Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX Injunction Dissolved
An anonymous reader writes "Two weeks ago, SpaceX filed suit against the U.S. Air Force in an attempt to enforce competition for rocket purchases. They argued it was a bad idea to blindly shovel money into Russia's coffers for rides to space, and said there was no way for other rocket manufacturers to get a foot in the door. Last week, it looked like they were getting traction — an injunction was granted, temporarily halting the Air Force's process of buying rockets. Unfortunately for SpaceX, that injunction has now been dissolved. At the heart of the suit was Executive Order 13,661, which blocks the transfer of wealth to people in the Russian Federation who are related to the situation in the Ukraine. SpaceX said that since Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was the head of their space agency, payments to the agency were effectively payments to him. The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury all sent letters to the court saying this was not the case, and the court agreed. Here's the final ruling."
"The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury" Isn't this the same administration that is supposed to be supporting US business, and sanctioning Russia re: Ukraine? I really hope the media and less likely the people, bring light to this bullshit and get on SpaceX side.
I don't think Elon expected to win that easy, but look how much publicity he got for filing a simple claim and getting a temporary injunction. He got to say a few times how they are 4x cheaper than the old guys, that might be remembered by some press and politicians the next time there is a big contract up for grabs.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
The argument was inherently flawed.
By the same argument, are income tax payments "effectively payments" to John Koskinen, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue?
Thirty four characters live here.
On one hand, i think that SpaceX should get a shot at competing here, but I don't think they should go about it through taking advantage of overreaching executive order.
Kill 13661, let SpaceX bid. Then I'll be happy.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
SpaceX said that since Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin was the head of their space agency, payments to the agency were effectively payments to him. The U.S. departments of Commerce, State, and the Treasury all sent letters to the court saying this was not the case, and the court agreed
Please nobody get worked up arguing against this statement, because that's not really what their arguments were.
The key phrase from the Judge's ruling is:
These letters collectively explain that, “to the best of [the relevant Department’s] knowledge, purchases from and payments to NPO Energomash currently do not directly or indirectly contravene Executive Order 13,661.”
However, that's not how I read the attached letters at all. The first three all effectively say, "Yes, if Rogozin controls Energomash, that looks like it would qualify, but only the Treasury Department can officially make that call."
The Fourth is actually from the Treasury Department (so its the important one), and it essentially says "it looks like something that technically falls under the order. However, we have to officially say that an entity is blocked before it is, and we don't want to say that about Energomash right now." So basically they get to pick and chose each and every entity to be affected by the Executive Order, and this isn't (yet) one they've picked.
That makes a certain amount of sense. Because all of this comes from an Executive Order, its really up to the "Executive" (the POTUS), and those under him, who or what gets blocked. If we'd like a general rule that can be applied broadly, that's what laws are for.
Funny thing is, the way things work in Russia, payments to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin probably really are payments to Dmitry Rogozin.
Conspicuous legal procedures and political gymnastics are part of the Corporate/Government - Lobby/Courts Eco-system. SpaceX must exercise their ability to influence courts' legal authority to be immediately responsive to their trade concerns. My point is that the injunction or its dissolution is not important, but the speed in which they accessed court authority is meaningful.
When SpaceX lawyers make a legal assertion the US Court System prioritizes their concerns and responds immediately. Meanwhile, all other stuff on the court dockets languish in obscurity and red tape. If SpaceX has the legal/political clout to effect immediate response from the courts, then that is what I find most noteworthy. Whether or not their injunction is upheld is less important than their ability to get the government's (and our) undivided attention on the issue of their concerns. Its nice to have corporate clout, since corporations are now people. DemocracyX at work.
That's not really the courts' decision to make, though. Congress authorized the President to freeze transfers to certain individuals. The President designated some of them here. Therefore the law prohibits transferring money to these specific individuals. It does not ban transferring money to the government of Russia, only to some of its specific politicians, in their individual capacity.
