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
participants (2)
-
jim bell -
Klaus E. vonEbel