Thai Court To Rule Friday On Russian Arms Dealer Viktor Bout

[webfact]

Thai court to rule Friday on Russian 'arms dealer': lawyer

BANGKOK (AFP) -- A Thai appeals court will make a final ruling Friday on whether to extradite alleged Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout to the United States on terrorism charges, his lawyer said.

Bout, said to have inspired the Hollywood film "Lord of War" starring Nicolas Cage, has been fighting extradition since his March 2008 arrest in Bangkok on charges of peddling weapons around the world, including to Al-Qaeda.

"I have been informed by officials that the court will make a ruling this Friday," his attorney, Lak Nittiwattanawichan, said Wednesday.

"Whatever the decision is, we will respect it."

A Thai criminal court last August rejected a US request to extradite the man dubbed the "Merchant of Death", saying it did not have the authorities to punish foreigners for their actions against other foreigners overseas.

Bout, who has been held at a maximum-security prison outside Bangkok, has denied the charges and says that he ran a legitimate air cargo business.

He faces life in prison if sent to the United States and convicted there on terrorism charges, including conspiracy to kill US officers or employees and conspiracy to acquire and use an anti-aircraft missile.

A US indictment accuses Bout of using a fleet of cargo planes to transport weapons and military equipment to Africa, South America and the Middle East.

During an undercover operation, Bout allegedly agreed to supply surface-to-air missiles to US anti-drug agents posing as rebels from Colombia's Marxist FARC group, which Washington considers a terrorist organisation.

The 43-year-old former Soviet air force pilot speaks six languages and is known by eight different aliases.

The nickname "Merchant of Death" was coined by a former British foreign office minister and also used for a 2007 book on Bout's alleged activities.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2010-08-18

[TAWP]

He is not fighting charges of supplying Al Qaeda and afaik has denied ever being involved with them in any trade.

He is accused of meeting American agents pretending to be members of an guerrilla Washington DC has labeled a 'terrorist organization', therefor claims he can be charged with supplying arms used to kill Americans, even thou any arms was ever delivered nor would they ever be used against Americans as the gentlemen in question was not members of FARC...

Next up, all car-dealers are charged on conspiracy to commit murder as they supply cars that are deemed lethal weapons if used with intent to kill.

[slapout]

The US does seem to have a law which pertains to most everything. If no law, then create circumstances where the individual can be accused of aiding/joining some group of people, judged to be terrorists. We have all noted how the term 'terrorist' is being bandied around, fairly indiscriminately.

[judgedredd]

The case of Victor Bout intrigues many of us in Thailand.

It would seem that the American DEA team created a specific crime, which would not have otherwise existed, and enticed Victor Bout to participate in that crime. In America, that would constitute "illegal entrapment". I wonder if the Thai Government gave permission for America to create a crime on Thai soil? Or, did the American DEA act without Thailand's permission, and did America thus violate Thailand's sovereignty with the act of illegal entrapment?

Further, I find that the entire concept of unilaterally-declared "universal jurisdiction" is illegal and unworkable. What I want to know is, whose laws take precedence? For example, taking it closer to America, if Mexico claimed that Mexican law applied in Texas, and if America claimed that Texas law applied in Mexico, the result would be a war, (after which the victor would impose its own laws on the vanquished).

My point is, under what internationally-accepted law does America claim universal worldwide jurisdiction? American agents engineered the arrest of a Russian citizen on Thai soil, who had committed no crime in Thailand. Has Thailand ceded its sovereignty to the American FBI/CIA/DHS/DEA?

Perhaps Victor Bout has participated in some "international business" in his life, but closer to home for the rest of us here in Thailand, perhaps American agents are breaking Thai law every time that they send their agents snooping about here in Thailand.

I personally would like to see this case resolved with Victor Bout freed and allowed to go back home to Russia. I would like to see a Thai Judge rule that the American agents had no right to create a crime in Thailand.

