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

[SergeiY]

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.

Well and with your prejudgment and that simpleton approach 'to see the big picture' your are totally unable to understand the fine details and all the crudities of this case.

[craigt3365]

Well and with your prejudgment and that simpleton approach 'to see the big picture' your are totally unable to understand the fine details and all the crudities of this case.

Please enlighten me as to the "fine details and all the crudities of this case". I would love to hear them.

No prejudgement. He was caught in a sting. Not been charged. Will be in court (maybe) to determine his guilt. Your turn...

[SergeiY]

Well and with your prejudgment and that simpleton approach 'to see the big picture' your are totally unable to understand the fine details and all the crudities of this case.

Please enlighten me as to the "fine details and all the crudities of this case". I would love to hear them.

No prejudgement. He was caught in a sting. Not been charged. Will be in court (maybe) to determine his guilt. Your turn...

No prejudgment?

For you Bout is already guilty and the "bad man" so that any circumstances maybe questionable or not don't matter just for the sake to stop Bout the "bad man" (your simplified "big picture").

And he wasn't really 'caught', some American agents created/fabricated a situation.

[whybother]

Well and with your prejudgment and that simpleton approach 'to see the big picture' your are totally unable to understand the fine details and all the crudities of this case.

Please enlighten me as to the "fine details and all the crudities of this case". I would love to hear them.

No prejudgement. He was caught in a sting. Not been charged. Will be in court (maybe) to determine his guilt. Your turn...

No prejudgment?

For you Bout is already guilty and the "bad man" so that any circumstances maybe questionable or not don't matter just for the sake to stop Bout the "bad man" (your simplified "big picture").

And he wasn't really 'caught', some American agents created/fabricated a situation.

He was caught conspiring to sell arms to FARC. It doesn't matter that they weren't FARC. Bout was still conspiring to sell FARC arms.

[craigt3365]

Well and with your prejudgment and that simpleton approach 'to see the big picture' your are totally unable to understand the fine details and all the crudities of this case.

Please enlighten me as to the "fine details and all the crudities of this case". I would love to hear them.

No prejudgement. He was caught in a sting. Not been charged. Will be in court (maybe) to determine his guilt. Your turn...

No prejudgment?

For you Bout is already guilty and the "bad man" so that any circumstances maybe questionable or not don't matter just for the sake to stop Bout the "bad man" (your simplified "big picture").

And he wasn't really 'caught', some American agents created/fabricated a situation.

You didn't answer my question. Fine details and crudities...

Seems you have pre-judged also. He's innocent and the sting was fabricated.

[animatic]

And just like the Guantanamo detainee was a acquitted on 263 of 264 counts, this week,

Bout CAN get a fair trial in USA, no matter what the government wants.

[Richard W]

He was caught conspiring to sell arms to FARC. It doesn't matter that they weren't FARC. Bout was still conspiring to sell FARC arms.

And how is that worse than selling arms to the American rebels during the American War of Independence?

Remember that Thailand does not regard FARC as a terrorist organisation, and that Bout was once a member of the Communist Party.

[whybother]

He was caught conspiring to sell arms to FARC. It doesn't matter that they weren't FARC. Bout was still conspiring to sell FARC arms.

And how is that worse than selling arms to the American rebels during the American War of Independence?

Remember that Thailand does not regard FARC as a terrorist organisation, and that Bout was once a member of the Communist Party.

The American War of Independece was 1775–1783. I don't think Bout had much to do with that.

When will you get it?!? He wasn't charged for breaking Thai laws.

He was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US laws to be extradited to the US to face charges and go on trial for breaking those laws. That is because Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US.

That doesn't mean he would get automatically extradited just because the US request it. Which is why there was a court case to determine whether extradition was valid, which the court found it was, so they extradited him.

I am not sure what makes an extradition valid, but it isn't a judgment on whether he is guilty or not.

[TheyCallmeScooter]

I am not sure what makes an extradition valid, but it isn't a judgment on whether he is guilty or not.

It's a judicial process to determine whether or not the individual in question is believed to be guaranteed a fair trial by the country requesting he or she be extradited to face charges.

As you (quite correctly) pointed out when you cited the example of the Guantanamo detainee who was acquitted on 263/264 charges, if Bout does not get a fair trial in the US, it will only be to his benefit.

[Richard W]

He was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US laws to be extradited to the US to face charges and go on trial for breaking those laws. That is because Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US.

This is what I object to - the principle that non-US visitors to Thailand need to obey (and to have obeyed) the extra-territorial laws of the USA.

[craigt3365]

He was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US laws to be extradited to the US to face charges and go on trial for breaking those laws. That is because Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US.

This is what I object to - the principle that non-US visitors to Thailand need to obey (and to have obeyed) the extra-territorial laws of the USA.

