Comments on: Blackwater Order Not As Bad As It Sounds http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/438 Latest News on DDTC, BIS, OFAC, and other export law matters Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:06:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Another Humble Supplicant http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/438/comment-page-1#comment-21243 Another Humble Supplicant Mon, 22 Dec 2008 19:57:23 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=438#comment-21243 I see another message to industry also. Some defense companies trick themselves into believing that they are "too important" to lose their exporting privileges (they also trick themselves into believing that exporting is a "right"). Since they are "too important" to lose exporting privileges they keep playing fast and loose. This case shows that DDTC can spoil your day in a multitude of ways, and in varying degrees if you violate the ITAR. DDTC can take away a lot, or take away bits. It is better to comply and then you get to keep all of your options. I see another message to industry also. Some defense companies trick themselves into believing that they are “too important” to lose their exporting privileges (they also trick themselves into believing that exporting is a “right”). Since they are “too important” to lose exporting privileges they keep playing fast and loose. This case shows that DDTC can spoil your day in a multitude of ways, and in varying degrees if you violate the ITAR. DDTC can take away a lot, or take away bits. It is better to comply and then you get to keep all of your options.

]]> By: John P. http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/438/comment-page-1#comment-21234 John P. Sat, 20 Dec 2008 02:06:33 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=438#comment-21234 I view DDTC enforcement interventions in any form as messages to industry--like painful Aesop's Fables complete with a "moral." And a strong message I take from this is that if you play fast and loose with regulatory requirements, DDTC will show you just how burdensome the paperwork and procedures really can be. By the way, I'm not aware of any specific incident(s) underlying this matter, but some press accounts and coverage of the company--including coverage on this blog--suggest a somewhat cavalier attitude about regulatory requirements. Jumping through additional hoops will undoubtedly add significant time and expense to the company's operations, and serve as a whack across the nose, as well as an example for others. At the end of the day, it's DDTC's world...we just live in it.... On the plus side, I know one of the company's relatively recent hires -- a former ODTC agreement officer. So I imagine they'll do just fine in the long run. Finally, it seems to me that DDTC is mixing it up a little and signaling its willingness to try other tools in its enforcement arsenal. Just a few cent's worth.... I view DDTC enforcement interventions in any form as messages to industry–like painful Aesop’s Fables complete with a “moral.” And a strong message I take from this is that if you play fast and loose with regulatory requirements, DDTC will show you just how burdensome the paperwork and procedures really can be. By the way, I’m not aware of any specific incident(s) underlying this matter, but some press accounts and coverage of the company–including coverage on this blog–suggest a somewhat cavalier attitude about regulatory requirements.

Jumping through additional hoops will undoubtedly add significant time and expense to the company’s operations, and serve as a whack across the nose, as well as an example for others.

At the end of the day, it’s DDTC’s world…we just live in it….

On the plus side, I know one of the company’s relatively recent hires — a former ODTC agreement officer. So I imagine they’ll do just fine in the long run.

Finally, it seems to me that DDTC is mixing it up a little and signaling its willingness to try other tools in its enforcement arsenal.

Just a few cent’s worth….

]]> By: Mike Deal http://www.exportlawblog.com/archives/438/comment-page-1#comment-21233 Mike Deal Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:39:02 +0000 http://www.exportlawblog.com/?p=438#comment-21233 Under traditional maritime law, any ship could assist another ship under attack by pirates (as opposed to ships under attack by a flagged naval vessel of a sovereign state). Blackwater's founders were mostly SEALs, so they may be uniquely qualified to assist ships under pirate attack, especially given the present operational tempo in both theaters for the special operations community that keeps all US spec ops troops fully utilized. It is sad to see DDTC taking this measure against a company that performs so many necessary services that NATO can't or won't perform with uniformed armed forces. Couldn't DDTC just fine them and let them go under a Consent Agreement like they do with so many big aerospace contractors that violate ITAR? Under traditional maritime law, any ship could assist another ship under attack by pirates (as opposed to ships under attack by a flagged naval vessel of a sovereign state). Blackwater’s founders were mostly SEALs, so they may be uniquely qualified to assist ships under pirate attack, especially given the present operational tempo in both theaters for the special operations community that keeps all US spec ops troops fully utilized. It is sad to see DDTC taking this measure against a company that performs so many necessary services that NATO can’t or won’t perform with uniformed armed forces. Couldn’t DDTC just fine them and let them go under a Consent Agreement like they do with so many big aerospace contractors that violate ITAR?

]]>