A court in Bangkok this week denied a U.S. request to extradite Jamshid Ghassemi, an Iranian national. Ghassemi had been indicted by a federal grand jury in San Diego in 2006 in connection with an alleged attempt by Ghassemi to purchase and export 12 accelerometers from Honeywell International, Inc. to Iran.

The Thai court decision is not public, but the AP obtained a defense filing which asserted three arguments against extradition. First, the defense argued that the extradition papers were not timely filed. Second, it was asserted that Ghassemi would be tortured in the United States if extradited. Finally, the defense pleading relied on the “military offense” exception in the extradition treaty between the United States and Thailand.

It is, of course, somewhat speculative, but it seems likely that the court relied on the “military offense” exception rather than the other two arguments. Under Article 7 of the Extradition Treaty, a request is still timely if the statute of limitations hasn’t expired, which in this case it had not. The torture argument has little factual basis.

But reliance on the military offense exception, set forth in Article 3 of the treaty, seems tenuous as well. The defense argument in support of the exemption was that Ghassemi was a military officer and that he attempted to purchase the accelerometers under orders from his immediate military superior. The military offense exception is widely thought to refer to military offenses such as desertion and mutiny, offenses that are outside the ordinary scope of criminal laws. See, for example, In the Matter of the Requested Extradition of Carlos Guillermo Suarez-Mason, 649 F. Supp. 676 (N.D. Cal. 1988). The Italian Extradition Treaty, Art. V, §3, 35 U.S.T. 3029 (1984), provides a more detailed definition of military offenses as “offenses under military law which are not offenses under ordinary criminal law.” Violations of export laws do not fit readily within such a definition of a “military offense.”

. . . the United Arab Emirates. With the publication today by the Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) of the additions to the Entity List announced on Wednesday, the UAE moves into first place in terms of the single country with the most entries on the Entity List. The tiny emirate, just a short boat-ride from Iran, now has 36 entries on the Entity List after today’s addition of 34 more companies and individuals.

By today’s action BIS added 108 entities to the list, 33 of which were already on General Order No. 3, Because of the transfer of those entities from General Order No. 3 to the Entity List, that general order is now being repealed and removed from Supplement No. 1 to Part 736 of the Export Administration Regulations. Entities that were previously listed in General Order No. 3 are designated with asterisks.

Entities from a total of thirteen countries were named to the Entity List. Those countries were Canada (2), PRC (3), Egypt (3), Germany (4), Hong Kong (19), Iran (25), Kuwait (2), Lebanon (2), Malaysia (14), Singapore (3), South Korea (1), Syria (3), UAE (34). (Seven entities were located in two countries, which accounts for the total of 115 new entries shown in the preceding list.)

A license is required for all exports to, or involving, any individual or country on the Entity List. No license exceptions are available for such exports, and BIS will apply a policy of denial to license requests.

As of time this entry was posted, BIS had not yet updated the “List to Check” portion of its website to reflect the new additions.