-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
As I see it, the most important issue is not the legal status of the one actually doing the export/mailing, but in fact the organization which is the recipient and thus, the beneficiary of this act. _THAT_ organization will be well-identified, yet will not have done anything obviously illegal. Is there any indication that Baker was trying to distinguish between the one physically mailing it, and those receiving it?
Yup. He was speaking only of the US company. As you mentioned, odds of anyone getting caught are fairly low in many cases, but even lower for anyone outside the US. The odds the US would go after a foreign company would seem pretty remote, unless based in a country that strongly suppported US policy. The UK comes to mind, but few others. I'll leave it others to decide who else should be on that list. Will -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMebLF0cByjT5n+LZAQF3Owf5AbJCUK/9sbaUGDVV4eZcqggSuOgH+ubr fbx3W7HXaXcAlqvATFRt+mw5h6GMubNrRCC+Ka6CJYC60QESWnHCw8/XX000I2UQ ucBwRMTID+KZuNHN9vD4/hE+JBLkWDQyu2S4IDWkCR0+7UJDFQQ9z3kSVmqgczlB jGyOtUwVpNHETg0yGreuQVCMz6gzxX1eZf0Hv38BJQqD8ROOLVCmYC1grRlrltRV VJqRohsVustzqgu35OoKKzZES3hJxqvmXaNHIDMKhZmnbeHiZeAKs0tQ9hJz7Znp oNAGcwIugB7S7mANIr6bd0EPHiljOP2Ipe13LgMAtkhidipTDQgtRQ== =6+G6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----