<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Blackwater Story Goes to the Dogs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422</link>
	<description>Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:45:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/comment-page-1#comment-21075</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=422#comment-21075</guid>
		<description>BP&#039;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&#039;t declare raises other issues.

I&#039;ve had clients shipping weapons to the IDF in Iraq (under USG contracts and with licenses, of course) and they&#039;ve solved the problems of weapons going missing along the way by having the shipment accompanied by armed escorts, or at least that&#039;s what they&#039;ve told me they&#039;ve done.  Sure that&#039;s more expensive than burying the weapon in a pallet of dog food, but it is much more likely to achieve its intended purpose.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>BP&#8217;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&#8217;t declare raises other issues.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve had clients shipping weapons to the IDF in Iraq (under USG contracts and with licenses, of course) and they&#8217;ve solved the problems of weapons going missing along the way by having the shipment accompanied by armed escorts, or at least that&#8217;s what they&#8217;ve told me they&#8217;ve done.  Sure that&#8217;s more expensive than burying the weapon in a pallet of dog food, but it is much more likely to achieve its intended purpose.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BP</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/comment-page-1#comment-21074</link>
		<dc:creator>BP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:44:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=422#comment-21074</guid>
		<description>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 &quot;I need these things yesterday&quot;).  Recovering the cost of the items doesn&#039;t do you much good if you&#039;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&#039;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).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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 &#8220;I need these things yesterday&#8221;).  Recovering the cost of the items doesn&#8217;t do you much good if you&#8217;re walking the streets without a weapon and with no way to communicate to call for help.</p>
<p>As for the issue of customs &#8211; even if Iraq isn&#8217;t inspecting the items they are likely travelling through Jordan or Kuwait, where pilfering may be a real concern.</p>
<p>Finally, it does seem like there may be two issues here &#8211; 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).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clif Burns</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/comment-page-1#comment-21070</link>
		<dc:creator>Clif Burns</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=422#comment-21070</guid>
		<description>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&#039;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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RS &#8211;  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.  </p>
<p>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&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/comment-page-1#comment-21069</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=422#comment-21069</guid>
		<description>From order 17, the U.S. imposed law of the land in Iraq.

All foreigners involved in the occupation project were to be granted &quot;freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq,&quot; and neither their vessels, vehicles, nor aircraft were to be &quot;subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government.&quot; Nor in traveling would foreign diplomat, soldier, consultant or security guard, or any of their vehicles, vessels or planes be subject to &quot;dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees,&quot; and so on. And don&#039;t forget that on imports, including &quot;controlled substances,&quot; 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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From order 17, the U.S. imposed law of the land in Iraq.</p>
<p>All foreigners involved in the occupation project were to be granted &#8220;freedom of movement without delay throughout Iraq,&#8221; and neither their vessels, vehicles, nor aircraft were to be &#8220;subject to registration, licensing or inspection by the [Iraqi] Government.&#8221; Nor in traveling would foreign diplomat, soldier, consultant or security guard, or any of their vehicles, vessels or planes be subject to &#8220;dues, tolls, or charges, including landing and parking fees,&#8221; and so on. And don&#8217;t forget that on imports, including &#8220;controlled substances,&#8221; there were to be no customs fees (or inspections)</p>
<p>There is not now nor has there ever been any Iraqi inspection of anything coalition forces or their contractors care to bring into Iraq.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RS</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/422/comment-page-1#comment-21068</link>
		<dc:creator>RS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:35:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=422#comment-21068</guid>
		<description>With all due respect Cliff, if Blackwater indeed did what it said it did a few paragraphs down, there isn&#039;t a whole lot that can be pinned on them - &quot;The commercial waybill and shipping invoice for the shipment both clearly reflected that the radio was in the shipment.&quot; 

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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With all due respect Cliff, if Blackwater indeed did what it said it did a few paragraphs down, there isn&#8217;t a whole lot that can be pinned on them &#8211; &#8220;The commercial waybill and shipping invoice for the shipment both clearly reflected that the radio was in the shipment.&#8221; </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
