From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 16:13:15 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
In-Reply-To: <199610031711.KAA25355@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961003165524.1737A-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote:
> 
> >> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996
> >> > >*   A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching
> >> > >*   of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this
> >> > >*   subchapter.
> >> > Okay, everybody, call Estes!  We've got some crypto to export...er...laun
> >> > ch!
> >> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient 
> >> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that 
> >> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag 
> >> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the 
> >> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?)
> >
> >The launching alone will not cause it to be an export.  If it is launched
> >and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export.  Certainly if it
> >is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export.
> 
> Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument.

I invite you to study law and with it the doctrine of "plain meaning."

> The wording was 
> clearly intended to be an exception to a rule.  What the wording doesn't 
> include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they 
> weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations.

They were thinking in enough detail here.  

Thankfully, along with the title political scientist, Mr. Bell also
never had a calling as an attorney.

"A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such
vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter."

Focus on "by reason of launching of such vehicle,"

Launching a vehicle alone is not export.  It takes more than launch to
make it an export.  More than the launching is not much.

If they wanted to be as inclusive as you would suggest, they would have
left out "by reason of launching of such vehicle." leaving "A launch
vehicle or payload shall not be considered an export for purposes of this
subchapter."

I do get tired of Mr. Bell's half baked attempts to derail any point I
might make.  I wouldn't find them annoying if they were based in anything
like fact rather than some innane and childish attempt to recover the
credibility he so sorely lost in trying to argue with me months ago.
My only regret is that I was so tolerant and patent that I bothered to
respond to most of his lunacy.

> But 
> if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the 
> regulation.  (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation 
> is "right" in its literal meaning.)

It is "right" in its literal meaning.  You, being anything but a
representative of the public, are wrong in intrepreting it.
 
> It appears that the government left a loophole so large that  you could 
> drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it.

One might say the same about the size of the hole in your logic and good
sense.  One would have the advantage of being more accurate in this
instance as well.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li