99 MAR 24
1250 hrs
Disclaimer: Here is the latest information that all of us has been trying to
discover, it details the who, what, when and why. However, it unverified by
cooberative evidence and it falls somewhere between hearsay and direct
testimony. The information came directly from a ranking official with the
State Dept.
WHY:
1. The problem of mil-veh importing was allegedly thrust into the forefront
with the seizure of a semi-operational scud missile at Port Hueneme in
California awhile back. This little "oops" was the call to action for some
who hate your mil-vehs. They (hateful band of peaceniks) took this issue to
the highest office where they were warmly received This animosity eventually
found its way to the State Dept. who bore the brunt of their frenzy and
criticism for this "horror."
They felt that State was responsible for arms trade and must act so that such
nasty offenses would never again be perpetrated upon the American
public...lol. Mind you, this is not a new theme, your foes have been stewing
over your toys for a long time. This Scud fiasco was just the break they
needed to make a case exploiting fears and rallying officials to their side.
HOW
2. Back at State a solution of sorts was found in two treaties involving NATO
countries. Namely the Arms Export Control Act, which several most of you have
already discovered and more specifically the Military Assistance Program
(MAP).
3. State wrote (under pressure, I might ad) a memo to BATF and requested BATF
more closely check the applications for mil-veh imports that may be in
violation of the said treaties. This was to be done via their BATF form 6.
This was a big CYA for STATE and a big unnecessary burden for BATF. BATF was
not happy with the new assignment.. not at all.
WHAT:
In the most simple of terms, STATE wanted BATF to help them do their job in
determining that nothing classed as significant military equipment (SME) of US
mfg. or made with US tax money, would be resold to 3rd parties without the
expressed written permission of the US government. (This part was told to you
two weeks by another MVPA member working in D.C., kudos' to him, he was right)
WHO:
The responsible party is The Office of Political and Military Affairs. They
generated the request that set off BATF. They are an arm of the Dept. of
State. Please understand this in their defense, to our knowledge NOBODY IN
STATE TOLD BATF TO STOP PROCESSING ANYTHING. If you have heard otherwise,
State denies this completely. They alleged they just requested a more in
depth knowledge of the kind of things that were coming into US ports so they
could cover their butts with regard to enforcing the treaties noted. That
was the sum and total of any legitimate action they could do and they knew
they could not exceed that authority to placate the peaceniks demanding an end
to mil-veh imports.
4. BATF did not react kindly to being told to do this. Their response was,
"OK, fine, then we just won't process anymore FORM 6's items. We will wait
until you have your problem resolved without your own house and we are not
going to play your game, it's simply NOT OUR PROBLEM!
5. Keep in mind State was only concerned about US made goods or goods made
with US money or things somehow related to NATO. Everything else was exempt,
only the BATF cast a big net in order to pressure STATE to back off.
6. STATE reacted by reviewing this policy and ultimately saying, "Hey BATF, I
don't think you guys can legally do that. We don't have any legal authority
to stop anything of non-treaty origins." (Duh! Isn't that what we've been
saying too?) Further, "If you keep this up we're going to have a serious PR
problem, if not legal jeopardy."
BATF's response to this concern was, "So what?" They feel STATE started it,
so until they say in writing to resume processing as usual, they will be
obstinate.
According to my source the phone at STATE has just started ringing each day
has been worse than the day before. The pressure is mounting to resolve this
issue quickly. My source said, "People are getting mad, Congressmen have been
calling trying to find out what is going on and demanding to know who is
responsible."
SOLUTION:
7. The STATE dept. drafted a memo just 3 working days ago and sent it up to
legal saying in as much, "I think we (State-BATF) have no legal right to do
this embargo, yada, yada.... we better comply with the law or face the
consequences." Legal agreed, cleaned up the language in the memo and then
kicked it upstairs for signatures by those in charge, M. Albright, et al.
8. Once this "rescinding memo" is signed it goes back down the chain of
command at STATE and then finally over to BATF. BATF will then gladly begin
anew with processing forms as usual. This may take a week or two, but just
know it's almost at an end.. according to the State Official I spoke with.
I know this has been a terrible ordeal and a great concern to many of you. It
was clearly an abuse of authority, which no US citizen should tolerate!
Thank goodness many of you realized early on how important this issue was and
made enough noise to fix it. You were responsible citizens, demanding an
equally responsible, accountable government. For those who refused to take
part or worse, got annoyed at all the e-mail on this subject, you were wrong
and you owe a debt to those who stood up for you. I hope we shall keep the
political pressure on until we've seen the promised changes enacted.
===
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>.