Viktor Bout's Extradition Is A Big Relief For Thai Authorities

[jdinasia]

No the 2 cases I put forward are 2 jurisdiction arrests, just the same as Victor Bout. One sovereign nation making an arrest and then extraditing to another sovereign nation. No third country involved.

edit to add ----

The nationality of the person being extradited is not an issue. Even as a tourist you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and not the laws of your home country.

There is a reason that people wanted in one country run to a country that does not have an extradition treaty with the country they are wanted in

Edited November 18, 2010 by jdinasia

[asiawatcher]

Does anyone other than gunrunners, Russians and politicians care anything about VB? Let it rest, he's gone now and the US will do its usual water-boarding or some such and who really cares?

[carenot]

Does anyone other than gunrunners, Russians and politicians care anything about VB? Let it rest, he's gone now and the US will do its usual water-boarding or some such and who really cares?

I agree who really cares, one of the annoying political pricks/countries would have eventually got there hands on him, maybe he'll be traded in !!

[Ulysses G.]

Are you that ill-informed LaoPo? the Royal Thai police working with US Federal agents nailed Bout. The US Federal agents, having no jurisdiction to arrest Bout in Thailand left that to the proper authorities. (namely the Royal Thai Police)

Of course I'm not ill-informed.

But not beyond some serious hair splitting.

[SomTumTiger]

Who would have thought that a Russian arms trafficker would stir up so much angst among the "beer bar" set...

[LomSak27]

Viktor was a cash cow, but all good things come to an end.

Pump and Dump.

[bangkokrick]

American justice at it's best.

'Alla Bout also said her husband and the family had been offered political asylum in the US if Mr Bout was willing to disclose information about international arms trafficking.'

A fully expected offer of freedom for an allegedly very bad man.

Rick

[Richard W]

Bout was arrested legally in Thailand based on him breaking US law (and probably Thai law, and international law).

Bout was not breaking Thai law. Or does US criminal law automatically apply to foreigners in Thailand?

You can argue against the US law, but you can't argue against the arrest and extradition of Bout.

BOYCOTT THAILAND! IT IS NO SAFER THAN THE US!

It is illegal under US law to conspire to murder US citizens and provide material resources to terrorist organizations whether the offence is committed in the US or elsewhere.

Can you reassure me that it is not illegal under US law to target nuclear weapons against US cities? (Britons, Russians and Chinese may all be called upon to do this legally in their own countries.)

Can you reassure me that it is not illegal under US law to spy against the US? That would appear to include Russians passing one another copies of classified US documents not released to Russia.

Can you assure me that if a US company contracts to supply source code for an application to a foreign entity, and the US government insists that they supply object code instead, that it is not illegal under US law for the non-US agents of the foreign entity to disassemble (and indeed decompile) the object code in their home country?

And how about a conspiracy to disassemble commercial code from the USA contrary to the EULA? Such disassembly may be perfectly legal under EU law.

Can you assure me that is not illegal under US law for employees to receive bonus shares in a company that wins contracts by bribery. (Swedes should take note of this one!) As far as I can make out, receiving those shares makes one guilty of racketeering.

The nationality of the person being extradited is not an issue. Even as a tourist you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and not the laws of your home country.

Why is Bout subject to the laws of the USA?

[mark45y]

Answer to Richard W. "Why is Bout subject to USA laws?"

The ATF was investigating sales of $240,000 worth of night vision scopes and paramilitary gear from a small sporting goods store in Pennsylvania, and discovered that the items had been illegally shipped to a company that is controlled by an elite Russian intelligence counterterrorism group. The money was paid through a Bulgarian holding company controlled by Bout.

Peter Hain, then the British Foreign Office minister responsible for Africa, stood in Parliament in 2000 to lash out against those violating U.N. arms sanctions. He singled out Bout, dubbing him Africa’s “merchant of death.”