Richard. He broke a law here in Thailand also. He was arrested by the Royal Thai police. They were assisted by the US and then extradited him there.

Extradition Act, B.E. 2551

The Extradition Act, B.E. 2551, which came into force on 10 August 2008, repealed and replaced the Extradition Act, B.E. 2472 and applies to all extraditions, subject to the provisions of any extradition treaty between government of Thailand and either the government of any other country or any international agency.

Extraditable offenses are offenses which both the requesting country and Thailand define as a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment of one year or more. Extradition may also be obtained for offenses punishable by less serious offenses if such offenses relate to a more serious offense in respect of which extradition is granted.

Why do you have such a hard on about this? It could have just as easily been Russia that extradited him. Luckily, that didn't happen...but it could have been almost any country in the world. We're lucky civilized countries have these laws in place as the world is now a global community. And criminals are global also....

[whybother]

He was arrested at the request of the US for breaking US laws to be extradited to the US to face charges and go on trial for breaking those laws. That is because Thailand has an extradition treaty with the US.

This is what I object to - the principle that non-US visitors to Thailand need to obey (and to have obeyed) the extra-territorial laws of the USA.

It would be the same in any country that has an extradition agreement with any other country.

Do you object to extradition treaties?

[Richard W]

He broke a law here in Thailand also. He was arrested by the Royal Thai police. They were assisted by the US and then extradited him there.

That does make a difference if FACT got it wrong when they referred (reference earlier in this thread) to "his arrest for no crime committed in Thailand or the US".

It would be the same in any country that has an extradition agreement with any other country.

Do you object to extradition treaties?

Most countries, and apparently indeed Thai law, have the principle of "dual criminality" - the alleged offence must be a crime in the country extradited from as well as the country extradited to.

[whybother]

He broke a law here in Thailand also. He was arrested by the Royal Thai police. They were assisted by the US and then extradited him there.

That does make a difference if FACT got it wrong when they referred (reference earlier in this thread) to "his arrest for no crime committed in Thailand or the US".

It would be the same in any country that has an extradition agreement with any other country.

Do you object to extradition treaties?

Most countries, and apparently indeed Thai law, have the principle of "dual criminality" - the alleged offence must be a crime in the country extradited from as well as the country extradited to.

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

[craigt3365]

He broke a law here in Thailand also. He was arrested by the Royal Thai police. They were assisted by the US and then extradited him there.

That does make a difference if FACT got it wrong when they referred (reference earlier in this thread) to "his arrest for no crime committed in Thailand or the US".

It would be the same in any country that has an extradition agreement with any other country.

Do you object to extradition treaties?

Most countries, and apparently indeed Thai law, have the principle of "dual criminality" - the alleged offence must be a crime in the country extradited from as well as the country extradited to.

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

Seems not everyone agrees with you on that one! I guess they don't value human life.

[SergeiY]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

[craigt3365]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Caught on tape. Conspired to sell weapons. For sure illegal in Thailand, whether to terrorists or not. It could have been to the Thai navy and it would have been illegal, as not through proper government channels. Next....or should I say yawn...

[SergeiY]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Caught on tape. Conspired to sell weapons. For sure illegal in Thailand, whether to terrorists or not. It could have been to the Thai navy and it would have been illegal, as not through proper government channels. Next....or should I say yawn...

Well, he was maybe talking business, there was no Thai navi or Thai government involved, there wasn't even a sale of anything.

[whybother]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Yes, apparently he did. He conspired to sell arms to FARC.

[SergeiY]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Yes, apparently he did. He conspired to sell arms to FARC.

No. He talked with some USAmerican DEA agents.

And what is the FARC, where they come from, what they are doing and why they are doing this and what it has to do with the USA?

[whybother]

No. He talked with some USAmerican DEA agents.

And what is the FARC, where they come from, what they are doing and why they are doing this and what it has to do with the USA?

He CONSPIRED to sell arms to FARC, who are the military wing of the communist party in Columbia, financed by kidnappings and the drug trade.

It doesn't matter that he only talked to DEA agents, he thought they were representing FARC, and he was trying to sell them weapons.

[craigt3365]

I would think that conspiracy to sell arms to terrorists would be breaking the law in Thailand.

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Yes, apparently he did. He conspired to sell arms to FARC.

No. He talked with some USAmerican DEA agents.

And what is the FARC, where they come from, what they are doing and why they are doing this and what it has to do with the USA?

With the Royal Thai Police sitting in the next room listening...kinda hard for a Thai to pass themselves off as a Colombian.

You need to research FARC if you have no idea what they are all about. They are responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths, run the drug trade in Colombia and kidnap people on a routine basis...foreigners included. Do some research...maybe it will help you to understand why many countries wanted Bout put away...not just the US.

