Archive for the ‘Arms Export’ Category


Mar

10

Ahmadinejad Opponent Sentenced in U.S. for Plot to Export Uzis to Iran


Posted by at 7:30 pm on March 10, 2008
Category: Arms ExportCriminal PenaltiesIran Sanctions

Israeli Soldier with UziSeyed Mostafa Maghloubi, an American citizen of Iranian origin, was sentenced today to three years and five months in connection with his attempt to export night vision goggles and up to 10,000 Uzis to Iranian government officials opposed to the current regime of current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Maghloubi previously pleaded guilty to this offense in August 2007. Maghloubi had been apprehended in a sting operation during which a Los Angeles detective pretended to be an arms dealer.

The sentence may seem light, and it might be easy to attribute this to the fact that the weapons were destined to opposition groups in Iran. U.S. District Court Judge George King, who sentenced Maghloubi, dismissed any notion that the sentence should have been, or was, mitigated based on the intended recipients of the weapons. According to Judge King, Maghloubi’s actions might have resulted in “actually destabilizing an area of the world that has suffered enough from continuing upheaval.” King said while Maghloubi’s motivations were not anti-American, it was the job of the government, not U.S. citizens, to pursue foreign policy.

[Thanks, Linda, for the tip!]

Permalink Comments Off on Ahmadinejad Opponent Sentenced in U.S. for Plot to Export Uzis to Iran

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Jan

15

U.S. and Canada Differ on More than the Spelling of “Defense”


Posted by at 7:54 pm on January 15, 2008
Category: Arms ExportDDTC

Maxime Bernier
Canadian Foreign Minister
Maxime Bernier


An article in today’s Toronto-based Globe and Mail uses the occasion of the recent visit of Canadian Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier to Washington to see his U.S. counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, as an opportunity to comment on disagreements between the two countries on defense trade and export controls. As reported previously on this blog, a major bone of contention between the U.S. and Canada is over Canada’s legal prohibition against nationality-based discrimination and the U.S. refusal to permit transfer of defense technology to Canadians who are dual-nationals of countries subject to U.S. arms embargo, such as China and Syria.

According to the article:

[Canadian] officials have said recently that a solution is not imminent, although they insist they want a deal. And Public Works Minister Michael Fortier, who met U.S. procurement officials in Washington last week and is now the designated point man in negotiations with Washington, won’t discuss the status of the file. Nor did he meet anyone at the State Department, which administers the contentious U.S. export controls.

The article posits two reasons that an agreement over this issue with Canada languishes while the United States has entered into agreements with the United Kingdom and Australia which would ease transfer of technical data to individuals and entities in those countries. First, the article quotes a Virginia-based “trade consultant” who said that

Canada doesn’t have a deal yet because it’s resisting concessions made by the British and the Australians. She pointed out that both those countries agreed to aggressively prosecute violators of the technology-sharing deals, most notably by applying domestic Official Secrets laws.

The second reason cited by the article is this:

Unlike the Aussies and the Brits, Canada buys relatively little of what U.S. military suppliers produce.

I’m not entirely convinced that these are reasons that the U.S. and Canada can’t see eye to eye over the dual national issue. The U.S.-U.K. Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty leaves open the criteria for determining what companies will be within the approved “community” of companies eligible for transfers with export licenses. It would not be surprising if those criteria require agreements by such companies not to transfer defense technologies to dual-nationals of countries subject to an arms embargo. If that’s the case, Canada can’t expect different treatment of dual nationals even if it increases its defense spending in the U.S. or agrees to cover re-exports of non-classified technical data under Canadian laws relating to official secrets or classified data.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2008 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Nov

9

Federal Judge Tosses Export Prosecution After Trial


Posted by at 12:52 pm on November 9, 2007
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Blackhawk HelicopterU.S. District Court Judge Inge P. Johnson, after a seven day bench trial, recently dismissed six felony charges against Alexander Latifi, a defense contractor from Huntsville, Alabama. The judge ruled that the prosecution failed to carry its burden of proof. Based on news accounts of the decision, it is likely that the judge’s decision was swayed by the revelation that the prosecution’s chief witness, a former employee of Latifi named Elizabeth Lemay, pleaded guilty to embezzling money from Latifi and admitted on the stand that before she left Latifi’s company she sabotaged company computers and destroyed the purchase order system.

Latifi’s company Axion had been awarded a contract by Sikorsky to produce a bifilar weight assembly which is used in a rotor in the steering system of the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter. According to a report in the Huntsville News, Lemay testified that Lafiti needed to find a supplier for tungsten used in the weight assembly.