U.S. spy satellites have photographed his airplanes loading crates of weapons on remote airstrips in Africa. American and British intelligence officials have eavesdropped on his telephone conversations. Interpol has issued a “red notice,” requesting his arrest on Belgian weapons trafficking and money-laundering charges.

The GRU gave him three airplanes to start the business,” said one European associate who knew Bout in Russia and worked with him in Africa. “He had finished language school, but he had learned to fly. The planes, countless numbers of them, were sitting there doing nothing. They decided, let’s make this commercial. They gave Viktor the aircraft and in exchange collected a part of the charter money.”

Bout’s initial stock in trade was the supply of guns and ammunition abandoned in arsenals around the former Soviet bloc. Many had airstrips built inside their compounds, making loading easy. Guards were often unpaid and their commanders were willing to sell the weapons for a fraction of the market value. This availability of weapons was married to an instant clientele of former Soviet clients, unstable governments, dictators, warlords, and guerilla armies clamoring for steady supplies across Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

It is strictly my personal opinion but I think the US did it as a favor to the Brits.

The British special forces tried to arrest him in Greece and failed and asked the Yanks for a helping hand and the DEA sting operation in Thailand was the result. Purely my speculation of course.

[Richard W]

The ATF was investigating sales of $240,000 worth of night vision scopes and paramilitary gear from a small sporting goods store in Pennsylvania, and discovered that the items had been illegally shipped to a company that is controlled by an elite Russian intelligence counterterrorism group.

How does criminal activity by US residents justify US laws applying to foreigners outside the US?

The money was paid through a Bulgarian holding company controlled by Bout.

For professional reasons, I have no sympathy for US end user restrictions. It is the UK understanding that they have been used to give US companies an unfair advantage in the arms export business.

Interpol has issued a “red notice,” requesting his arrest on Belgian weapons trafficking and money-laundering charges.

That's not what he's been extradited for. Also, were these offences committed in Belgium?

Bout’s initial stock in trade was the supply of guns and ammunition abandoned in arsenals around the former Soviet bloc. Many had airstrips built inside their compounds, making loading easy. Guards were often unpaid and their commanders were willing to sell the weapons for a fraction of the market value.

Then extradite him for stealing government property. The Russians certainly used to regard that as a severe offence.

[Richard W]

Peter Hain, ...

I regret his beating the armed robbery charge, though I suppose it saved me money.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

American justice at it's best.

'Alla Bout also said her husband and the family had been offered political asylum in the US if Mr Bout was willing to disclose information about international arms trafficking.'

A fully expected offer of freedom for an allegedly very bad man.

I cannot possibly imagine why the wife of a ruthless arms dealer who has no moral compunction about selling land mines to insurgent groups (see pics below)...would have a reason to lie there?

Having said that, all nations will put national interest ahead of routine judicial protocol. I'm quite certain there are less criminals living under asylum in the US than say...Montenegro? Or Nicaragua? ahem.

Pics are a bit horrific, on second thought. Here's the link instead: Google Images "landmines children"

Bout was not breaking Thai law. Or does US criminal law automatically apply to foreigners in Thailand?

I'm not an expert on Thai law. But I would hope that selling arms and conspiring to kill Americans (or killing anyone) is not LEGAL in Thailand.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

American justice at it's best.

'Alla Bout also said her husband and the family had been offered political asylum in the US if Mr Bout was willing to disclose information about international arms trafficking.'

A fully expected offer of freedom for an allegedly very bad man.

I cannot possibly imagine why the wife of a ruthless arms dealer who has no moral compunction about selling land mines to insurgent groups (see pics below)...would have a reason to lie there?

Pics are a bit horrific, on second thought. Here's the link instead: Google Images "landmines children"

I regret my earlier comments. It appears Mrs Bout has new information today. Her husband, as it turns out, was subjected to "moral humiliation and psychological torture" by Thailand!

He was "stripped of his clothes and underwear and given new clothes".

