<?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: So Who&#8217;s Your Pirate Now?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430</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: tom sharkey</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/comment-page-1#comment-22284</link>
		<dc:creator>tom sharkey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:30:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=430#comment-22284</guid>
		<description>if you are on the high seas and apeed boat approaches you in the gulf of adem, then blast them out of the water. case closed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>if you are on the high seas and apeed boat approaches you in the gulf of adem, then blast them out of the water. case closed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LDM</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/comment-page-1#comment-21225</link>
		<dc:creator>LDM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=430#comment-21225</guid>
		<description>Clif:

I&#039;m interested in hearing your thoughts on the DOS announcement of presumption of denial and the rammifications of that.   With the caveat that limits approvals to projects in support of the U.S. Gov&#039;t. will it really have much of an impact? What does this portend for the future?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clif:</p>
<p>I&#8217;m interested in hearing your thoughts on the DOS announcement of presumption of denial and the rammifications of that.   With the caveat that limits approvals to projects in support of the U.S. Gov&#8217;t. will it really have much of an impact? What does this portend for the future?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JKB</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/comment-page-1#comment-21167</link>
		<dc:creator>JKB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 06:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=430#comment-21167</guid>
		<description>The Blackwater vessel doesn&#039;t have the speed to escort a modern merchant vessel.  When it was operated by NOAA, it had a top speed of 10 kts and even repowering wouldn&#039;t produce the 20-30 kts container ships run at due to hull speed.

How could the US issue letters of marque to US company to combat pirates attacking foreign flagged vessels in foreign waters or distant international waters?  Could Congress sell that to the voters?

The vessel could operate as a homebase for Blackwater security teams on merchant vessels using UNREP to stay in international waters and outside foreign jurisdiction.  Such a base could be needed as the arms such teams carried would tangle the ships up in import laws of ports entered as well as DDTC.  Some port states will arrest for a single round of ammo, any and all types of firearms, or for wearing military-style clothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Blackwater vessel doesn&#8217;t have the speed to escort a modern merchant vessel.  When it was operated by NOAA, it had a top speed of 10 kts and even repowering wouldn&#8217;t produce the 20-30 kts container ships run at due to hull speed.</p>
<p>How could the US issue letters of marque to US company to combat pirates attacking foreign flagged vessels in foreign waters or distant international waters?  Could Congress sell that to the voters?</p>
<p>The vessel could operate as a homebase for Blackwater security teams on merchant vessels using UNREP to stay in international waters and outside foreign jurisdiction.  Such a base could be needed as the arms such teams carried would tangle the ships up in import laws of ports entered as well as DDTC.  Some port states will arrest for a single round of ammo, any and all types of firearms, or for wearing military-style clothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom deButts</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/comment-page-1#comment-21148</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom deButts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=430#comment-21148</guid>
		<description>Aircraft tires are always EAR controlled even if they are specially designed for military aircraft and cannot be used on any civil aircraft.  See USML Subcat. VIII(h).  The revised interpretation 9 is just reflecting that longstanding jurisdictional rule.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aircraft tires are always EAR controlled even if they are specially designed for military aircraft and cannot be used on any civil aircraft.  See USML Subcat. VIII(h).  The revised interpretation 9 is just reflecting that longstanding jurisdictional rule.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred Martin</title>
		<link>http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/430/comment-page-1#comment-21147</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred Martin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:07:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=430#comment-21147</guid>
		<description>The U.S. ever signed the 1856 Paris Treaty that the U.K. France, and many other nations signed, giving up their sovereign right to issue &quot;Letters of Marque and Reprisal.&quot;  During various wars and crises, we have renounced their use, but there seems to be no legal reason to assume that this right is not available to us today.  It is still Congress&#039; prerogative to issue these &quot;Hunting licenses.&quot;  The word &quot;Marque&quot; in the title refers to borders (&quot;Marches&quot; or &quot;Marks&quot;) and such Letters allow the holder to operater in the name of the issuing state across national frontiers.  Congress could issue such a Letter to Blackwater Worldwide and that letter could contain geographical or other restrictions that limit its applicability, if not the nationality(ies) of the pirates.  Lastly, this is _Congress&#039;_ right and not the Administration&#039;s or the Courts&#039; right and duty.  So, how about it, Senators and Representatives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. ever signed the 1856 Paris Treaty that the U.K. France, and many other nations signed, giving up their sovereign right to issue &#8220;Letters of Marque and Reprisal.&#8221;  During various wars and crises, we have renounced their use, but there seems to be no legal reason to assume that this right is not available to us today.  It is still Congress&#8217; prerogative to issue these &#8220;Hunting licenses.&#8221;  The word &#8220;Marque&#8221; in the title refers to borders (&#8220;Marches&#8221; or &#8220;Marks&#8221;) and such Letters allow the holder to operater in the name of the issuing state across national frontiers.  Congress could issue such a Letter to Blackwater Worldwide and that letter could contain geographical or other restrictions that limit its applicability, if not the nationality(ies) of the pirates.  Lastly, this is _Congress&#8217;_ right and not the Administration&#8217;s or the Courts&#8217; right and duty.  So, how about it, Senators and Representatives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
