Comments on: Sparky Stays Home

By: cs

cs — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:01:50 +0000

I also like this caveat that was thrown into the amendment of 742.7 (under crime control in ‘control policy’):

(d) U.S. controls. In maintaining its
controls on crime control and detection
items, the United States considers
international norms regarding human
rights and the practices of other
countries that control exports to
promote the observance of human
rights. However, these controls are not
based on the decisions of any
multinational export control regime and
may differ from controls imposed by
other countries.

International norms… like what? The Geneva Convention? Yeah, okay, we’ll *consider* it..

By: Clif Burns

Clif Burns — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:14:41 +0000

Isn’t this argument a bit absurd – if you took it seriously, wouldn’t it imply removing any system of nationally-imposed export controls? Military weapons are readily available abroad – does this mean we should get rid of the whole of ITAR?

No, because not everything on the ITAR is readily available abroad. For things on the list that are readily available, there are a number of people, myself included and probably many other readers here, who question whether they should remain on the list.

The Leuchter info is interesting. I’ll run that down, although it appears to deal with a company that didn’t export the devices and has been defunct for more than a decade. Again, though, if anyone has evidence of current exporters of this stuff, it would certainly strengthen BIS’s case for these controls, particularly if this was something a foreign government might have a hard time building on its own.

By: David

David — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:45:36 +0000

“they seem to be oblivious to the notion that the devices subject to these new controls are readily available abroad and that these controls will not have any impact on humans rights abuses by rogue states intent on doing bad things to their citizens or others who fall into their hands.”

Isn’t this argument a bit absurd – if you took it seriously, wouldn’t it imply removing any system of nationally-imposed export controls? Military weapons are readily available abroad – does this mean we should get rid of the whole of ITAR?

It seems to me the new CCL controls, for the most part, would cover specially-designed goods which *are* routinely exported from the US. The submissions to the BIS on the proposed rule change are interesting in this regard – at http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#docketDetail?R=BIS-2008-0005

For instance, according to the submission from Amnesty International USA, there has indeed been a commercial manufacturer of death penalty equipment in the US – they claim that “A Boston company, Fred A. Leuchter Associates Inc, claimed credibly to have supplied lethal injection execution systems to several US states on a commercial basis until its dissolution in October 1998″

By: Garrett T.

Garrett T. — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 12:19:15 +0000

Were these devices limited to those typically used on Humans or for example, would a cartridge powered captive bolt instrument be covered? Or any such device more typically applied to animals?

By: John Q. Citizen

John Q. Citizen — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:37:44 +0000

In its infinite wisdom, BIS forgot to include “parts and accessories, n.e.s.” or “specially designed components therefor” in the language of 0A981. But then again, maybe this was by design as a “stimulus package”. Those makers of OEM execution device parts need help just like any other industry.

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:47:02 +0000

Sorry. I didn’t mean to say “I doubt that’s not the kind…” But rather, “I doubt that’s the kind of water Mark is referring to.”

By: Chris W.

Chris W. — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:45:45 +0000

Heavy water is controlled under 0C004, though I doubt that’s not the kind of water Mark is referring to.

By: Jim Dickeson

Jim Dickeson — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:56:41 +0000

Ironic, isn’t it, that the U.S. chooses to restrict the the export of execution devices when it is one of the minority of countries still practicing the death penalty. Maybe it’s another of those of those Short Supply reasons for control.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:22:21 +0000

Thankfully, pine boards, towels and water will remain EAR99. Of course, even if controlled, under some circumstances they might qualify under license exception GOV.