This - unsurprisingly - is what happens when you are arrested. Did he hope to spend three years in his old clothes?

"The US did not allow him to take a thing to the US!"

egad!

This is despite his having "signed a document allowing him to retrieve his belongings"!

Oh, the horror. He signed the document!! Curses on the barbaric authorities!

My heart bleeds for the guy who sells landmines which aren't really ever able to be collected by the insurgents who bury them, ready and waiting for some unlucky kid to eventually run over them, at which point they kill and maim.

Pics are a bit horrific, on second thought. Here's the link instead: Google Images "landmines children"

Poor Baby Bout. Had to change his clothes and couldn't take his old clothes to America? awwh diddums.

[mark45y]

Question for Richard W.

Are you saying that an offense must be committed on the home soil of a country before that country may charge a person with wrong doing?

[whybother]

Bout was arrested legally in Thailand based on him breaking US law (and probably Thai law, and international law).

Bout was not breaking Thai law. Or does US criminal law automatically apply to foreigners in Thailand?

<snip>

You don't really follow the news do you?

Bout was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US law, as per Thailand/US extradition treaty. He then went through the Thai courts to determine whether the extradition is valid, and the Thai courts found that it was, so they extradited him.

[supaprik]

American law is just that, so what makes Americans think that the laws apply to the rest of the world. We have our own laws that were developed well before 'the new kid on the block' was even thought of. Sickening to think that you beieve you have the right to impose your views and laws on the rest of the world, Nobody is listening.

Rick

seems to me the Thailand government listens very much

[mark45y]

American law is just that, so what makes Americans think that the laws apply to the rest of the world. We have our own laws that were developed well before 'the new kid on the block' was even thought of. Sickening to think that you beieve you have the right to impose your views and laws on the rest of the world, Nobody is listening.

Rick

Although you didn't make it clear I assume you are talking about British law. I mentioned it before but British special forces tried to arrest Bout in Greece but failed. Does that mean that you are opposed to the Brits trying to impose their views on the rest of the world? Is that sickening too?

[bangkokrick]

American law is just that, so what makes Americans think that the laws apply to the rest of the world. We have our own laws that were developed well before 'the new kid on the block' was even thought of. Sickening to think that you beieve you have the right to impose your views and laws on the rest of the world, Nobody is listening.

Rick

Although you didn't make it clear I assume you are talking about British law. I mentioned it before but British special forces tried to arrest Bout in Greece but failed. Does that mean that you are opposed to the Brits trying to impose their views on the rest of the world? Is that sickening too?

I did not specifically mention any Country in particular, but many established their own laws before the US was even thought of. I don't honestly see what British law has to do with a thread concerning a Russian being extradited to the US from Thailand, but there you go.

Thailand was put in a no win situation by arresting Bout because they were bound to upset either the US or the Russians. The US obviously pushed ahead with little concern for Thailand's difficult position and as mentioned in an earlier post he will probably be given asylum in the US anyway if he talks. That to me is not justice.

I think the case that you mentioned is not under the same circumstances because Britain and Greece are part of the European community and therefore fall under European law. It appears from your post that they were unsuccessful anyway.

Rick

[mark45y]

American law is just that, so what makes Americans think that the laws apply to the rest of the world. We have our own laws that were developed well before 'the new kid on the block' was even thought of. Sickening to think that you beieve you have the right to impose your views and laws on the rest of the world, Nobody is listening.

Rick

Although you didn't make it clear I assume you are talking about British law. I mentioned it before but British special forces tried to arrest Bout in Greece but failed. Does that mean that you are opposed to the Brits trying to impose their views on the rest of the world? Is that sickening too?

I did not specifically mention any Country in particular, but many established their own laws before the US was even thought of. I don't honestly see what British law has to do with a thread concerning a Russian being extradited to the US from Thailand, but there you go.

