"Perry E. Metzger" writes: : I am starting to have trouble believing you are a lawyer. Are you : actually telling me that treaties which explicitly indemnify : transshipment customers against local laws are superceeded by lower : level laws, in spite of the supremecy clause of the constitution? That : might be what the state department would tell you, but I'd have : trouble believing even a lobotomized mongoloid judge would let that : stand. Treaties are treaties, period. What I am telling you, if you would pay attention, is that there is no transhipment involved. The violation of the ITAR consists of disclosing information, not shipment. And that is pretty clearly unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with any treaties--certainly nothing to do with treaties about transhipment. If a Frenchman on vacation in the Riviera shows a copy of PGP sourcecode to a German businessman there, that is literally a violation of the ITAR. If the disclosure is made by sending a copy of the software from one hotel room to another, and if that message happens to get routed through the United States, that is still a violation. The fact that the message went through the United States is irrelevant. Don't expect the ITAR to make any sense. And don't think that you can apply logic to the ITAR and get logical results. It doesn't work that way. -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu