Comments on: A Metaphysical Question

By: Tim Stevenson

Tim Stevenson — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:01:45 +0000

The Control Order says:

“….electro-statically powered explosive detectors….”

It is trivial to prove that the ADE651 is not ‘electro-statically powered’, although the manufacturers erroneously claim it to be. So how does the Control Order achieve its stated aim?

By: ChrisO

ChrisO — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 12:11:29 +0000

It’s not just the ADE 651; there’s a big row in Thailand at the moment over a very similar device, the GT200 (of which the ADE 651 appears to be a clone). See Wikipedia’s articles on the ADE 651 and GT200 for more info – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200 .

By: David

David — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 10:28:30 +0000

I think the intent here is to prevent future exports but, even then, I have difficulty with the wording and I think it can be argued that, becuase the product does not work and never had a chance of working it is not equipment for detecting explosives any more than are, for example, two bent coathangers.
Conversely, if the equipment is “equipment for detecting explosives, the argument that it is now controlled can be made. However, where then is the mens rea for fraud?

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:59:35 +0000

Absolutely astonishing. Reading through this post and the items to which you provided links, I kept thinking, “How on earth does a government spend $85 million on shiny widgets that are no more useful than dowsing rods?”

It turns out dowsing was exactly the “technology” that ATSC was promising. From the NYT article:

“The Times of London quoted Mr. McCormick in November as saying that the device’s technology was similar to that of dowsing or divining rods used to find water. ‘We have been dealing with doubters for 10 years,’ he said. ‘One of the problems we have is that the machine does look primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights.’”

Because when lives depend on a mumbo-jumbo piece of junk, flashing lights make all the difference.

By: ExportMan

ExportMan — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 15:06:13 +0000

If subject to the EAR, I would imagine that intent to export an item under 1A004.d without a license would constitute a violation (acting with knowledge that a license is required) however once you determined that the goods were not controlled under 1A004.d, the export, or intent to export, would not be controlled. What did you know and when did you know it?

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 13:16:29 +0000

Excellent point, David. The control probably should have read “electro-statically powered equipment claimed to be capable of detecting explosives.” However, even in the present wording ATSC is in an awkward position. Could it defend against export charges by arguing that the devices don’t work?

By: David

David — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:05:13 +0000

Clif

the new control reads:
PL9006 The export of ‘electro-statically powered’ equipment for detecting “explosives”, other than detection equipment specified in Schedule 2 or in 1A004.d. in Annex I to “the dual-use Regulation”, is prohibited to any destination in Afghanistan or Iraq.
Technical note

‘Electro-statically powered’ means using electro-statically generated charge.”.

It is hard to see how the equipment described could be controlled by this entry. It appears that it is not “equipment for detecting explosives”. The Government cannot have it both ways: either it is “equipment for detecting explosives” and would now, but not at the time of the exports, require a licence for export to Iraq or Afghanistan, or it is not. Presumably, the apparent inability of the equipment to detect explosives form the basis of the fraud allegation.
If the equipment was capable of detecting explosives, where is the fraud?