Thailand was put in a no win situation by arresting Bout because they were bound to upset either the US or the Russians. The US obviously pushed ahead with little concern for Thailand's difficult position and as mentioned in an earlier post he will probably be given asylum in the US anyway if he talks. That to me is not justice.

I think the case that you mentioned is not under the same circumstances because Britain and Greece are part of the European community and therefore fall under European law. It appears from your post that they were unsuccessful anyway.

Rick

I meant that the Brits were trying to arrest him for something he did not do in the UK. Ergo they were trying to impose their laws on the rest of the world in the same way as the Americans. I wondered if you were upset at that?

[bangkokrick]

American law is just that, so what makes Americans think that the laws apply to the rest of the world. We have our own laws that were developed well before 'the new kid on the block' was even thought of. Sickening to think that you beieve you have the right to impose your views and laws on the rest of the world, Nobody is listening.

Rick

Although you didn't make it clear I assume you are talking about British law. I mentioned it before but British special forces tried to arrest Bout in Greece but failed. Does that mean that you are opposed to the Brits trying to impose their views on the rest of the world? Is that sickening too?

I did not specifically mention any Country in particular, but many established their own laws before the US was even thought of. I don't honestly see what British law has to do with a thread concerning a Russian being extradited to the US from Thailand, but there you go.

Thailand was put in a no win situation by arresting Bout because they were bound to upset either the US or the Russians. The US obviously pushed ahead with little concern for Thailand's difficult position and as mentioned in an earlier post he will probably be given asylum in the US anyway if he talks. That to me is not justice.

I think the case that you mentioned is not under the same circumstances because Britain and Greece are part of the European community and therefore fall under European law. It appears from your post that they were unsuccessful anyway.

Rick

I meant that the Brits were trying to arrest him for something he did not do in the UK. Ergo they were trying to impose their laws on the rest of the world in the same way as the Americans. I wondered if you were upset at that?

I was not aware of it, so could not be upset. I am also not against extradition, but I am against people quoting American law in cases like this. If you read the previous posts by Arkady I think that you will understand my point. The USA does not have any jurisdiction over Thailand, so why quote American law in this case.

Thailand was still in a bad situation whatever the outcome was.

Rick

Rick

[whybother]

I was not aware of it, so could not be upset. I am also not against extradition, but I am against people quoting American law in cases like this. If you read the previous posts by Arkady I think that you will understand my point. The USA does not have any jurisdiction over Thailand, so why quote American law in this case.

Thailand was still in a bad situation whatever the outcome was.

Rick

Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US. Bout was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US law. Then it just came down to whether he should be extradited to stand trial for those charges, not whether he broke any Thai law.

[jdinasia]

Actually the US extradition treaty .... and the fact that the case was worked jointly with the Thai police making the arrest does pretty much make quoting US law relevant

[craigt3365]

If you want to read a good article, check this one out:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,721532,00.html

Richard W: Please read this before posting again. It describes a lot of what you are questioning....

[mark45y]

Reply to bangkokrick,

The British government wanted to arrest him. Interpol wanted to arrest him. Belgium wanted to arrest him. Only the US was successful in arresting him.

Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him? Or do you have a problem that he was arrested in Thailand? Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him in Thailand?

[jdinasia]

Reply to bangkokrick,

The British government wanted to arrest him. Interpol wanted to arrest him. Belgium wanted to arrest him. Only the US was successful in arresting him.

Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him? Or do you have a problem that he was arrested in Thailand? Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him in Thailand?

Point of order ..... Thailand arrested him.

[mark45y]

Reply to bangkokrick,

The British government wanted to arrest him. Interpol wanted to arrest him. Belgium wanted to arrest him. Only the US was successful in arresting him.

Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him? Or do you have a problem that he was arrested in Thailand? Would it have been OK if the Brits, Interpol or Belgium arrested him in Thailand?

Point of order ..... Thailand arrested him.

Good point.

[Richard W]

I'm not an expert on Thai law. But I would hope that selling arms and conspiring to kill Americans (or killing anyone) is not LEGAL in Thailand.