The entire Victor Bout case really smells to anyone who has ever sought a safe, and presumably "neutral" location to discuss international business transactions of any sort, and this case doesn't help Thailand's image.

Just my opinion.

Judge Dredd

Edited August 18, 2010 by judgedredd

[bagheera]

The case of Victor Bout intrigues many of us in Thailand.

It would seem that the American DEA team created a specific crime, which would not have otherwise existed, and enticed Victor Bout to participate in that crime. In America, that would constitute "illegal entrapment". I wonder if the Thai Government gave permission for America to create a crime on Thai soil? Or, did the American DEA act without Thailand's permission, and did America thus violate Thailand's sovereignty with the act of illegal entrapment?

Further, I find that the entire concept of unilaterally-declared "universal jurisdiction" is illegal and unworkable. What I want to know is, whose laws take precedence? For example, taking it closer to America, if Mexico claimed that Mexican law applied in Texas, and if America claimed that Texas law applied in Mexico, the result would be a war, (after which the victor would impose its own laws on the vanquished).

My point is, under what internationally-accepted law does America claim universal worldwide jurisdiction? American agents engineered the arrest of a Russian citizen on Thai soil, who had committed no crime in Thailand. Has Thailand ceded its sovereignty to the American FBI/CIA/DHS/DEA?

Perhaps Victor Bout has participated in some "international business" in his life, but closer to home for the rest of us here in Thailand, perhaps American agents are breaking Thai law every time that they send their agents snooping about here in Thailand.

I personally would like to see this case resolved with Victor Bout freed and allowed to go back home to Russia. I would like to see a Thai Judge rule that the American agents had no right to create a crime in Thailand.

The entire Victor Bout case really smells to anyone who has ever sought a safe, and presumably "neutral" location to discuss international business transactions of any sort, and this case doesn't help Thailand's image.

Just my opinion.

Judge Dredd

The D.E.A. have to work together with Thai police as an American D.E.A. agent has no power of arrest and is also forbidden to carry a gun, so my guess is, yes, they did have permission of the Thai police.

[bagheera]

The case of Victor Bout intrigues many of us in Thailand.

It would seem that the American DEA team created a specific crime, which would not have otherwise existed, and enticed Victor Bout to participate in that crime. In America, that would constitute "illegal entrapment". I wonder if the Thai Government gave permission for America to create a crime on Thai soil? Or, did the American DEA act without Thailand's permission, and did America thus violate Thailand's sovereignty with the act of illegal entrapment?

Further, I find that the entire concept of unilaterally-declared "universal jurisdiction" is illegal and unworkable. What I want to know is, whose laws take precedence? For example, taking it closer to America, if Mexico claimed that Mexican law applied in Texas, and if America claimed that Texas law applied in Mexico, the result would be a war, (after which the victor would impose its own laws on the vanquished).

My point is, under what internationally-accepted law does America claim universal worldwide jurisdiction? American agents engineered the arrest of a Russian citizen on Thai soil, who had committed no crime in Thailand. Has Thailand ceded its sovereignty to the American FBI/CIA/DHS/DEA?

Perhaps Victor Bout has participated in some "international business" in his life, but closer to home for the rest of us here in Thailand, perhaps American agents are breaking Thai law every time that they send their agents snooping about here in Thailand.

I personally would like to see this case resolved with Victor Bout freed and allowed to go back home to Russia. I would like to see a Thai Judge rule that the American agents had no right to create a crime in Thailand.

The entire Victor Bout case really smells to anyone who has ever sought a safe, and presumably "neutral" location to discuss international business transactions of any sort, and this case doesn't help Thailand's image.

Just my opinion.

Judge Dredd

The D.E.A. have to work together with Thai police as an American D.E.A. agent has no power of arrest and is also forbidden to carry a gun, so my guess is, yes, they did have permission of the Thai police.