Now it's possible that Russia is so corrupt that there's no meaningful difference between Putin's money and the government's money. But if Congress and/or the President believe that and want to prohibit the transfer of money to Russia as a whole, not only to certain Russian individuals, they need to make that decision and enact that law.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I read through the final ruling. Its not a ruling. its a sidestep that effectively undermines the executive orders of the president. Each government agency is basically saying that even though executive order 13661 requires them to in no way do any business or pay any money to the russians that they have decided even though Rogozin controls the manufacture of russian rockets that the assorted government agencies assert that they have to first investigate the company in question and they'll let the court know when they get around to it. probably never.
load of crap
Some times I wish this were true, but it is not. I think, Obama is genuinely and sincerely appalled by Putin's aggression against Ukraine and other countries. He is just caught completely by surprise — Obama is a master of class warfare rhetoric, which helps him domestically, but he is learning foreign relations as well as simple history of the world on the job.
This is not me — a racist RethugliKKKan saying it — sympathetic newspapers in 2008 agreed, that it is Joe Biden, who brings foreign policy heft to the ticket:
I'd say, things could've been a lot worse under an Administration, where a jovial lunatic is the primary fount of foreign policy expertise. Or, maybe, they are just as bad as they could get...
Whereas Putin is an expert, Obama is a neophite — an out-of-his-league amateur. While Putin can order his army into Ukraine at any moment — they already have "PEACEKEERS" painted on their helmets and vehicles — Obama can't even muster enough determination to send body-armor to Ukrainian military.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"Now it's possible that Russia is so corrupt that there's no meaningful difference between Putin's money and the government's money."
How else do you think Putin attained a net worth of $70B?
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
the launches are in the bank. trust us. they said they'll send the negatives any day now...
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The usual problem people have with corporate personhood is more of a campaign finance issue than anything, and it's obvious that's the problem here, but there were arguments against it before anyone made a big deal of that. I think some of the arguments were based more around the idea of corporations being equal to people and less with the legal ramifications, but there have always been legitimate concerns. Corporate personhood is used to shift blame around, and as we've seen recently in GM's case, it can help people avoid jail time for murder. It's helped con men get away with ruining lives, charging for goods and services then closing up shop and disappearing. The only reason we need it now is that the laws aren't written to apply to corporations, they're written to apply to people. Without corporate personhood, contract law can't be enforced when it involves one or more corporations, because the laws just aren't worded that way. Basically, corporate personhood let us avoid rewriting other laws specifically so they can be applied correctly to corporations, it was the easy way to do things but that doesn't make it the right way.
Problems with corporate personhood long predate the "Occupy" movement, and if you've done any of the research you suggest he does you know that. I'm not saying I have a better idea in mind, rewriting laws to apply to corporations wouldn't be easy, even deciding which ones to change would be a challenge. But you're a fool to think there are no real problems with corporate personhood, especially replying to a post that perfectly describes the result of the most commonly cited problem with corporate personhood; their influence in government.
And before you spout some BS about how people can collectively donate as much as corporations, no, most of us can't. Here's a quick explanation of the situation: The people who decide how much money they will pay us have already decided how much they're going to need for lobbying efforts, and when we spend money fighting against them, they spend more fighting against us, and then pay cuts cover it. Like I said, this is more of a campaign finance issue than a corporate personhood issue, but every individual problem with corporate personhood appears to be a problem with the laws being applied. This is because we've opted for corporate personhood instead of rewriting the laws. The trouble is all we really do is swap the word "person" with "corporation" and that isn't enough, not by a long shot.
Everyone was all about the tin foil hats before Snowden as well when you talked about NSA spying. on everyone. /knew/ that..."
Now the same people are all "err well, everyone already
Yeah, you can't make any judgement about Putin's government until it invades Georgia^WUkraine^Wsome other country!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Well, I would say SpaceX has a good point nonetheless. See this:
http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Basically the federal government deliberately limits its choices in contractors, and then spends a ton of money and doesn't get good results. (Meanwhile a lot of the anti-capitalist types falsely use this as an argument for why the government is more efficient than the private sector.)
"All I want is peace. Peace. Peace!"
"Aaaaaa... little piece of Poland, a little piece of France.
A little piece of Portugal, and Austria perchance.
A little slice of Turkey, and all that that entails
And then a piece of England Scotland lreland and Wales
A little nip of Norway, a little spot of Greece
A little hunk of Hungary, oh what a lovely feast
A little bite of Belgium, and now for some dessert
Armenia Albania, and Russia wouldn 't hurt..."