Thanks for posting those reply letters. I read them and have a little
constructive critisism. Please note, this is not directed at you, but
rather at the masterful way that these government people reply to you
without replyng to you.
>..... Since the State Department has the final authority on this matter,
No, the State Dept does not have final authority on anything.
>there is little else that I can do at this time."
Typical, passing the buck reply.
>As you know, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) generally prohibits the
>return to, or sale in, the United States of U.S.-origin military equipment
>furnished to foreign governments under the AECA or any other U.S. foreign
>assistance or sales program.
OK, it says "generally", that means it's not an absolute!
>Furthermore, at times, a law requiring the United States Government to
>collect the net proceeds on U.S. supplied defense articles may come into
>play.
Not sure what this means, are they saying they (the Fed's) want to be
compensated for the items that were given or sold to a foriegn entity? Or
perhaps they (the Fed's) want a cut of any financial gain from that foreign
entity selling the assets that we gave/sold them?
In either case it seems plenty fair to me to have the purchaser or the
importer pay back the US whatever the current book value of the item is, or
pay some tax based on it's current value. If this would solve the problem
for all concerned, then why not? Not to mention the posative effect of
waiving money in front of a politicians nose.
> In light of this law, as well as important policy concerns such as
>those relating to controlling the end use and retransfer of such articles,
What authority does the state dept have to 'control the end use' of a truck?
>the State Department, in accordance with a policy developed in 1987
Ah Ha, it's a policy that they developed, I don't see statute, law or code
mentioned here!
>regarding the import of U.S.-origin defense articles, has generally advised
>the Treasury Department Dept.
What's this.... "generally advised" , we just heard earlier that the State
Dept had "Final Authority"
> to deny import licensing for such U.S.-origin
>significant military equipment to private parties.
OK, so if the Treasury Dept is involved then it must be a taxation issue.
Offer to pay import duties on the stuff then. Also, I do not concider a
truck or jeep a 'significant military equipment'.
>It bears mentioning that this long-standing State Department regulatory
>policy has been recently upheld in Federal Court.
"Long Standing".... they just said they said they developed the policy in
1987! And as far as the 'upheld in federal court' argument, that doesn't
hold much value anymore (e.g. civil property siezure).
I've seen enough of this finger pointing stuff from my efforts with the Mutt
mutilation thing thru the 80's that I am not surprised at all to see it
here. The current 'Supply Line' just came and in the article covering the
board meeting they mentioned something about this issue. They mentioned a
number of other organisations that are involved. Seems that the best thing
for now is to pressure the MVPA to get more involved, and link up with some
of these other groups.
Later,
je
===
To unsubscribe from the mil-veh mailing list, send the single word
UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of a message to <mil-veh-request@skylee.com>.