[brahmburgers]

No. He talked with some USAmerican DEA agents.

And what is the FARC, where they come from, what they are doing and why they are doing this and what it has to do with the USA?

It's called entrapment. Depending on which side of the fence you're on (good guys or baddies) will determine your attitude about it. Using the analogy above, if you have a young daughter, then you might be glad authorities are doing a sting operation (entrapment) to try and catch those who prey on young girls. If you're one of the bad guys (or one of their sympathizers) then you will likely take offense at such an operation. We can apply that perspective to FARC and other groups who cause grievous harm. If you think they're a scourge on society (oh, and they've openly and often declared they want to kill US agents), then you might welcome a sting operation to apprehend them and/or shut them down. If you're sympathetic to their cause, then you would resent any such action by authorities. I'm not saying everything authorities do is right, I'm just trying to address your question, if it is a real question.

[SergeiY]

did he do that? and what terrorists? and from what country?

Yes, apparently he did. He conspired to sell arms to FARC.

No. He talked with some USAmerican DEA agents.

And what is the FARC, where they come from, what they are doing and why they are doing this and what it has to do with the USA?

With the Royal Thai Police sitting in the next room listening...kinda hard for a Thai to pass themselves off as a Colombian.

You need to research FARC if you have no idea what they are all about. They are responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths, run the drug trade in Colombia and kidnap people on a routine basis...foreigners included. Do some research...maybe it will help you to understand why many countries wanted Bout put away...not just the US.

RESEARCH means to questioning things and don't take them a given or just looking for for this kind of 'facts' that confirms one's preconceptions.

they are being responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths? Can you back up this figure or be more specific and detailed?

Do you know what leads to the foundation of FARC? Do you know the history?

So what it has to do with the USA beside that Thai police cannot pass off themselves as Colombian?

[whybother]

RESEARCH means to questioning things and don't take them a given or just looking for for this kind of 'facts' that confirms one's preconceptions.

they are being responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths? Can you back up this figure or be more specific and detailed?

Do you know what leads to the foundation of FARC? Do you know the history?

So what it has to do with the USA beside that Thai police cannot pass off themselves as Colombian?

The US wanted to arrest him for supplying arms to terrorists. He wouldn't go the US to do that, so they worked with the Thais (and many other countries) to catch him in the act.

They succeeded. He is now in the US facing trial.

Research means learning a few facts and opinions before making stupid comments.

re·search (r-sûrch, rsûrch)

n.

1. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry.

2. Close, careful study.

v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es

v. intr. To engage in or perform research.

v. tr.

1. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain.

2. To do research for: research a magazine article.

research [rɪˈsɜːtʃ ˈriːsɜːtʃ]

n systematic investigation to establish facts or principles or to collect information on a subject

vb to carry out investigations into (a subject, problem, etc.)

[animatic]

Lets now imagine that an aggressive, amoral, cable of foreigners

are actively conspiring to import and distribute deadly poisons

into your country, that negatively affects it's youth and ability to be productive.

And is supporting a radical group of murderous, political zealots,

as a distribution chain, and to kill your workers trying to stamp out

this threat to your countries welfare. And are using other foreigners

abilities to get deadly weapons to kill your citizens working to stop

this attack on your country at the source.

I guess you will just say, 'no problem, let them do it'.

Their means justify their ends, but yours don't in theory,

because you are not meeting arbitrary standards, to reach your ends.

Never mind that your opposition has abrogated ALL standards to their ends.

Edited November 28, 2010 by animatic

[SergeiY]

Lets now imagine that an aggressive amoral cable of foreigners

are actively conspiring to import and distribute deadly poisons

into your country, that negatively affects it's youth and ability to be productive.

And is supporting a radical group of murderous political zealots

as a distribution chain and to kill your workers trying to stamp out

this threat to your countries welfare,and using other foreigners abilities

to get deadly weapons to kill your citizens working to stop this attack

on your country at the source..

I guess you will just say, no problem let them do it.

pffff. war on drug paranoia.

Nobody force you to take that stuff.

[mark45y]

It is a simple question. Is entrapment or a sting operation legal where you come from?

[whybother]

It is a simple question. Is entrapment or a sting operation legal where you come from?

It's a simple question unless it makes you realise that what Bout did was against the law.

[mark45y]

It is a simple question. Is entrapment or a sting operation legal where you come from?

It's a simple question unless it makes you realise that what Bout did was against the law.

It is such a simple question. I don't know why Sergei won't answer. If cops where Sergei is from don't pretend to be criminals or someone else and conduct sting operations then I could understand why he would have no idea of the concept.