Dec

16

A Defense That Won’t Fly


Posted by at 10:24 pm on December 16, 2010
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

F-5 Freedom FighterMarc Knapp, a 36 year old California man, was arrested on charges that, among other things, he attempted to export a military surplus F-5 fighter jet and other export-controlled defense articles. to Iran. The recently unsealed criminal complaint alleges a number of interesting details including a new entry in the Futile Justifications Hall of Fame.

The complaint alleges that Knapp and an undercover agent discussed in great detail the plans to export the F-5. The aircraft, which was stored at an airport in Van Nuys, California, would be flown to Delaware where it would be crated, then shipped to Hungary for transshipment to Iran. During these conversations, a remarkable interchange allegedly occurred:

UCA1 [the undercover agent] then informed KNAPP that Iran was trying to obtain F-4 and F-14 fighter jets and accompanying items, and that so long as KNAPP did not care about the end destination, they could make some money. KNAPP stated that he was able to “compartmentalize,” and that the United States would “shoot down” anything (referring to aircraft, etc.) provided to Iran.

In Knapp’s view, apparently, it was okay to sell fighter jets and other defense items to Iran as long as they were pieces of junk that the U.S. could easily shoot out of the sky. Calling this a futile justification probably involves stretching the meaning of justification beyond the breaking point.

As jaw dropping as Knapp’s “justification” was, the story gets worse. Knapp’s defense attorney has apparently decided that Knapp is his best resource on export law rather than, say, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) or the court cases involving the Arm Export Control Act set out in the Annotated United States Code. There is no other reasonable explanation than that for this:

The F-5 Tiger was sold as surplus years ago to a California man who rented it to movie studios. … Knapp’s lawyer … said it would have done the Iranians no good to buy it.

“If the plane were used against the U.S., it would likely be shot down in minutes or seconds,” he said.

I went back and checked the ITAR and was unable to find an exemption for ineffective defense articles.

Permalink

Bookmark and Share

Copyright © 2010 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)


5 Comments:


As silly as it sounds, it is no sillier than the “We’re too big to comply” defense that DDTC routinely buys. DDTC only goes after little guys who don’t have enough money to defend themselves.

Comment by Mike Deal on December 16th, 2010 @ 11:01 pm

I believe that military aircraft are designated Significant Military Equipment. As such, even non-working – non-flying – mock-ups would require a license.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe Knapp’s attorney, having relied on Knapp for bad legal advice, can sue Knapp for malpractice if Knapp himself is not an attorney.

Comment by Jim Dickeson on December 17th, 2010 @ 2:11 pm

After reading the complaint, competent counsel should explore an insanity defense. This guy was just so out of touch with reality, I seriously question whether he had the scienter to intentionally violate the AECA, or whether he was living in a fantasy world.

Once again, undercover agents and confidential informants played a considerable role in leading this guy down the path. One has to wonder whether why our export enforcement folks aren’t concentrating more resources on folks who are serious, trained and experienced smugglers, instead expending all those investigative and litigation resources on incompetent idiot, possibly insane, wannabees with no training or experience in international transactions. Surely seizing the goods, slapping the guy with millions in civil penalties (which he probably can’t pay, thereby bankrupting him), and moving on to catching folks who can do serious damage to national security would be a better use of taxpayer resources than making this guy a federal prisoner at a considerable expense to the taxpayer.

Comment by Mike Deal on December 18th, 2010 @ 10:59 am

Mike, the fish in the barrel is easier to shoot.

Comment by Jim Dickeson on December 20th, 2010 @ 7:47 pm

What you see as insanity I see as sheer brilliance. Who but Nostradamus himself would have the intuition to select just the right word, “compartmentalize” to describe their own inner ability to foresee the impact of their actions while arranging exports to Iran? Except of course, the judge, when he says, “0-15 Years, son. Compartmentalize You”!

Comment by Mike Liberto on December 22nd, 2010 @ 9:14 pm