Designing and selling arms to kill Afghans and Iraqis is perfectly legal in Britain - Brimstone Urgent Operational Requirement. I suppose you'd claim Brimstone was originally sold with the purpose of being able to kill Russians, rather than with the intention of killing them. Heck, how do you know Bout wasn't hoping to scare the Americans out of Colombia?

Are you saying that an offense must be committed on the home soil of a country before that country may charge a person with wrong doing?

So if Iran had an extradition treaty with Thailand, it would be in order for you to be extradited to Iran for sex outside marriage?

Should Thailand be able to extradite people for lèse-majesté?

[craigt3365]

I'm not an expert on Thai law. But I would hope that selling arms and conspiring to kill Americans (or killing anyone) is not LEGAL in Thailand.

Designing and selling arms to kill Afghans and Iraqis is perfectly legal in Britain - Brimstone Urgent Operational Requirement. I suppose you'd claim Brimstone was originally sold with the purpose of being able to kill Russians, rather than with the intention of killing them. Heck, how do you know Bout wasn't hoping to scare the Americans out of Colombia?

Are you saying that an offense must be committed on the home soil of a country before that country may charge a person with wrong doing?

So if Iran had an extradition treaty with Thailand, it would be in order for you to be extradited to Iran for sex outside marriage?

Should Thailand be able to extradite people for lèse-majesté?

Man, you're not seeing the big picture. Bout was a bad man. People with much more info than we have determined that. They figured out a way to get him, and they did. Just like Al Capone in the US. He did all sorts of bad stuff...but they got him on tax evasion. Doesn't matter what they got him for. But they got him! And for very good reasons. He is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people....yet wackos still defend him....just because the US was involved. If he had been caught in Liberia by the Mongolian's, this wouldn't even have made the front page.

[whybother]

I'm not an expert on Thai law. But I would hope that selling arms and conspiring to kill Americans (or killing anyone) is not LEGAL in Thailand.

Designing and selling arms to kill Afghans and Iraqis is perfectly legal in Britain - Brimstone Urgent Operational Requirement. I suppose you'd claim Brimstone was originally sold with the purpose of being able to kill Russians, rather than with the intention of killing them. Heck, how do you know Bout wasn't hoping to scare the Americans out of Colombia?

Are you saying that an offense must be committed on the home soil of a country before that country may charge a person with wrong doing?

So if Iran had an extradition treaty with Thailand, it would be in order for you to be extradited to Iran for sex outside marriage?

Should Thailand be able to extradite people for lèse-majesté?

Countries don't necessarily extradite people just because they have extradition treaties. That's why there are extradition court cases.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Countries don't necessarily extradite people just because they have extradition treaties. That's why there are extradition court cases.

Thailand's independence from all parties is the reason so many are offended / aghast.

Bout is a brilliant man (personal opinion on his 'evil', aside). He only agreed to meet the DEA agents in Thailand because he thought he was safe (for whatever reason/s - not in the least of which being, Thailand won't play ball with the US). Then he was arrested by Thailand. I'm yet to see someone who made a tactical / strategic error on that scale ever blame themselves. Hence why we see his wife's vitriol against Thailand.

It turns out Thailand is a lot more independent than the US believed, leading to 2-3 years of court cases adjudicating whether or not it was in Thailand's best interests to extradite him to the US. This infuriated the US, as they believed they had caught their man. It gave Russia hope, as they believed they were off the hook again.

And in the end, the right decision was made, and no doubt the US is relieved. Understandably, Russia is nervous (their claims not to be, aside) - of course they will claim Thailand is the US' lackey. Of course Ms Bout will claim her husband was mistreated. Of course Mr Bout will claim the Thai government wanted him to do illegal things.

All of that is understandable, and predictable. All of it should be ignored. This was a man who sells landmines to insurgent groups. Your politics aside, he was a very very bad man. Arguing he should be free on technicalities?

Come on.