Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision

At 02:05 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>Alas, a common fallacy.
>
>You have committed a prohibited export when the stuff lands outside the
>USA....It's not illegal when it goes up ("by reason of the launching" and,
>e.g. *stays up* in orbit)  but it is illegal when it comes down abroad. 

Sure about that?  The regulation said something like "launch vehicle" or 
"launch," apparently indicating that a "launch vehicle" could actually be 
exported, THEN launched, etc, without violating ITAR.  And since the 
regulation does not go into any detail about the "launch", other than it is 
a "launch" (and does not explicitly prohibit landing subsequent to launch) 
the implication is that there is no prohibition.

I still think the regulation was just written sloppily.   

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 02:05 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
> >Alas, a common fallacy.
> >
> >You have committed a prohibited export when the stuff lands outside the
> >USA....It's not illegal when it goes up ("by reason of the launching" and,
> >e.g. *stays up* in orbit)  but it is illegal when it comes down abroad. 
> 
> Sure about that?  The regulation said something like "launch vehicle" or 
> "launch," apparently indicating that a "launch vehicle" could actually be 
> exported, THEN launched, etc, without violating ITAR.  And since the 
> regulation does not go into any detail about the "launch", other than it is 
> a "launch" (and does not explicitly prohibit landing subsequent to launch) 
> the implication is that there is no prohibition.
> 
> I still think the regulation was just written sloppily.   

Thankfully, you're not an attorney.

> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

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