An American DEA agent has no power of arrest in Thailand is what i meant

[surangw]

they probably want him out of the business, cuts down on the u.s. arms business sales

[Pria]

After the way the US administration turned a blind eye to the murder on Bangkok streets in April and May I am sure they will get there man. As proven numerous times in the past, if America wants something or someone they don't care what they have to do or who gets stomped on in the process - which is why they need to cower like dogs inside their embassy fortresses all around the world.

[mausplan]

Khun Pria "After the way the US administration turned a blind eye to the murder on Bangkok streets in April and May I am sure they will get there man."

Which murders are you referring to. Is it the death of Colonel Rom Klao or the Japanese Journalist reportedly shot in the back while advancing towards the soldiers or the lady killed by the M79 grenade or the policeman killed by the bomb or the unarmed solider shot at the Din Daeng intersection or someone else.

[Caliguy]

All of this American bashing....is it because we can own 100% of our businesses in Thailand? Awwwww.

[siamjimi]

He is not fighting charges of supplying Al Qaeda and afaik has denied ever being involved with them in any trade.

He is accused of meeting American agents pretending to be members of an guerrilla Washington DC has labeled a 'terrorist organization', therefor claims he can be charged with supplying arms used to kill Americans, even thou any arms was ever delivered nor would they ever be used against Americans as the gentlemen in question was not members of FARC...

Next up, all car-dealers are charged on conspiracy to commit murder as they supply cars that are deemed lethal weapons if used with intent to kill.

What rock have you been living under - if the people you sell the car to have been proven to be killers by car - and you were informed before the sale - then your darn right - prosecute

thats like saying you blame Burger king for making you fat but not the meat supplier - Eeeeeeeeeeee -

are we suppose to let them continue to operate worldwide and hand guns to radicals and look the other way - knowing all the while we can prevent them by capturing them

How else are the gun runners of this world going to be caught - by setting up a meeting with DEA or ATF - come-on

[animatic]

A 'Sting Operation' is perfectly legal, IF the target voluntarily incriminates himself

and isn't 'offered a criminal act' and agress to it. They must actively create the situation.

If the people they believe they are offering a 'service or action' to, are not who they say they are,

that does not invalidate the targets words and actions he commenced himself.

And a car while it can kill is not solely an weapon of war as a surface to air missile would be.

Not to mention car's generally can't be used to shoot down an airliner with 350 people on board.

A butter knife can kill in a maniacs hands, but not likely on a mass scale.

2¢

[asiawatcher]

After the way the US administration turned a blind eye to the murder on Bangkok streets in April and May I am sure they will get there man. As proven numerous times in the past, if America wants something or someone they don't care what they have to do or who gets stomped on in the process - which is why they need to cower like dogs inside their embassy fortresses all around the world.

Give this guy a powder? He is off topic...

[Neonben]

And so America should also be charged with supplying weapons to Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan back in the day, wishful thinking.

[farangtopper1]

they probably want him out of the business, cuts down on the u.s. arms business sales

Yes i agree America is hypocryt. They are 1 of the biggest arms dealers of the world. They are fighting is the most recent wars against there own arms.

Who in the world says who can deal in arms and who not. I not agree with arms dealing but all major countries do it. America , Russia, China, France, England etc.

Maybe he was not the best person in the world but there are more private arms dealers. Why do they pick on him.

America already tried the al capone trick also that Viktor Bout did not pay tax.

I hope he will be free. I also hope he will stay in Russia for the rest of his live.

[ChiangMaiThai]

The US does seem to have a law which pertains to most everything. If no law, then create circumstances where the individual can be accused of aiding/joining some group of people, judged to be terrorists. We have all noted how the term 'terrorist' is being bandied around, fairly indiscriminately.

Yes, they came up with it and called it "conspiracy". Now they can arrest you for just about anything. On another note, US prosecutors are some of the worst people out there. Their success is judged on the severity of the sentence and their conviction ratio. They don't care about the truth. Google the news stories about US attorneys fighting against new DNA evidence being admitted in court for cases where a prison sentence has already been handed down. "Because the families of the victims deserve closure"