Nov
17

Blackwater Story Goes to the Dogs

Posted by Clif Burns at 6:48 pm on November 17, 2008
Category: General

Dog Food BagAfter ABC News alleged that Blackwater was exporting weapons and other defense articles to Iraq hidden inside bags of dog food, Blackwater issued a press release with the following reply to that charge:

Blackwater has never hidden anything inside a bag of dog food – not a gun, not a radio, nor anything else. A recent news story cited “former employees” who claim that Blackwater hid weapons “in large sacks of dog food.” This sensational claim is false. The company has, however, packed shipping pallets with valuable and pilferable items, including weapons, interior to bags of dog food or other low-theft items. This common practice is done to prevent corrupt foreign customs agents and shipping workers from stealing the valuables. U.S. export statutes require licensing of controlled materials but do not dictate their placement within packaging.

If you read that statement closely, Blackwater is saying that weapons weren’t put in the dog food bags themselves but were instead buried in pallets of dog food bags. The purpose of this was to keep foreign customs agents from stealing the guns.

Blackwater is technically right that there isn’t anything in the ITAR which says you can’t bury a legally-exported gun in between 100 40-lb packages of dog chow. ITAR section 123.22, which covers the mechanics of exporting defense articles, is notably silent on this point. Even so, I’m not so sure this is a particularly good anti-pilferage strategy, and it certainly would make me very nervous.

First, for this to work, at least with respect to foreign customs officials, the packing slips and the foreign customs entry declaration would have to say “Two Tons Dog Food” and not “Two Tons Dog Food and 4 Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons.” So, at the outset, such a shipment might very well constitute a violation of the smuggling laws of the destination country.

Second, I also can’t imagine that such a shipment wouldn’t attract a fair amount of attention from U.S. Customs. If the packing label refers only to dog food and the XTN or ITN numbers accompanying the shipment relate to Automated Export System (“AES”) entries for licensed exports of firearms, one has to imagine that U.S. Customs may want a more detailed “look-see” at the pallet, thereby holding up the shipment.

Third, and worse yet, the language of 18 U.S.C. ยง 1001, which criminalizes false representations to federal agents, is broad enough to potentially cover the false invoices, packing labels and other shipping documents that would be presented to U.S. customs when the items were being exported. That seems a rather large risk to run to keep an Iraqi customs inspector from pilfering a rifle.

The safest strategy it seems to me would be to insure the guns rather than hide them. Another issue, perhaps the decisive one, is this: walking around with a gun that smelled like dog food would likely mean that every dog in the neighborhood would be your new best friend forever.

Permalink

5 Comments:

  • With all due respect Cliff, if Blackwater indeed did what it said it did a few paragraphs down, there isn’t a whole lot that can be pinned on them – “The commercial waybill and shipping invoice for the shipment both clearly reflected that the radio was in the shipment.”

    If you are sending several pallets or containers at once, I can see such a strategy working. As long as everything was declared on one set of docs, they could legitimately bury valuable and easy to remove items in such a way as to make it more time-consuming and obvious any attempt to remove such items.

    On the other hand, what I find very interesting is the choice of filler material. In Islam, dogs are considered haram (just as bacon is) and I wonder if by hiding the guns and radios among dog food, they counted on the religious beliefs to reduce the likelihood of theft.

    Comment by RS on November 17th, 2008 @ 8:35 pm

  • From order 17, the U.S. imposed law of the land in Iraq.

    All foreigners involved in the occupation project were to be granted “freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq,” and neither their vessels, vehicles, nor aircraft were to be “subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government.” Nor in traveling would foreign diplomat, soldier, consultant or security guard, or any of their vehicles, vessels or planes be subject to “dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees,” and so on. And don’t forget that on imports, including “controlled substances,” there were to be no customs fees (or inspections)

    There is not now nor has there ever been any Iraqi inspection of anything coalition forces or their contractors care to bring into Iraq.

    Comment by Marc on November 17th, 2008 @ 9:00 pm

  • RS – It appears that the radio that was supposed to be in the dog food was declared, but nothing in the press releases said whether the weapons that here hidden in other shipments were declared. And if they are declared, it might cut against the anti-pilferage strategy.

    As to dogs being haram, I am no expert but a quick google search indicates that there is some dispute among various scholars of Islam. The most common view seems to be that just the saliva is haram. I couldn’t find anything saying that dog food would be haram. But, still, your point is interesting. More likely, the reason for picking the dog food was that few people in Iraq keep dogs as pets and thus few would have any interest in dog food.

    Comment by Clif Burns on November 17th, 2008 @ 9:55 pm

  • Cliff, I think your comment on insuring the shipment misses the context completely. To the extent that these were legitimate shipments to support their operations in Iraq, Blackwater is sending these items over to use, not sell. In my experience in the military, you ask for items when you need them (as in “I need these things yesterday”). Recovering the cost of the items doesn’t do you much good if you’re walking the streets without a weapon and with no way to communicate to call for help.

    As for the issue of customs – even if Iraq isn’t inspecting the items they are likely travelling through Jordan or Kuwait, where pilfering may be a real concern.

    Finally, it does seem like there may be two issues here – sloppy record keeping (perhaps with some intentional skirting of the regs to get the mission accomplished) by Blackwater as an organization, and then illegal conduct by some employees who really did intend to sell the weapons on the blackmarket in Iraq (as evinced by the ABC report on the arrest of 2 Blackwater employees in NCarolina that started the investigation).

    Comment by BP on November 19th, 2008 @ 9:44 am

  • BP’s comments about the limits of insurance are, I think, reasonable in this context. Still, the declare and hide method seems likely not to accomplish its purpose and the hide but don’t declare raises other issues.

    I’ve had clients shipping weapons to the IDF in Iraq (under USG contracts and with licenses, of course) and they’ve solved the problems of weapons going missing along the way by having the shipment accompanied by armed escorts, or at least that’s what they’ve told me they’ve done. Sure that’s more expensive than burying the weapon in a pallet of dog food, but it is much more likely to achieve its intended purpose.

    Comment by Clif Burns on November 19th, 2008 @ 10:05 am

Leave a Reply

Comments are moderated, so your comment may take a little while to appear.