Eventually, Latifi contacted a man in California named Ming Hwong, the representative of a Chinese tungsten supplier, ECO-Tungsten, Lemay testified. Latifi and Ming Hwong traded numerous correspondence by e-mail and telephone, she said.

Then, an ECO-Tungsten representative named Ding Dong, entered the picture via e-mail and by telephone, Lemay testified. Eventually, Latifi ordered her to send technical drawings of the bifilar weight assembly to Ding Dong at ECO-Tungsten in China.

The defense claimed that Latifi never directed Lemay to send the drawings at issue and sought to impeach her testimony:

Latifi’s lawyer, Henry Froshin of Birmingham, engaged Lemay in a heated cross-examination about why she was lying about his client.

“Were you trying to cover up your own forgery and theft?” he asked.

“No,” she said.

According to Froshin and court records, Lemay pleaded guilty in 2005 to forging 15 Axion company checks totaling $12,730. Latifi fired Lemay on February 2004. A Madison County judge suspended a three-year prison sentence and placed her on probation for four years.

While she was stealing Axion’s money, Lemay was feeding information to federal agents, Froshin said.

She admitted that she did not tell federal agents about the theft. She also said she neglected to tell the grand jury.

And with those admissions I think we can safely say that Lemay and the prosecution’s case crashed and burned.

Defense counsel also told the Huntsville News that they opted for a bench trial rather than a jury trial because Latifi was born in Iran and, given the current state of relations between the United States and Iran, might not be favorably viewed by a jury.

Permalink Comments (2)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Oct

17

Breaking Stupid Criminal News


Posted by at 11:39 am on October 17, 2007
Category: Arms ExportCriminal Penalties

Leupold ScopeA friend of mine, a former policeman who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, used to say that the easiest thing about being a cop was that most criminals are really, really stupid. Case in point: Doli Syarief Pulungan.

Mr. Pulungan, an Indonesian national, was indicted last week for attempting to export Leupold Mark 4 CQ/T rifle scopes to Indonesia without a license. Now comes the stupid:

Pulungan is accused of approaching Norwalk-Wilton Police Chief Steve Kaczik on Sept. 26, saying he wanted to buy 100 rifle scopes for $1,000 each, about $300 above list price, and then ship them overseas.

Another news report indicates that Pulungan requested Kaczik “not to tell the company the scopes were going to Indonesia.”

Going to a police chief to buy these scopes and then asking him not to tell the company what they were for is about as bad as reporting your stolen marijuana to the local constabulary. Or writing a robbery demand note on the back of your latest pay stub.

Kaczik, not surprisingly, notified the FBI and the rest, as they say, is history.

Permalink Comments (5)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)

Sep

18

Ninth Circuit Bulldozes the Arms Export Control Act


Posted by at 2:20 pm on September 18, 2007
Category: Arms Export

DoobiYesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed against Caterpillar by relatives who had been injured when Caterpillar D9 bulldozers were used to demolish homes in the Palestinian Territories. The court ruled that, because of the foreign policy issues implicated by the case, the complaint was subject to the political question doctrine and therefore not justiciable, i.e. not within any court’s jurisdiction.

This ruling was premised on the court’s finding that all the bulldozers had been sold to Israel under the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. According to the court:

[T]hese sales were financed by the executive branch pursuant to a congressionally enacted program calling for executive discretion as to what lies in the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. See 22 U.S.C. § 2751 (stating that the purpose of the Arms Export Control Act, which authorizes the FMF program, is to support “effective and mutually beneficial defense relationships in order to maintain and foster the environment of international peace and security essential to social, economic, and political progress”).

Now this might make sense if Caterpillar manufactured an armored or military spec version of the D9 bulldozer. But it doesn’t. The Israeli Army customizes the civilian D9 to its own military specifications and then ironically renames these armored behemoths “Doobi” (Hebrew: דובי‎; lit. teddy bear). In fact, the U.S. Army has purchased armor kits from the IDF to convert D9s for use in Iraq.

The point of this is that Section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act, which authorizes the FMF program, only covers procurement of defense articles and services. If the D9 bulldozer is not a defense article, then the Ninth Circuit’s reliance on the AECA as a justification for finding that the law suit presents non-justiciable questions of foreign policy is misplaced. And if an unmodified D9 is now considered a defense article, it can’t be exported without a license under section 38 of the AECA, a conclusion that the folks at Caterpillar might find somewhat inconvenient. The Ninth Circuit, however, never looked behind the U.S. Government’s suspect decision to sell these items under the FMF program and, therefore, never saw this possible dilemma.

Permalink Comments (6)

Bookmark and Share


Copyright © 2007 Clif Burns. All Rights Reserved.
(No republication, syndication or use permitted without my consent.)