President recently used these powers to restrict trade with certain entities in Russia, to put pressure on Russia to stop providing support for separatists in the Ukraine: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D...

So, it's not quite "just like that". The President must declare a state of national emergency (which he did in Executive Order 13660 in March http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D..., expanded in EO 13661 http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/D..., and expanded further in EO 13662 linked above), and can only impose sanctions directly related to that national emergency.

Ukraine is a country which agreed to disarm itself of nuclear arms when it split apart from the USSR, in exchange for an agreement that nuclear armed nations like the US, Russian Federation, and others would respect the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine and not use force against the Ukraine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security... The invasion of Russian and annexations of Crimea is a direct violation of this agreement, and a very worrying trend for nuclear non-proliferation. Russia's further involvement invading the east of Ukraine (under the guise of simply supporting an "organic" separatist movement) is further seriously troubling.

Hope that helps explain the situation. The President cannot simply order any private company to suspend working with other companies, but can if he declares a national emergency and the sanctions are directly related to that national emergency.

0 comments

sleep-less11y ago

IMHO if your only/main source of news is the western media, you get a very one sided, anti-Russian point of view. Things are really not that black and white, they almost never are in the global politics.

lambdaOP11y ago

I have read both Western and Russian sources on the conflict.

Let's just say that I find the Western sources on the matter much, much more trustworthy. It's very clear that Russia is running a propaganda campaign, which is apparently reasonably effective within Russia but less convincing when you have access to other sources of information.

The Russian propaganda campaign was even fairly effective at spreading the rumor on Western social media that the Ukrainian opposition movement consisted mostly of fascists, when in reality there was a fascist group that was associated with it but a relatively small percentage overall of the opposition to Yanukovych.

After Russia snuck unmarked Russian soldiers into Crimea, which comes dangerously close to counting as perfidy, it was pretty clear that Russia and Russian sources could not be trusted on this matter.

Now, are you trying to claim that Russia did not send troops onto Ukrainian soil to annex Crimea, and is not supporting the separatists in the east with at least arms and training? Or are you trying to claim that doing so is somehow justified, and if so, under what justification?

mendort11y ago

The Russians just need a little Lebensraum. The West has continued its policy of containment even after the fall of the Soviet Union. This can be seen in the aggressive expansion of the EU and of NATO. It is necessary that Russia have scope to influence its neighbors and build partnerships in order for it to be a free and prosperous nation.

2 more replies

twobits11y ago

Oh yes, the US, the exporter of freedom and democracy.

matthewmacleod11y ago

Hmm. Is there actually any doubt that Russia is tacitly providing support to Novorossiya?

dfkf11y ago

There actually is, if by Russia you mean Russian government. Support to "Novorossiya" simply can't achieve anything, perhaps only help it last a little bit longer. When Russia wanted to change the status quo it had legal excuses and it acted openly and forcibly. Half-measures take you nowhere.

maxlybbert11y ago

lambda's already replied about the relative trustworthiness of different media sources. However, lambda's earlier post was limited to why a US company can interfere with the contracts of non-US companies. The problem, of course, is that Red Hat can get into legal trouble if it does business, directly or indirectly, with the targeted companies, but Red Hat's independent partners are under a different legal system, and may well get into trouble by breaching their contracts at Red Hat's insistence.

smsm4211y ago

Most contract law systems include the notion of force majeure, which significantly limits the liability for breach of contract in such circumstances. Government sanctions is a common example of force majeure.

Aloisius11y ago

Out of curiosity, besides the Russian government-owned media and various crackpot conspiracy theory sites claiming, among other things, that the Jews did it, what news sources are presenting a pro-Russian point of view of this calamity?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse