Russia blasts 'biased' U.S. sentence of arms dealer

I do not see the Americans having jurisdiction in this case. He was not selling arms within the United States and he is not responsible for what the clients do with the weapons. America charges Americans with crimes they may commit in other countries, now they are prosecuting other citizens as well. The Americans are showing their true nature, they are NOT the worlds police. America needs to send him to Russia and cease and desist all police actions not authorized by the United Nations.

@YuriOtaniApr. 07, 2012 - 07:10AM JST

Victor never sell arms. He not gave information to CIA about his clients that fly on his avia company.

Such an arrogant country. When will America let go of the 'world police' role that's clearly destroying it? Sorry, but his crimes weren't committed on US soil, so why should he go to prison there? Selling arms to guerilla movements is NOT justification for taking him to America. Once again, the land of the free ignores and disregards sovereignty. Wake up America.

"Russian and U.S. relations are going through a rocky period at the moment"

And that's with Obama in the White House, lol!

Bout lost that bout.

"his crimes weren't committed on U.S. soil, so why should he go to prison there?"

His crimes include conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers, he was arrested in Thailand, the U.S. and Thailamd have an extradition treaty, and if he was allowed to return to Russia he would just go free?

To you Viktor Bout apologists: Do you REALLY think this guy is some innocent "businessman"?

Selling baby formula to mothers I guess?

His crimes include conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers, he was arrested in Thailand, the U.S. and Thailamd have an extradition treaty, and if he was allowed to return to Russia he would just go free?

No, he is not an American citizen and has not committed any crimes in any areas of American jurisdiction so the US has no right to have done what it did. His initial charges of supporting terrorism were dropped by Thai prosecutors because of lack of evidence, but ended up being overturned on appeal. America COMPLETELY disregarded international law. What a surprise! Bout had the right to stand trial in his own country or go for an international trial. He was taken to the US without his lawyers being informed.

To you Viktor Bout apologists: Do you REALLY think this guy is some innocent "businessman"?

No one is saying he's an innocent 'businessman', but that still doesn't excuse what America did.

"No one is saying he's an innocent 'businessman', but that still doesn't excuse what America did."

So you're saying he has the blood of thousands of innocent people(in many countries) on his hands but doesn't deserve justice? Think he'd get a "fair" trial in his native Russia?

So you're saying he has the blood of thousands of innocent people(in many countries) on his hands but doesn't deserve justice? Think he'd get a "fair" trial in his native Russia?

He could have gone for an international trial. And again, no matter what he did, America had NO RIGHT to extradite him, considering he's no a US citizen and didn't commit his crimes, whether alleged or not, in areas of US jurisdiction. You do know that America doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of international courts when it comes to their citizens?

oginome:. Is it all about jurisdiction or do you disagree with the sentence?

oginome:. Is it all about jurisdiction or do you disagree with the sentence?

Yes, jurisdiction is very important, no matter how much Americans will try and dismiss it to pursue their own agenda. Didn't say I disagreed with his sentence, just that it is NOT America's sentence to give. What America did was wrong.

Arming despots and dictators is clearly wrong...unless the American government does it.

This case embodies more American government double standards than I can count on one hand.

being found guilty of conspiring to sell arms to anti-U.S. guerrillas in Colombia and to kill American service personnel.

The political motivation is pretty damned clear, isn't it? Why be concerned about anti-U.S. military people in COLUMBIA? Well its not because they are streaming into America! Its because the U.S. military is active in meddling in Columbia, yet another place the American government has basically invaded. Invaders get shot at. No mystery.

America, land of the "stand your ground" rule, of course does not apply that to FARC. America, land of the right to bear arms, of course does not apply that to FARC. America, land of freedom of choice, of course does not apply that to FARC.

"America, land of the right to bear arms, of course does not apply that to FARC. America, land of freedom of choice, of course does not apply that to FARC."

Those poor misunderstood FARC guerillas.

Those poor misunderstood FARC guerillas.

One-liners. Republican playbook page 11. Perhaps next post, you could actually address an issue or a principle, instead of posting like a snot-nosed spoiled child?

People could always contact groups who fight against wrongful convictions in the US. Just tell them to drop what they doing and help get the worlds most famous arms dealer freed on a technicality. Or you could align yourself with Russia and tell them you want to have a political prisoner freed. Be sure to use Viktor's name early in the letter or else they might assume you are talking about one of the hundreds of real political prisoners in Russia at which point they will toss the letter aside.

If you are lucky he can get released, then picked up, tried, and convicted in an African court. The downside is that he probably won't be able to publish a book and might not survive for long. But if your beef is with jurisdiction then at least your outrage will be eased.

Mustard: I'm a Obama supporter (read my past comments) and left of center, but like a good argument.. FARC lost any semblance of being considered anything other than being a criminal organization many, many years ago. Since then, they've resorted to the kidnapping and killing innocent COLUMBIAN citizens (probably with arms supplied from Viktor Bout) and selling drugs. That's why I think your comments and others defending them is ridiculous. Does that address your request for a principled response?

Those poor misunderstood FARC guerillas.

Those poor misunderstood Americans who think they can flout international law and wonder why they get criticised for it.

People could always contact groups who fight against wrongful convictions in the US. Just tell them to drop what they doing and help get the worlds most famous arms dealer freed on a technicality. Or you could align yourself with Russia and tell them you want to have a political prisoner freed. Be sure to use Viktor's name early in the letter or else they might assume you are talking about one of the hundreds of real political prisoners in Russia at which point they will toss the letter aside.

If you are lucky he can get released, then picked up, tried, and convicted in an African court. The downside is that he probably won't be able to publish a book and might not survive for long. But if your beef is with jurisdiction then at least your outrage will be eased.

I'm sorry SuperLib, but no matter how you try and rationalise this by having us look at the bigger picture or talk about 'technicalities', it still justify what America did. America had no right to extradite Bout, arms dealer or not, and the wrongful convictions in the US and 'hundreds of real political prisoners in Russia' doesn't absolve what happened here. Jurisdiction isn't a 'technicality', it's LAW. My 'beef' is with America's hubris and arrogance and in how the implicit claim to moral superiority which underlines their 'world police' role is revealed for the emptiness it is when something as important as 'jurisdiction' is dismissed as a technicality. America has one rule for itself and one for everyone else. So arrogant.

Mustard: I'm a Obama supporter (read my past comments) and left of center, but like a good argument.. FARC lost any semblance of being considered anything other than being a criminal organization many, many years ago. Since then, they've resorted to the kidnapping and killing innocent COLUMBIAN citizens (probably with arms supplied from Viktor Bout) and selling drugs. That's why I think your comments and others defending them is ridiculous. Does that address your request for a principled response?

FARC being a criminal organisation doesn't justify what America did. Why is that so hard to understand? The laws of jurisdiction stay in place, regardless of whether FARC was a criminal organisation or a charity group.

FARC lost any semblance of being considered anything other than being a criminal organization many, many years ago.

So did the U.S. government by many people's count, and the government of Columbia as well. But this action by the U.S. is only proving that the U.S. is a criminal organization. This is a kidnapping.

Bout should be before the IJC.

Regardless, FARC is not meddling in America. America is and has been meddling in Columbia, and that has directly led to the kidnappings and the drugs and the very creation of FARC.

Not really clear what the real crime here is. Perhaps Bout's real crime was undercutting the prices of one of America's allies that is also well known for selling arms to anyone and on any side of a conflict, including America's enemies. Speculation.

Still, where does the United States get the jurisdiction? By that matter, where in the hell does the International Criminal Court in the Hague get its jurisdiction?

Relax, people. I'm just having a little bit of fun. Obviously people aren't really outraged about the trial. People can say they are because pretending to be outraged gives them an avenue to criticize the US, but that's just emotional people playing politics just because they can. It's like announcing to the world that you're going to tackle the homeless problem....by starting with Beverly Hills...heh.

Relax, people. I'm just having a little bit of fun. Obviously people aren't really outraged about the trial. People can say they are because pretending to be outraged gives them an avenue to criticize the US, but that's just emotional people playing politics just because they can. It's like announcing to the world that you're going to tackle the homeless problem....by starting with Beverly Hills...heh.

Keep running away from it. How do you know people weren't outraged? America was in the wrong and deserves to be criticised. You think America deserves some sort of special exemption? Oh dear.

So Superlib is surprised that people are commenting about the United States government under an article about the United States government? Yeah, whatever. The must be some sinister psychology behind it.

Meanwhile, Viktor Bout gets 25 years. Oliver North got zero. John Poindexter got zero. Bush senior got zero.

But of course, maybe I should wait for the appeals. Will Bout get any? Maybe the ACLU will step up to the plate like did for the three minor convictions of Ollie North? I don't know. Remember Ollie was OUR illegal arms dealer.

I know people aren't outraged because I'm not stupid, and in the end I'm actually giving them credit for being decent people who are just getting caught up in their emotions and saying things they don't really mean.

And who is to say this guy wants your fake outrage? Do you think he wants to go to an African jail and rot in there until he dies? Do you one how hard it is to get a book published from an African jail? Heh

I know people aren't outraged because I'm not stupid, and in the end I'm actually giving them credit for being decent people who are just getting caught up in their emotions and saying things they don't really mean.

Thank you so much for your 'credit'. I don't know why you find it so difficult to understand why people would be angry at America for doing something which actually warrants outrage.

And who is to say this guy wants your fake outrage? Do you think he wants to go to an African jail and rot in there until he dies? Do you one how hard it is to get a book published from an African jail? Heh

My 'fake' outrage is directed towards America for the fact that it decided it was above law (what a surprise!), not because I think Bout is some kind of martyr or hero. The fact that you think the outrage is fake is one example of why there's so much ill will towards your country these days. Because no one could possible be really angry at the land of the free, right?

I know people aren't outraged because I'm not stupid

I don't remember anyone saying they were outraged. I am not. I am annoyed, and sick of seeing my government embarrass me and crap on principle yet again.

just getting caught up in their emotions and saying things they don't really mean.

You think we don't really mean that the U.S. government is two faced and needs to stop meddling in other countries affairs?

And who is to say this guy wants your fake outrage?

I really don't give a crap what he wants! As far as this case goes, I want justice, fairness and the law obeyed, in that order.

More important than this case, I want my government to become slightly decent.

You can pontificate all you want about the law and the inequality of how it's been applied in the past. BUT, the bottom line is that Viktor Bout is getting the punishment he deserves.

You can pontificate all you want about the law and the inequality of how it's been applied in the past. BUT, the bottom line is that Viktor Bout is getting the punishment he deserves.

Bout 'getting the punishment he deserves' is another thing entirely, what people are criticising here is the US using illegal means to enact 'justice' that it wasn't in any position to do. We can 'pontificate' all we like and you can continue to dismiss and disregard law all you like. America has no higher ground here.

Readers, please keep the discussion civil. Do not post here if you are unwilling to be tolerant of opposing views.

There are two things. The legality of the basis for extradition and then there is the question of "is this a man who deserves freedom."

What is more important, principle, or the fate of an illegal arms dealer? I suppose that's a personal choice. Personally, I'd rather see him locked up, rather than making money by pumping more arms into conflict areas. There are idealists to whom everything is black or white and there are practical people, who take what they can get. Realpolitik seems to have the upperhand, in life --even in interpersonal relationships.

If 'realpolitik' can be predominant in the smalest of circles where a person has the most influence, why would it be unnatural to see it also rule macro environments?

Heh Onigome, you crack me up. The guy was tried in the US. He had a lawyer. If there was a jurisdiction issue he could make I'm sure his lawyer made it. Your imagination is now on overdrive and it's getting pretty silly with "above the law" and "illegal means" comments. He has the right to appeal anyway, so relax. Your hero might get set free.

Your outrage is simply manufactured because the US is involved. Had he been tried in a kangaroo court in Africa and sentenced to 100 years with no proper defense your reaction would have been a yawn, if that. So spare me your "I just want justice" arguments. It's fake and we both know it.

Hating America? If anything is being proven here it's how people will say just about anything, no matter how absurd, just to criticize the US. You should be embarrassed taking up the cause of an arms dealer with fake outrage over a process that you most likely know nothing about. There are real innocent people wrongly convicted with eyewitness testimony or shoddy defense because of a lack of funds. And you're going to set the worlds example with this case? Hahhaahhaha

Moderator: We asked readers to be civil.

the bottom line is that Viktor Bout is getting the punishment he deserves.

Why exactly does he deserve punishment? Its something supporters of this farce of a trial really don't seem inclined to clarify, and I am too sick of the opposition in this discussion to make their points for them. So have at it. Why should Viktor Bout receive extra-legal punishment on trumped up charges?

Then maybe you can explain to me why despite the history of extra-legal actions and trumped up charges I should think that letting it go this time will result in more and better justice in the future instead more injustice? I really don't think Bout is worth anyone turning its back on the system in the hopes it will just be fair automatically.

The judge pretty much denied the juristiction claim out of hand, stating to the effect that: Although the defendant’s alleged actions had no direct connection with the United States, they might have peripherally harmed US citizens and interests.

http://rt.com/politics/rejects-request-viktor-bout/

So watch it people. If you drive to fast here in Japan, your actions might peripherally harm US citizens, therefore, America has the right to kidnap you and give you a drumhead charges not for speeding, but planning to speed...in Columbia.

And posting here may well harm U.S. interests. So again, watch it.

No, I really don't think Bout is worth setting the precedent of raping the justice system.

Do I care it was France that took in Carlos the Jackal? Do I care if they followed the letter of international law? Not at all. That someone took a murderous sociopath out of general circulation is what is important. That's what I find practical.

So now who is going to extradite and bring to justice the person who signed the contract for the resumption of US arms sales to Bahrein?

That someone took a murderous sociopath out of general circulation

Okay. I am confused. Who are we talking about again? And that question should show you why I have a problem with these "practical" people. If they were always in control, we would still be burning people at the stake for witchcraft, because it "gets the job done", inconvenient details about what the accused is even alleged to have done be damned.

Earlier I asked what he did. Here is the answer: murder, or so m5c32 tells us. Seems we could put him away for more than 25 years on that charge. So why not that charge? Murder charges are "impractical" now?

So, people care more about whether judicial procedure abides by int'l law than whether someone who injects gasoline onto the fire that is the conflict areas of Africa, over the misery that that would impose on victimized Africans?

It's not as though it's disputed this guy was an illegal arms dealer. That he was. It's not typically disputed by most international observers. So the furore is over how he was detained and by whom. Great. Procedure is way more important than results. I get it. I'll take results over procedure, when the greater good is at stake.

This is not a victim here. He is a victimizer who did this without any overarching strategy except profit and psychopathy.

someone who injects gasoline onto the fire that is the conflict areas of Africa

I know its inconvenient, but could you be more specific? Then ask yourself why not charge him over those specifics?

Procedure is way more important than results.

The only result I see is that a man you have taken on faith to be guilty of crimes you won't specify has been given a 25 year jail sentence.

So now who is going to extradite and bring to justice the person who signed the contract for the resumption of US arms sales to Bahrein?

Listen. Don't pretend the world could be made into your perfect vision of peacefulness. As if you never got into a disagreement in your whole life.

You take what you can get. There will never be full peace, not with our species. Given that, there are bad sides and there are worse sides. That's all we have. You can in principle and practice be a pacifist, that's fine. The world will survive. What will not survive is a community that would refuse to fight the good fight. And fighting that fight includes a lot of ugliness. There is no way around that.

Let's put it this way. If you were part of a police force and part of your job put you in the path of criminals, psychopaths, etc., there would come a day when you would have to decide to harm someone or be harmed. As a single person, without any other responsibility, you can decide if you want to allow yourself to be sacrificed for principle. On the other hand, if you have a responsibility to a community at large, you would have to use force, to the best of your judgement, faling that, you would not only sacrifice yourself, but you are also potentially sacrificing others who do not share your principle. If people did indeed share your principle ad infinitum, eventually, only the criminal would be left.

Personally, being an American and hence subject to everyone's strict classification that Americans are all the same, I do wish you would understand that the majority of the time, most of the citizens don't know (shame on them) and or don't agree with all the political actions that take place. I do believe that V.B. does deserve the sentencing, but I also agree that the US "may not" have had the legal jurisdiction to extradite him. With the enormity of the international and national laws, treaties, and conventions out there; it would be hard to say for sure.

As it stands, every country in the world does not agree with every other countries or international organization's laws, and there will always be two sides to it. Personally, I think that if Africa (or a similar country) were to apply to the US for extradition to be tried for his crimes there, the US should comply and release him -- I also think that if the International Organizations find that the US did not have appropriate jurisdiction (they have had at least two years to check) that the US should release him.

Then again, this could have all been avoided if all the varied governments throughout the years had not helped him to become the powerful merchant of death that he is.

Am I the only one wondering what the hell he's doing in his shorts?

Superlib,

"And who is to say this guy wants your fake outrage?"

Heh, you've been having fun I see ;) This is a tricky one really, especially on the entrapment and jurisdiction issue. Common sense suggests a man like Bout should be off the streets, but it's fair I guess for people to scream about individuals such as Ollie North walking about free, not to mention all of the others that were smart enough not to get caught peddling their illicit arms and/or drugs trade. As to the Russians and their fake outrage, I had a chuckle to myself as I think of all the people they have jailed for dubious reasons over the years.

Thi is not just about Americans, and American hypocrisy - It's a worldwide hypocrisy. One of the biggest and most lucrative global markets after oil is the arms trade. And whatever country the people above venting their "fake outrage" hail from, remember that each time one of your heads of state is visiting foreign cousins, be it Obama, Cameron or Sarkozy on down - it's more often than not to peddle arms - albeit legally.

Whatever difference, or credence that lends to such a despicable industry, I'm not sure. But I digress.

Seeing as the US hands out some pretty scary tariffs (i.e 150 years jail-time à la Bernie Madoff), I'd say Bout has not done too badly. Let's see what the appeal brings.

m5c32

Thank you for your input. You basically state that if the US does it it's OK, if someone else does it it's not OK.

Let's put it this way. If you were part of a police force....

This is 'the US is the world's policeman' theory, I take it? Hardly a solid foundation for an argument.

But I'm glad you brought up the analogy of a policeman. If a policeman cops a baddie and doesn't get all his paperwork in order, all his evidence bang to rights and all the other t's crossed and i's dotted, the baddie will likely walk on a technicality. We don't change the law to allow policemen to beat up suspects, obtain confessions under duress or make up evidence even when everyone knows whodunnit, because while those namby-pamby laws may protect a criminal this time, those same laws will also protect you from being on the wrong end of an unjustified police action perhaps by a rogue officer who just happens to have it in for you for some reason.

And please, don't tell me to 'listen'. If I'm doing you the courtesy of reading your post, I'm already listening.

Ted Joffs: I do believe that V.B. does deserve the sentencing, but I also agree that the US "may not" have had the legal jurisdiction to extradite him. With the enormity of the international and national laws, treaties, and conventions out there; it would be hard to say for sure.

Now that's how you write a reasonable argument.

Mustard: "Why exactly does he deserve punishment?"

Oh, my...

I bet Bout is sorry he got caught conspiring to kill U.S. service personnel.

Mustard: "Why exactly does he deserve punishment?"

Read the article. Conspiring to kill U.S. service personnel.

If he had of sold weapons to allies of the US - NO PROBLEM FROM UNCLE SAM!

It is not a crime to do it in America as long as it follows government policy. Using the American logic Russia should ask for the Americans who gave weapons to the Taliban and others in Afghanistan. Conspiring to kill Russian service personnel. How about today giving weapons to the rebels in Syria?

America is guilty of a kidnapping, illegal trial and confinement, Bout is probably guilty of being and arms dealer and deserves to be held accountable, but the US cannot operate outside of international law.

If this bout guy needs to be tried he should be tried by UN or Hague or some such organisation NOT the U.S. acting on its own.

American thinks it can do what ever it likes again with impunity and shrugs off any suggestion it has over stepped the mark.

Just like the police have procedures and must operate WITHIN laws so must america or any other country.

to Madverts

"And who is to say this guy wants your fake outrage?"

Why fake ? Quite normal - Russia - is independent state ! Viktor Bout - Russian Citizen .

as I think of all the people they have jailed for dubious reasons over the years.

You are specialist in Russian criminal law ? Think better about Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo my friend .

I'd say Bout has not done too badly

He is NOT US citizen too badly or not too badly. He is no relations to US justice . This is lawlessness.

to m5c32

So, people care more about whether judicial procedure abides by int'l law

The Law - it is always very important !

than whether someone who injects gasoline onto the fire that is the conflict areas of Africa, over the misery that that would impose on victimized Africans?

Viktor - the only one person responsible for misery in Africa ? Great !!

It's not as though it's disputed this guy was an illegal arms dealer. That he was.

You have seen this film ? Yea ? Hollywood always know who is good and who is bad !!

So the furore is over how he was detained and by whom. Great. Procedure is way more important than results. I get it. I'll take results over procedure, when the greater good is at stake.

He is Russian my dear friend. He is beyond the jurisdiction of the U.S. Which result are you talking about ?

You take what you can get. There will never be full peace, not with our species.

You are right. US never stops making new wars

If you were part of a police force , if you have a responsibility to a community at large

US are not part of police force. In this situations - US kidnapped Russian citizen. That's all . What police force you talking about ?

Interesting views...Lets say I live in Thailand and I sold someone..lets say...Sarin Gas. Now I have an idea what it is going to be used for I just know it is not going to be used as a party favor. So if that individual - group that I sold said item to uses it in lets say a Subway...(地下鉄サリン事件, Chikatetsu Sarin Jiken?) Should I be allowed to roam around free or should .......lets say Japan be allowed to extradite & prosecute me? I realize that there are differences between the two incidents as one sold items that were to be used to kill Americans, so says the article. However I do not know if any of his items actually killed any Americans but should we wait till people are killed or should we act before lives are lost? Before you lay into me just remember all I am asking are questions.

Interesting views...Lets say I live in Thailand and I sold someone..lets say...Sarin Gas. Now I have an idea what it is going to be used for I just know it is not going to be used as a party favor. So if that individual - group that I sold said item to uses it in lets say a Subway...(地下鉄サリン事件, Chikatetsu Sarin Jiken?) Should I be allowed to roam around free or should .......lets say Japan be allowed to extradite & prosecute me? I realize that there are differences between the two incidents as one sold items that were to be used to kill Americans, so says the article. However I do not know if any of his items actually killed any Americans but should we wait till people are killed or should we act before lives are lost? Before you lay into me just remember all I am asking are questions.

If you're a non-Japanese citizen and you sold sarin to Aum Shinrikyo in areas outside Japanese jurisdiciton, then Japan has no right to extradite you. Countries have to follow international law, and not just discard it when it gets in their way and decide to dismiss it because it's 'annoying', especially when these same countries use international law to justify other cases. Hypocrisy. One country flouting international law sets a precedent and paves the way for other countries to do the same.

The "crime" was not committed in the United States and if American service members were to be killed. It would of been in Columbia. You can think of the Columbia rebels as "freedom fighters". It all depends on your point of view and who wins. Anyhow saying he was targeting Americans is absurd. It was the Americans that put themselves in harms way and if he were to be prosecuted it should of been done by Columbia. What America is doing is doing this around the world. America thinks if they are strong it makes it right. No wonder they are becoming more and more isolated.

What America is doing is doing this around the world. America thinks if they are strong it makes it right. No wonder they are becoming more and more isolated.

So true. They keep shooting themselves in the foot and generating more and more ill will from other countries. They are the architects of their own destruction. What the US is failing to account for is the rise of China. A country with many times the US' population is growing stronger and stronger every day. If America was smart, it would recognise that a fundamental paradigm shift is taking place, and that its self-proclaimed role as 'world police' will not last. It needs to move on from its current self-destructive foreign policy and establish better diplomatic relations with other countries. America's 'might is right' attitude will fail in the face of the future. So short-sighted, but what do you expect from the land of the free?

@m5c32., you're using the same justification that those who invaded Iraq used. Who cares about the fact there were NO WMD, or in this case, if Bout isn't even a US citizen and didn't commit his crimes in areas of US jurisdiction?! It's about defeating the 'bad guys! Hell yeah!'. America has to follow the law, even if they are dealing with a criminal. The law is simply a 'technicality' when it gets in the way of Americans wanting to do what they want, but in other situations where it's to their benefit, they'll demand everyone rigorously adheres to it. How you can defend America when its clear they're in the wrong?"

Go ahead anti-American commenters you keep defending the arms-smuggler who has probably been at the root of many atrocities and whose “work” has aided numerous totalitarian regimes. In the end the US looks all the better for throwing this guy in jail and those who want to attack the US via snipping comments by defending this guy look all the more desperate.

Go ahead anti-American commenters you keep defending the arms-smuggler who has probably been at the root of many atrocities and whose “work” has aided numerous totalitarian regimes. In the end the US looks all the better for throwing this guy in jail and those who want to attack the US via snipping comments by defending this guy look all the more desperate.

The US have abetted and aided many totalitarian regimes. Whether or not Bout was an arms dealer doesn't mean America is exempt from following international law, the law is supposed to apply to all people, whether sociopath or saint. Weird that for America, the land of lawyers and law suits, that so many doesn't understand that. Rightfully criticising America here doesn't mean we're 'anti-American', the ones who are anti-American are those who think they don't have to follow international law and those who think invading countries on false pretexts is perfectly reasonable. They are the ones who are destroying your country. The US does not look all the better for this at all, only in its own eyes.

notasap, not agreeing with the American government is not being "anti-American". So American law is everywhere and applies to everyone. The question will be when the US will be more aggressive about their law.

.lets say...Sarin Gas.

No, let's not say Sarin Gas. Bout was selling small arms, which are legal of themselves and dealt with everyday by the United States itself, still the worlds number one arms dealer. Poison gas is illegal across the board anywhere. Its a very forced, contrived and unnecessary analogy if it includes sarin. Might as well have said nukes! Apples and oranges and very poor and desperate argumentation.

Further, if it was used in Japan, then no one would complain that Japan arrested you. And it would be the same if Bouts weapons were sold to American groups and used there. What part of Columbia and Africa did you miss dude?

Go ahead anti-American commenters you keep defending the arms-smuggler

How small minded does one have to be to think that anti-American government is the same as anti-American, and to think that defending principles and truth is the same as defending this man?

These are pretty much the same bass-ackwards, mentally challenged charges that laid at the feet of then lawyer John Adams when he was the attorney of the British soldiers responsible for the Boston Massacre. He won that case, and rightly so, and it had nothing to with our second president being anti-American or loving British soldiers. Without John Adams, we would still be a British colony!

I guarantee you John Adams would voicing the same complaints I am. The man had integrity.

On the whole I think most people and countries are glad this guy is behind bars. I'm betting those who are outraged are a very vocal minority who have an axe to grind against the US.

On the whole I think most people and countries are glad this guy is behind bars. I'm betting those who are outraged are a very vocal minority who have an axe to grind against the US.

Rightfully criticising the US government is 'having an axe to grind'? I think the response has been perfectly proportionate. You still think the US is exempt from criticism?

On the whole I think most people and countries are glad this guy is behind bars.

But you still refuse to be clear about why. You point in the general direction of Africa, and that's it. It seems you take it on faith that he is a bad guy. That sort of thinking belongs in medieval times.

I have not quite decided if I am happy about him being behind bars or not. I just don't feel like doing your homework for you this week.

But I know for sure that I am not happy about how this adds to the Guantanamo precedent. Its not so much Bout I am worried about; its the truly innocent people that the U.S. government will squash in the name of selfishness and greed in the future, having gotten away with this new bout of completely crapping on the justice system.

oginome: Rightfully criticising the US government is 'having an axe to grind'? I think the response has been perfectly proportionate. You still think the US is exempt from criticism?

hehe it's kind of like being asking by the KKK if black people are exempt from criticism. What you obviously can't seem to understand is that I don't consider you to be a credible source of credible criticism against the US. There's not much you're going to be able to do to change my mind on this so we might as well move on.

U.S. troops don't belong in Columbia.

I was under the impression that they were there with the blessing of the government of Colombia and that that it has been this way for some time at least since 1998. Surely that would mean that they are not, as you put it, invaders and meddlers, and each and every soldier who goes to Columbia is an enabler of destruction and war. Wouldn't it?

If a policeman cops a baddie and doesn't get all his paperwork in order, all his evidence bang to rights and all the other t's crossed and i's dotted, the baddie will likely walk on a technicality.

Really? So all those coerced confessions and Human Rights findings on Japan are all wrong and they have it out for Japanese police forces. Listen, there is the face for public consumption and there is the face of reality. I'm sure dotting I's and crossing T's it what results in 99% conviction rates. Uhhuh!

Let me ask you this. If you had him in custody (personally) and you had absolute power to keep him captive or let him go about his business (with no risk to you), what would you choose? (Think about it for a few minutes). Let him go? Fine. That's where you stand. Personally, I'd rather see his abilities to illegally export arms curbed.

US kidnapped Russian citizen.

Hmm, not really. He was extradited from Thailand, ergo he was not "kidnapped", nice editorializing though. That aside, this is not an original case. French, Russians, Britons, etc., they all at have actually extricated people they have wanted extricated from foreign soil. Don't pretend this is the first such case ever. It's not. Now, I'm okay with a Russian expressing care about a fellow Russian --that's normal, though not logical, but it's forgivable.

There is also the potential for his being a pawn in international affairs. That's not saying he's innocent. Far from it --innocent people are not drawn into these things. It's saying that he might have been pulled in as a piece in a chess match. This always happens btwn the big powers. They get some of "our" guys or gals, we get some of "their" gals or guys --and we trade (or keep them in our pocket for later use. I'm just saying this is a possibility.

There is no question this guy was involved in illegal arms trade. Whatever sting he was involved in, I don't care. That's the technicality which gets him roped in. What matters is he was roped in.

@m5c32., you're using the same justification that those who invaded Iraq used

No. This guy actually, really was involved in illegal arms trade. Sadam, is another story. He bluffed (directed toward Iran) but unintentionally (by him) the West called his bluff. So, yes, intelligence failed and an unnecessary war, did happen. Then again, we're not discussing Iraq but Viktor.

Hmm, not really. He was extradited from Thailand, ergo he was not "kidnapped", nice editorializing though. That aside, this is not an original case

Yes really. He's not American and didn't committ any of his crimes within areas of US jurisdiction. I think 'kidnapped' is the appropriate word.

No. This guy actually, really was involved in illegal arms trade. Sadam, is another story. He bluffed (directed toward Iran) but unintentionally (by him) the West called his bluff. So, yes, intelligence failed and an unnecessary war, did happen. Then again, we're not discussing Iraq but Viktor.

Yes. The argument isn't about whether or not Bout is an arms dealer, it's about America extraditing a non-US citizen from areas of outside US jurisdiction and flouting international law. THIS is what I said compares to America's justification of its illegal war in Iraq, once again, law was seen as hindrance, something annoying that was in the way of America's plans.

Really? So all those coerced confessions and Human Rights findings on Japan blah blah blah....

Try to stay focussed. It isn't Japan that's trying to be world cop.

Let me ask you this. If you had him in custody (personally) and you had absolute power to keep him captive or let him go about his business (with no risk to you), what would you choose?

Assuming I was in that kind of position, which in itself is unrealistic - hand him over to the relevant authorities of the country in which he committed his crimes. In this case, that wouldn't be the US. If the relevant authorities of the countries in question weren't interested in pursuing the matter, then yes, he would go free. I don't really see much difference in 'illegally' selling arms and 'legally' selling them. They still kill people. If the big legal peddlers go free, why not the small illegal entrepreneur?

it's about America extraditing a non-US citizen from areas of outside US jurisdiction and flouting international law.

The US put an arrest warrant out, the Thais obliged and the US got him. Standard business (no flouting) You (Russians aren't even bringing the extradition up --they expressed that the trial was unjust). If you are incensed at the seemingly arbitrary reason for extradition, are you also incensed at the way any political opposition in Russia is silenced (i.e. murdered?). Are you incensed at the arbitrariness of how those the state cannot afford to murder are incarcerated under dubious charges (you know, actually made up)? If you are not, I cannot see how this would incense you any more. At least the other guys (and gals) are trying to bring a better Russia. This guy could give a rats arse about Russia.

As I have mentioned before Russia, UK, France, etc. all extract non-nationals from foreign territories. Don't pretend they don't. Ignoring this reduces your credibility considerably.

The US put an arrest warrant out, the Thais obliged and the US got him. Standard business (no flouting) You (Russians aren't even bringing the extradition up --they expressed that the trial was unjust). If you are incensed at the seemingly arbitrary reason for extradition, are you also incensed at the way any political opposition in Russia is silenced (i.e. murdered?). Are you incensed at the arbitrariness of how those the state cannot afford to murder are incarcerated under dubious charges (you know, actually made up)? If you are not, I cannot see how this would incense you any more. At least the other guys (and gals) are trying to bring a better Russia. This guy could give a rats arse about Russia.

At what point did I defend the Russians or their own human rights abuses? You keep going back to that, but it's a different issue from what's going on here. The US had no right to put an arrest warrant out when Bout isn't a US citizen and didn't committ his alleged crimes in areas of US jurisdiction. Why is that so hard to understand? Thailand co-operating doesn't absolve America.

As I have mentioned before Russia, UK, France, etc. all extract non-nationals from foreign territories. Don't pretend they don't. Ignoring this reduces your credibility considerably.

The UK and the France have extracted non-nationals from foreign territories who originally committed crimes in areas of UK/French jurisdiction. Russia as we know, is a pseudo democracy, but again, like I have to keep saying, actions other countries take doesn't make what America did any more right. You keep deflecting.

The US had no right to put an arrest warrant out when Bout isn't a US citizen

Obviously the Thais disagree with you. Sorry about that.

Obviously the Thais disagree with you. Sorry about that.

So what if the Thais disagree? Still doesn't mean America didn't flout international law, just means Thailand did it as well.

Thailand did it as well.

Then logically your issue would be with Thailand, not the US, actually. Imagine I ask a guy or a girl out on a date. I can ask all I want, but only a few will oblige. It's not my fault for asking. Either way, US or Thai, they "did the right thing". You can go on about how it was not your understanding of int'l law, etc. or you would rather things work otherwise. The thing is, brass tax, the guy is out of circulation. Lawyering is for lawyers --I don't mind them objecting, that's their job. I do mind people missing out on the obvious benefit to having this guy out of circulation. Like I said, I'm practical. Little good in this world comes uncompromised, in some way.

to m5c32

Let me ask you this. If you had him in custody (personally) and you had absolute power to keep him captive or let him go Personally, I'd rather see his abilities to illegally export arms curbed.

My dear american friend don't look on the planet Earth as at your personal custody.

Hmm, not really. He was extradited from Thailand, ergo he was not "kidnapped", nice editorializing though.

He is not citizen of Thailand also not property of Thailand

That aside, this is not an original case. French, Russians, Britons, etc., they all at have actually extricated people they have wanted extricated from foreign soil.

their OWN citizen - it's normal. Russia have no intention to provide justice to whole world (too expensive)

Don't pretend this is the first such case ever. It's not. Now, I'm okay with a Russian expressing care about a fellow Russian --that's normal, though not logical,

So if Russian take US citizen in Thailand and will judge him - it will be logical ?

They get some of "our" guys or gals, we get some of "their" gals or guys --and we trade

So as far as I understand now Russia must kidnapped some US citizen Then we trade ? Sounds funny !!

There is no question this guy was involved in illegal arms trade. Whatever sting he was involved in, I don't care. That's the technicality which gets him roped in. What matters is he was roped in.

Illegal arm trade on US territory ?

No. This guy actually, really was involved in illegal arms trade. Sadam, is another story.

More than a million people have been killed in Iraq as a resutl of ANOTER story But this is not important. They were not democrats

Then logically your issue would be with Thailand, not the US, actually. Imagine I ask a guy or a girl out on a date. I can ask all I want, but only a few will oblige. It's not my fault for asking. Either way, US or Thai, they "did the right thing". You can go on about how it was not your understanding of int'l law, etc. or you would rather things work otherwise. The thing is, brass tax, the guy is out of circulation. Lawyering is for lawyers --I don't mind them objecting, that's their job. I do mind people missing out on the obvious benefit to having this guy out of circulation. Like I said, I'm practical. Little good in this world comes uncompromised, in some way.

No, my issue would STILL be with the US since it's the US who sent out the arrest warrent like I already said. Your date analogy doesn't hold up. A more accurate comparison would be the guy asking asking the girl illegally for a gun, her saying yes, and then him taking the gun. Thailand's co-operation doesn't absolve America.

My dear american friend don't look on the planet Earth as at your personal custody.

Obviously you misunderstood. I am not doing anything. I am simply agreeing with the result. I personally, do not see myself having dominion over Earth.

He is not citizen of Thailand also not property of Thailand

That might be your preference, but it's not something Thailand cares about. Again, sorry about that.

So if Russian take US citizen in Thailand and will judge him - it will be logical ?

I guess you not follow news? US and Russia have tit-for-tat. It happens. US agent become lost, killed, later Russian agent get lost or imprisoned -maybe sent undesirable place; you understand now?

Thailand's co-operation doesn't absolve America.

How do you know this? Have you read the extradition treaty?

An offense shall be an extraditable offense for prosecution or for the imposition of a penalty or detention order only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for a period of more than one year or by any greater punishment.

For the enforcement of a penalty or detention order for such an extraditable offense, extradition shall be granted if the duration of the penalty or detention order still to be served amounts to at least six months. (2) An offense shall be an extraditable offense if it consists of preparing or attempting to commit, aiding or abetting, assisting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to, an offense described in paragraph (1) of this Article, provided that such are punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for a period of more than one year or by any greater punishment.

(3) Extradition shall also be granted for illicit or criminal association, as provided by the laws of Thailand, to commit any offense described in paragraph (1) of this Article, and for conspiring, as provided by the laws in the United States of America, to commit any such offense.

to m5c32

The US put an arrest warrant out, the Thais obliged and the US got him.

Thai - it's US colony ?

. If you are incensed at the seemingly arbitrary reason for extradition, are you also incensed at the way any political opposition in Russia is silenced (i.e. murdered?).

You frighten me.. Not so long ago all this opposition went at the appointment to the new American Ambassador For money and orders.

Are you incensed at the arbitrariness of how those the state cannot afford to murder are incarcerated under dubious charges (you know, actually made up)?

Now you talking about Abu Ghraib or Guantanomo ??

As I have mentioned before Russia, UK, France, etc. all extract non-nationals from foreign territories. Don't pretend they don't. Ignoring this reduces your credibility considerably.

Can you give some examples about Russia?

An offense shall be an extraditable offense for prosecution or for the imposition of a penalty or detention order only if it is punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for a period of more than one year or by any greater punishment.

For the enforcement of a penalty or detention order for such an extraditable offense, extradition shall be granted if the duration of the penalty or detention order still to be served amounts to at least six months. (2) An offense shall be an extraditable offense if it consists of preparing or attempting to commit, aiding or abetting, assisting, counseling or procuring the commission of, or being an accessory before or after the fact to, an offense described in paragraph (1) of this Article, provided that such are punishable under the laws of both Contracting Parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for a period of more than one year or by any greater punishment.

(3) Extradition shall also be granted for illicit or criminal association, as provided by the laws of Thailand, to commit any offense described in paragraph (1) of this Article, and for conspiring, as provided by the laws in the United States of America, to commit any such offense.

?????????

The extradition treaty doesn't make it any more legal that the US extradited a non-US citizen who didn't commit his crimes in areas of US jurisdiction. The treaty doesn't apply to Bout and never will. Non American and non Thai citizens are not a part of this treaty.

Non American and non Thai citizens are not a part of this treaty.

Really? So if a Maltan were to visit Disneyland and let's say he/she killed someone while there. Meanwhile the suspect gets on a plane to Thailand, The US cannot ask Thailand ex-post to extradite? You must be joking.

In any event, you are arguing against fact. Thailand disagrees with you, obviously. You may say water isn't wet, and perhaps it's dry to you, but in fact it actually is wet.

Really? So if a Maltan were to visit Disneyland and let's say he/she killed someone while there. Meanwhile the suspect gets on a plane to Thailand, The US cannot ask Thailand ex-post to extradite? You must be joking.

Oh dear, here we go again with the desperate analogies. And again, inaccurate. Unlike the Maltan, Bout did not commit his crimes his crimes in areas of US jurisdiction, he is not an American citizen, athe US had NO right to extradite him. It's painfully clear and obvious.

In any event, you are arguing against fact. Thailand disagrees with you, obviously. You may say water isn't wet, and perhaps it's dry to you, but in fact it actually is wet.

Again, Thailand disagreeing is beside the point. The US had no right to extradite Bout.

So if a Maltan were to visit Disneyland and let's say he/she killed someone while there.

Are you baiting us or are you really that thick? His post clearly said:

who didn't commit his crimes in areas of US jurisdiction.

Jeebus faxing cripes but must you drag this in circles???

Readers, please stop bickering and going around in circles.

Thai - it's US colony ?

Nyet, extradition treaty it's called.

Can you give some examples about Russia?

You know FSB, yes? You can ask your brothers in Caucasus region. I need say more?

Now you talking about Abu Ghraib or Guantanomo ??

No, I'm not talking about a few known terrorists. Im talking about thousands of plain Jane and Jack journalists and politicians and organizers in Russia who oppose comrade Putin. Please try make better example. People who want reform to motherland People who want curb graft and corruption in motherland.

Readers, please stop bickering and repeating yourselves. From here on, posts with nothing new will be removed.

Here's something new:

Bout ( in court, through a translator ): "I never intended to sell arms"

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

"I never intended to sell arms"

No doubt cherry picked, taken out of context, and carefully edited, then wrapped up for you by your favorite conservative radio talk show host. Fool me once.

It has already been reported that he said his intent in Thailand was to sell cargo planes, not weapons. He told the entrapment boys he could get weapons,but claims that was a ruse. I would say he is at least as credible as the judge who dismissed the juristiction complaint, maybe even more so.

Well I think we're just going to have to live with the fact that this guy will spend the next 25 years in jail all because of America's rule over the world. Might as well get over it and move on with your lives.

Well I think we're just going to have to live with the fact that this guy will spend the next 25 years in jail all because of America's rule over the world. Might as well get over it and move on with your lives.

25 years in an AMERICAN jail because America flouted international law. No one has said Bout was some kind of saint, just that his sentence was not America's to give. Will America keep ignoring law to do what it wants?

Well I think we're just going to have to live with the fact that this guy will spend the next 25 years in jail

Nope. Appeals are coming and more shady deals are quite possible. I can totally see the U.S. government making a deal despite this invented obnoxious chapter and coming out smelling like a rose. But then ruining it all by expecting everyone to be eternally grateful no matter what else it pulls in the future. Sure would not be the first time.

Either way I'm sure the US will come out on top. That's the important thing.

Either way I'm sure the US will come out on top. That's the important thing.

No, the important thing is that the US follows international law, not whether it 'comes out on top'.

Another scum bag arms dealer to the 3rd world?? So this scum bag is Russian, but arms dealers, including AMERICAN come a dime a dozen! All with BLOOD on their sweaty palms!

SuperLibAPR. 07, 2012 - 10:23AM JST People could always contact groups who fight against wrongful convictions in the US. Just tell them to drop what they doing and help get the worlds most famous arms dealer freed on a technicality. Or you could align yourself with Russia and tell them you want to have a political prisoner freed. Be sure to use Viktor's name early in the letter or else they might assume you are talking about one of the hundreds of real political prisoners in Russia at which point they will toss the letter aside. If you are lucky he can get released, then picked up, tried, and convicted in an African court. The downside is that he probably won't be able to publish a book and might not survive for long. But if your beef is with jurisdiction then at least your outrage will be eased.

Agree 100%. If people are upset about this and feel it is unjust then they are more effective ways (other than posting on JT) to make their feelings known.

US citizens could write their Congressman or Senator. They could even write the White House. They could also write their local newspapers. Non-US citizens could do something similar by writing their respective governments or local media.

If that's still not enough for some then they could contribute financially to Mr. Bout's defense. If giving money is too hard then maybe they could volunteer their time in some way. There must be some group out their who is supporting Mr. Bout. I found one site that says you can contact Mr. Bout by email. Not sure if it's legitimate or not, but maybe Mr. Bout would appreciate knowing that some people around the world believe he is being unjustly victimized.

http://www.viktorbout.net/contact-viktor/

You can even buy a t-shirt.

http://www.viktorbout.net/viktor-bout-shirts-donate/

You could also go to this page and ask what you can do to help him. http://www.victorbout.com/index.htm

Or to this site and post messages of support (kind of old though)

http://engforum.pravda.ru/index.php?/topic/221981-victor-bout-had-to-be-silencedhis-inside-knowledge-of-usa-illegal-covert-actions/

Really lots of things you can do if you feel so strongly that Mr. Bout is being unjustly treated.

"25 years in an AMERICAN jail"

I must protest this. American taxpayers should not be paying for this arms smuggler's food, clothing, housing medical care, etc. for 25 years.

Really lots of things you can do if you feel so strongly that Mr. Bout is being unjustly treated.

What a starry eyed contention! If Winston Churchill could not do anything for Rudolph Hess, then we sure as hell can not do anything for Viktor Bout in the short run short of raise an army and bust him out. In the long run, maybe win some high office like attorney general, assuming he does not die in prison in the inter-rim.

One good piece of advice I have heard many times in my life is to choose my battles. I know a losing horse when I see one. Posting here and expressing an opinion is quite enough. And we have every right to do that without being cajoled for expression our opinion while not wasting time, money, and spirit on a hopeless errand. But just because the errand is hopeless, does not mean its not right.

If Winston Churchill could not do anything for Rudolph Hess, then we sure as hell can not do anything for Viktor Bout in the short run

One thing is probably for sure, comparing Bout to Hess is probably not going to help his case much.

I must protest this. American taxpayers should not be paying for this arms smuggler's food, clothing, housing medical care, etc. for 25 years.

LOL, Serrano, you're making my argument for me. If America followed international law and didn't illegally extradite a non-US citizen who committed his crimes in areas outside of US jurisdiction, then American taxpayers wouldn't be paying for this 'arms smuggler's food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc. for 25 years'.

ogi - The Russians should have arrested this guy and Russian taxpayers should be paying for his food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc., but they didn't, so the Americans had to. Hey, the guy was conspiring to kill Americans.

"a non-US citizen who committed his crimes in areas outside US jurisdiction"

Like bin Laden, right? But we don't hear any critcism from liberals of Obama ordering his assassination, do we?

ogi - The Russians should have arrested this guy and Russian taxpayers should be paying for his food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc., but they didn't, so the Americans had to. Hey, the guy was conspiring to kill Americans.

No, the Americans did not 'have to', just because Russia didn't extradite him doesn't mean America was suddenly entitled to. Bizarre logic. Him conspiring to kill Americans took place outside areas of US jurisdiction and again, he was not a US citizen.

Like bin Laden, right? But we don't hear any critcism from liberals of Obama ordering his assassination, do we?

Oh dear, bringing up BIn Laden? I'm not a 'liberal of Obama', because I'm not an American. America assassinating Bin Laden still doesn't mean it's ok they ignored international law here.

Some big people in Russia is sure missing the payoffs. No more pocket money for boozs, boobs, and booties.

One good piece of advice I have heard many times in my life is to choose my battles. I know a losing horse when I see one.

Does it take a losing horse to know a losing horse?

Posting here and expressing an opinion is quite enough. And we have every right to do that without being cajoled for expression our opinion while not wasting time, money, and spirit on a hopeless errand. But just because the errand is hopeless, does not mean its not right.

Who said anything about this being hopeless? History is full of examples of those who did not give up when faced with incredible adversity. Like I said if you believe an incredible injustice is being done then get out there and help this man. How does expressing your opinion on a site like this help Mr. Bout?

onigome: If America followed international law and didn't illegally extradite

Do you have sources to support this? The jurisdiction issue was reviewed by the courts and the trail was allowed to continue. I've yet to see you post anything other than your personal opinion, and my guess is that international law and extradition isn't your field of work.

Do you have sources to support this? The jurisdiction issue was reviewed by the courts and the trail was allowed to continue. I've yet to see you post anything other than your personal opinion, and my guess is that international law and extradition isn't your field of work.

Are you serious? It's self evident, a non-US citizen who didn't commit his crimes in US jurisdiction being extradited to the US is a complete violation of international law. These are facts, not opinions. The field of international law and extradition will never be your field of work, when you clearly find such basic concepts so baffling and difficult to understand. His initial charges were dropped by the Thai court but overturned on appeal by US prosecutors. Oh well, if you're so desperate for a link to have the basics spelled out for you,

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/50397c12-f165-11df-8609-00144feab49a.html#axzz1rbZLWmxn

Aug 2009. A Thai judge rules that the former Soviet intelligence officer committed no crime on Thai soil and that “US charges are not applicable under Thai law,” dealing Mr Bout a victory in his ongoing battle to avoid extradition. Prosecutors subsequently appeal the decision

Actually, extradition treaties and international criminals who work across numerous borders isn't very self evident to me. The US and Thai authorities worked together on the sting operation that captured him. His target was Americans. Surely there is some way for the US to have some involvement in the case. It's self-edivent.

Your link was on an initial ruling for one set of charges. There were other charges and the ruling you posted was appealed. You have demonstrated aboslutely no legal position to say that the decisions made were not accurate. According to the legal system in Thailand and the legal system in the US (where jurisdiction was addressed during his trial) they had legal rights to do what they were doing. You can choose to ignore that but you should have the courtesy to admit that you don't have the law on your side because you are no able to counter the decisions made directly.

In the end you're defending someone who you think should be in jail by giving no legal evidence at all as a way to fight for justice. it's time for a more worthwhile hobby.

"Actually, extradition treaties and international criminals who work across numerous borders isn't very self evident to me.  The US and Thai authorities worked together on the sting operation that captured him.  His target was Americans.  Surely there is some way for the US to have some involvement in the case.  It's self-edivent.

Your link was on an initial ruling for one set of charges.  There were other charges and the ruling you posted was appealed.  You have demonstrated aboslutely no legal position to say that the decisions made were not accurate.  According to the legal system in Thailand and the legal system in the US (where jurisdiction was addressed during his trial) they had legal rights to do what they were doing.  You can choose to ignore that but you should have the courtesy to admit that you don't have the law on your side because you are no able to counter the decisions made directly.

In the end you're defending someone who you think should be in jail by giving no legal evidence at all as a way to fight for justice.

Actually, extradition treaties and international criminals who work across numerous borders isn't very self evident to me.  The US and Thai authorities worked together on the sting operation that captured him.  His target was Americans.  Surely there is some way for the US to have some involvement in the case.  It's self-edivent.

Your link was on an initial ruling for one set of charges.  There were other charges and the ruling you posted was appealed.  You have demonstrated aboslutely no legal position to say that the decisions made were not accurate.  According to the legal system in Thailand and the legal system in the US (where jurisdiction was addressed during his trial) they had legal rights to do what they were doing.  You have offered no evidence to the contrary.

Actually, extradition treaties and international criminals who work across numerous borders isn't very self evident to me. The US and Thai authorities worked together on the sting operation that captured him. His target was Americans. Surely there is some way for the US to have some involvement in the case. It's self-edivent.

Even if he 'worked across numerous borders', he NEVER worked inside American borders. The US had no right to extradite Bout. Even if he targeted Americans, that still doesn't give ground to extradite him, only if he targeted Americans inside American borders. It's really not self-evident that America would extradite him. Again, these are basic concepts.

Your link was on an initial ruling for one set of charges. There were other charges and the ruling you posted was appealed. You have demonstrated aboslutely no legal position to say that the decisions made were not accurate. According to the legal system in Thailand and the legal system in the US (where jurisdiction was addressed during his trial) they had legal rights to do what they were doing. You have offered no evidence to the contrary.

None of his charges levelled towards him were for crimes committed inside American jurisdiction, so even if there 'were other charges', it still doesn't give the US the right to have done what it did. What the Thai judge said applies to ALL of Bout's alleged crimes. Then US had no say. The legal system in Thailand and the US co-operated together to violate international law. They violated basic international law, by America asking for extradition, and Thailand acquiescing, but the final burden of responsibility is on the US for taking him to America after Thailand said yes. You have offered no evidence to say that the US didn't violate international law here.

The only evidence I have are the judicial systems of Thailand and the US, including the work of people who have specific knowledge of these types of laws and who specifically brought up the jurisdiction issue. On the other side, there is you, a guy who figured things out behind his computer. And the odd thing is that you seem genuinely shocked that I'm not on your side.

The only evidence I have are the judicial systems of Thailand and the US, including the work of people who have specific knowledge of these types of laws and who specifically brought up the jurisdiction issue. On the other side, there is you, a guy who figured things out behind his computer. And the odd thing is that you seem genuinely shocked that I'm not on your side.

Oh dear, you keep trying to run away from this. The 'judicial systems of Thailand and the US' didn't follow international law, a non US citizen who didn't commit any of his alleged crimes his in the US should NEVER have been extradited to America. You're presenting the 'judicial system' as evidence, but all the judicial system showed to was corruption and blatant and flagrant disregard of this international law. Um, I'm not shocked at all you're not on my side, I already know you're someone who doesn't think America does any wrong, since I clearly remember how you tried to call for 'understanding' of why Robert Bales went on his cold blooded killing spree. Oh wait, wasn't he taken to America instead of facing his crimes in that country where he committed them? Oops. The least you could have done was go down the route mc523 originally went down on, by trying to convince us that international law is unimportant if we're going after the 'bad guys - hell yeah!'. As soon as you start trying to delve into the jurisdiction element to support the extradition, you lose, because you're just bringing up the evidence as to how America violated international law. Try harder.

You're presenting the 'judicial system' as evidence

I know. Pretty crazy, isn't it?

The guy is in jail and you can be angry about it if you want to. Personally, I think you should let it go. Spend your time going after people who really need help, not people you think are guilty.

I know. Pretty crazy, isn't it?

Yeah, pretty crazy especially when the judicial system violates international law. Just because the judicial system made the 'choice' doesn't make it any less illegall. You said your evidence was the judicial system, my evidence is international law.

The guy is in jail and you can be angry about it if you want to. Personally, I think you should let it go. Spend your time going after people who really need help, not people you think are guilty.

I'm not angry he's in jail, I'm angry that he's in an AMERICAN jail. America had no right to extradite him.

Nobody steals American arms profit!

@ oginome

it was a sting operation led by undercover US Drug Enforcement Administration agents masquerading as cadre of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Thus he tried to sell arms to undercover US agents who were masquerading as a member of FARC and Farc is an organization the US State Dep. declared to be a terrorist organization.

a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state..............but the way around this has been by international treaty............."At present, Thailand has extradition treaties with 14 countries - the US, UK, Canada, China, Belgium, Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Malaysia, South Korea, Bangladesh, Fiji, and Australia."......................... yeah Russia is not on that list so he couldn't go there....and the second Thai court allowed the US extradition....

http://www.thailawforum.com/thailand-extradition-criminal-cases.html

Here is a link that goes over the case and Thai law

@ oginome

I have to ask, what do you think the International law is?

@ tyler vandenberg

Nothing you wrote or posted makes what America did any more legal. Again, Bout attempting to sell arms to the US Drug Enforcement Administration in disguise took place OUTSIDE American jurisdiction, and he is NOT an American citizen. The fact that Thailand doesn't have an extradition treaty with Russia doesn't suddenly mean it was legal for him to be extradited to the US, that logic makes no sense. Zoning in on the specifics on the US-Thai extradition treaty is pointless, because the treaty will never apply to a non-US citizen who committed his crimes outside the US. America had no right to extradite Bout, it was a complete violation of international law. Bout should have been tried in an international court. America behaved arrogantly, the law was seen as an inconvienence to doing what it wanted.

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

He did the Crime in Thailand International law means Thailand does not have any obligation to give him to any one Russia or the U.S. but Thailand does have a extradition treaty with the US so he can go to the US Legally.

International Criminal Court- is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression................ not for selling arms to terrorist organization..

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

He did the Crime in Thailand International law means Thailand does not have any obligation to give him to any one Russia or the U.S. but Thailand does have a extradition treaty with the US so he can go to the US Legally.

No, the US extraditing him from Thailand would only be legal if he was a US citizen, but he is not, so the US had no right. Even if Thailand doesn't have an extradition treaty with Russia again, it doesn't suddenly give the US the right to extradite Bout. In this case, Bout should have been tried by an international court, such as the one in the Hague.

International Criminal Court- is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression................ not for selling arms to terrorist organization..

Um, I think you'll find that 'selling arms to a terrorist organization' would meet the criteria for trial in the International Criminal Court.

US citizen who commited his crimes in the US

most countries do no recognize the Farc as a terrorist group. Farc is described as a terrorist group by the governments of Colombia, the United States, Canada, Chile and New Zealand, as well as by the European Union.

Viktor Bout crimes where only against those that describe FARC as a Terrorist group.

international weapons smuggling falls under INTERPOL and those US agents were working for INTERPOL.

conspiring to kill American service personnel is the charge that gave the US judicial authority.

international court, such as the one in the Hague.

Both Russia ,the US, and Thailand have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute...... so the Hague ICC has no judicial authority in this case b/c they are indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their former representatives' signature of the Statute...... thus the ICC does not apply to any counrty in this case

onigome: You said your evidence was the judicial system, my evidence is international law.

Not quite. My opinion is based on the legal opinion of two judicial systems who take international law into account. You're telling me to ignore the judicial systems and simply listen to you. I don't find you to be qualified or credible in this specific area, and repeating yourself endlessly will not change that fact.

Well, "international law" is only as good as the deals agreed between the nations. For instance, Japan not yet agreeing with the Hague Convention means foreign child abduction is not against international law in Japan yet. That's the weak link to "international law" - the nations still have the power, not some international entity.

@ tyler vandenberg,

I don't think you get it. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is as, you've guessed, an INTERNATIONAL COURT, the varying positions each country take on whether or not Farc is a terrorist group and America not ratifying the Rome Statute still does NOT change international law. Your logic makes no sense, the US had no right to extradite Bout, since he was not a US citizens and him trying to sell the arms to FARC did not fall under US jurisdiction, regardless of whether America saw FARC as a terrorist group or not. Why does the US think American law is world law?

Not quite. My opinion is based on the legal opinion of two judicial systems who take international law into account. You're telling me to ignore the judicial systems and simply listen to you. I don't find you to be qualified or credible in this specific area, and repeating yourself endlessly will not change that fact.

Your opinion is based on two judicial systems which co-operated to violate international law, so you presenting their decision doesn't bolster your argument, because their decision simply undermined their credibility and showed the flagrant disregard the US has for legality.

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is.

About time to wrap this up?

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is.

It was certainly a violation of international law, regardless of what the decision the judicial systems made. Once again, the law was something which inconvenienced America so they decided to ignore it. His case was originally dropped in Thailand, it was US prosecutors, who demanded for an appeal - US prosecutors trying a non US citizen for crimes he didn't commit in US jurisdiction, what a farce.

About time to wrap this up?

You keep saying you want to 'wrap it up' and 'let it go', but you keep posting anyway.

You have yet to state what you think International law is..... by not stating what interntional law is your point on the US breaking international law is void and you have yet to refute my standing def. of international law. That (The international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people (being a differnt citizen doesn't matter) within its borders it)

since he was arrested in a sting operation in a Bangkok hotel in 2008 the only outcry has been from Russia, you would think that these International courts you claim have the right to hold the trial would have said something........ I checked there websites (both of them b/c when I went after the first the International Criminal Court then you changed it to the ICJ..... anyway the first only handles war criminals the second only handles legal disputes between states....but any member of the security concil can veto their verdict.......INTERPOL is mandated by the UN to handle cases like this and the US agents were working for INTERPOL

If you payed any attention to what happens in international law you would see that the US extradites non US citizens to the US all the time....... Other countries do it too and happens alot due to crimes on the internet.

If international courts had any power in cases other then war crimes and crimes against humanity, All of the Japanese who face child abduction charges in the states would be on trial right now............ Is Japan breaking International law too???..... the answer is no b/c of my def. I gave for international law on extraditing. The person is in Japan so it is Japan's choice on if they want to extradite them and they choose not to. It was Thailand choice and they sent him to the states.

You have yet to state what you think International law is..... by not stating what interntional law is your point on the US breaking international law is void and you have yet to refute my standing def. of international law. That (The international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people (being a differnt citizen doesn't matter) within its borders it)

Actually, being a different citizen matters hugely, since Bout is not a US citizen and did not commit his crimes under US jurisdiction, therefore the US had no right to extradite him. Just because Thailand acquiesced doesn't make what the US did any more legal, the grounds for extradition only stand if Bout was a US citizen in Thailand or if he had committed his crimes in America.

since he was arrested in a sting operation in a Bangkok hotel in 2008 the only outcry has been from Russia, you would think that these International courts you claim have the right to hold the trial would have said something........ I checked there websites (both of them b/c when I went after the first the International Criminal Court then you changed it to the ICJ..... anyway the first only handles war criminals the second only handles legal disputes between states....but any member of the security concil can veto their verdict.......INTERPOL is mandated by the UN to handle cases like this and the US agents were working for INTERPOL

Oh dear, it doesn't matter if the US agents were working for Interpol, they can work for Interpol if they want, but them being American does not make it any more legal that Bout was extradited to the US, any more than if the Interpol agents were Dutch or Irish. The international courts didn't say anything, but that again,that doesn't mean the US was justified, more bizarre logic. And I used the Hague as an example, but specifically responded to your post saying his crimes would not be tried in the International Criminal Court.

If you payed any attention to what happens in international law you would see that the US extradites non US citizens to the US all the time....... Other countries do it too and happens alot due to crimes on the internet.

That doesn't make it any more legal. Non Americans who commit crimes outside US jurisdiction getting extradited to America is a violation of international law. 'All the time' doesn't make it any more right.

If international courts had any power in cases other then war crimes and crimes against humanity, All of the Japanese who face child abduction charges in the states would be on trial right now............ Is Japan breaking International law too???..... the answer is no b/c of my def. I gave for international law on extraditing. The person is in Japan so it is Japan's choice on if they want to extradite them and they choose not to. It was Thailand choice and they sent him to the states.

Selling arms illegally consitutes a war crime. Just because Thailand did not have a treaty with Russia does mean the US was justified in doing what it did. Why is this so difficult to understand? And I think you forget to mention that the US ASKED for extradition, Thailand didn't just turn him over and even tried to impede it from happening, and the final burden of responsibility still lies with the US for taking him to America. In the kidnapping cases, Japan refuses to extradite people who have spouses and children from the country which is asking for the extradition. Using the logic used in the Bout case, this would be like America asking for a Japanese parent to be extradited to the US to face trial for that Japanese parent kidnapping her child from the Netherlands and her Dutch husband.

U.S. military/counter-narcotics aid a deal with Colombia or better know as the "Plan Colombia" is where the Colombia government gave permission to the US to conduct military/counter- narcotics operations for Colombia.

So this statement is not Valid

this would be like America asking for a Japanese parent to be extradited to the US to face trial for that Japanese parent kidnapping her child from the Netherlands and her Dutch husband.

b/c to make your example like the case the Dutch would have a plan where the US tracks down the parent for kidnapping for them like Colombia has with the US.

War Crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

Like I said before INTERPOL is mandated by the UN to protect against international criminal activity you also did not refute this.

You still have not stated what International Law so my def. still stands after 5 rounds.

I don't think you get it. The International Court of Justice in the Hague is as, you've guessed, an INTERNATIONAL COURT

Um, I think you'll find that 'selling arms to a terrorist organization' would meet the criteria for trial in the International Criminal Court.

you said both of these in you comments International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court. (they are not the same and don't handle the same cases) but have not said which one would have right to the case you only keep saying an "International Court"

So to score the Debate

INTERPOL and illegal Weapons- Stands- point to me International law definition-you did not refute this. Stands- point to me International Court- you cited 2 courts and did not say definitely which one it was- I debunked both of those courts and your refute was- "it doesn't matter"- Fails- point to me Bout is not a US citizen- My international Law def. Stated- the state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders it. other then saying people within its borders I did not show proof that citizenship matters, but neither did you your only proof was Actually, being a different citizen matters hugely.- call it a draw b/c neither provided enough to validated their point. America had legal right- I stated the agents were working for INTERPOL you did not state any point only saying it was against international law which you never defined. Stands point to me

Many people are surprised to learn that the long arm of the law can extend well beyond national boundaries, with people able to be extradited to face criminal charges and serve sentences for even relatively minor offenses, or for breaking laws in another country without ever having visited it.

Why is this so difficult to understand?

Because you did not show clear and convincing proof and even my proof was not the best but still held.

I'm sorry I'm calling the debate I won 4-0-1

I won 4 points and a draw on one

onigome: It was certainly a violation of international law, regardless of what the decision the judicial systems made

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is.

Tyler: the state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders it. other then saying people within its borders I did not show proof that citizenship matters, but neither did you your only proof was Actually, being a different citizen matters hugely.

The US-Thai treaty on extradition does not mention nationality: http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/Siam-and-United-of-America.html

It also says, "(2) With respect to an extraditable offense committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, the Requested State shall grant extradition, subject to the provisions of this Treaty, if its laws would provide for the punishment of such an offense in comparable circumstances."

My guess is that onigome's only response will be to say, once again, that international law (that he refuses to provide evidence of) supports his position. I'm afraid legal language isn't going to do much to a person who simply wants to believe he is right.

to Tyler Vandenberg U.S. military/counter-narcotics aid a deal with Colombia or better know as the "Plan Colombia" is where the Colombia government gave permission to the US to conduct military/counter- narcotics operations for Colombia.

I see no connection with Tailand...sorry, If Viktor was arrested in Colombia during illegal operation - we can discuss.... sovereignty of this state, every sovereign state administers justice independently.

War Crimes are serious violations of the laws applicable in armed conflict (also known as international humanitarian law) giving rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of such conduct include "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of prisoners, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity"

Exactly !!! war crimes - are always VERY serious. You gives exellent descriptions of US ARMY crimes. murder ill treatment... Ye ye it is so ...destructions of cities .... exactly Who is the main warmonger ? US...

Like I said before INTERPOL is mandated by the UN to protect against international criminal activity you also did not refute this.

Who will protect Iraqi children Afgani ? Nobody ... They dying for democracy... American democracy ..

America had legal right- I stated the agents were working for INTERPOL

So If Russian agents working for interpol, they can take US citizen from third countries ? and send them in Siberia ? I'm right ?

Many people are surprised to learn that the long arm of the law can extend well beyond national boundaries

American government has never recognized the right of international courts to judge US citizens. Sorry

for breaking laws in another country without ever having visited it.

Sorry - you always obeying Chinese laws ? N Korean ? Egyptian ? I see - you talking about ONLY one supernation - US ! Am I right ?

Olegek, learn from onigome. You can be anti-American but you have to think of clever ways to try to hide it. Bringing up Iraq every chance you get means your angry about Iraq and you want to ignore the specifics of this case. What's better is to bring up Iraq causally, like an example you just randomly thought of, and present it that way. Onigome can give you some tips.

U.S. military/counter-narcotics aid a deal with Colombia or better know as the "Plan Colombia" is where the Colombia government gave permission to the US to conduct military/counter- narcotics operations for Colombia.

Yes, but why would Bout illegally selling arms to FARC stands grounds for extradition to the States? He did not commit his crimes there. Judging by your post, everyone can be extradition to America now based on crimes they commit outside America. So American law is world law? OK.

b/c to make your example like the case the Dutch would have a plan where the US tracks down the parent for kidnapping for them like Colombia has with the US.

Do you not understand it, the US agents were part of Interpol, they did not represent the US government. Interpol is an INTERNATIONAL organisation, the nationalities of the officers tracking down culprits doesn't suddely mean the perpertrator is extradited to the country the agents are citizens of. And no, if US agents working for an INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION were sent to track down the Japanese parent in the hypothetical Dutch/Japanese case, there would still be no grounds for the Japanese mother to face trial in the States. So now you're using the nationality of Interpol agents to justify America thinking American law is world law?

you said both of these in you comments International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court. (they are not the same and don't handle the same cases) but have not said which one would have right to the case you only keep saying an "International Court"

No, I provided examples of international courts and said Bout should face the International Criminal Court, I used the Hague as an example, 'such as'.

INTERPOL and illegal Weapons- Stands- point to me International law definition-you did not refute this. Stands- point to me International Court- you cited 2 courts and did not say definitely which one it was- I debunked both of those courts and your refute was- "it doesn't matter"- Fails- point to me Bout is not a US citizen- My international Law def. Stated- the state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders it. other then saying people within its borders I did not show proof that citizenship matters, but neither did you your only proof was Actually, being a different citizen matters hugely.- call it a draw b/c neither provided enough to validated their point. America had legal right- I stated the agents were working for INTERPOL you did not state any point only saying it was against international law which you never defined. Stands point to me

Once again, the US agents working for Interpol did not provide any grounds for Bout to be extradited to America, because he is not a US citizen and did not commit his crimes within US jurisdiction. I said both courts to provide an example of international courts, and said he should be tried at the International Criminal Court, selling arms illegally meets the criteria for being tried here. My point was that Bout should NEVER have been extradited to America even if Thailand had legal sovereignty over him, because he was not American and did not commit his crimes within America which I have to keep saying, so America had no right to ask for extradition and just because Thailand granted it, doesn't mean the US was in the right. No 'stands point' to you at all - Interpol is international, the citizenship of its agents don't change this.

Many people are surprised to learn that the long arm of the law can extend well beyond national boundaries, with people able to be extradited to face criminal charges and serve sentences for even relatively minor offenses, or for breaking laws in another country without ever having visited it.

The 'long arm of the law' should never extend beyond national borders except when the criminals are citizens of that country or committed their crimes there. If Bout had illegally tried to sell his arms in the US, then America would have grounds for extradition, but he didn't and they don't.

Because you did not show clear and convincing proof and even my proof was not the best but still held.

I wasn't aware we were keeping score.

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is.

No, according to people who understand jurisdiction, America had no right to do what it did.

The US-Thai treaty on extradition does not mention nationality: http://www.thailawforum.com/database1/Siam-and-United-of-America.html

It also says, "(2) With respect to an extraditable offense committed outside the territory of the Requesting State, the Requested State shall grant extradition, subject to the provisions of this Treaty, if its laws would provide for the punishment of such an offense in comparable circumstances."

The treaty would only apply if Bout was a US citizen, or else the US could ask for every person who committed any crime in Thailand, no matter what nationality, to be extradited to America to face trial. People who commit crimes in a particular country should be tried in the country they did their crimes in, and if that's not possible for whatever reason, it goes to an international court. Thailand already tried Bout and released him, 'US law is not applicable under Thail law' The American court is NOT international court, despite what some Americans desperately want to believe.

My guess is that onigome's only response will be to say, once again, that international law (that he refuses to provide evidence of) supports his position. I'm afraid legal language isn't going to do much to a person who simply wants to believe he is right.

There is no legal language which justifies what America did. Otherwise, other countries can just start extraditing US citizens for crimes that weren't committed in the country asking for extradition! When will your country grow up? You have still not presented any legal language to justify what America did.

And I don't think either of you understand, ignoring the annoying matter of JURISDICTION is the EVIDENCE of a violation of international law, since country jurisdiction only makes sense in the international context. America violated international law, keep running away from it.

Mechanism in public international law for exercising jurisdiction over an international defendant

The protective principle is one of national security and it holds that a state may have jurisdiction over a defendant accused of acts in pursuance of overthrowing the host state's government. See United States v. Yousef

The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws.

In the United States, the federal courts have recognized an important mechanism for acquiring jurisdiction over foreign defendants known as the effects doctrine. The effects doctrine is an off-shoot of the territorial principle. Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible.

There you go I found it The effects doctrine is an off-shoot of the territorial principle in International Law that gives the US legal right in this case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States

@ tyler vandenberg

No, you haven't found 'it'. What you have shown is the jurisdication the US has over international defendants who commit crimes WITHIN the US - Bout did not commit his crimes within US borders, so it does not apply to him.

The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws. Territorial principle doesn't apply to Bout.

There you go I found it The effects doctrine is an off-shoot of the territorial principle in International Law that gives the US legal right in this case.

No, the 'effects doctrine' is a law the US applied to itself to circumvent international law. It completely ignores and disregards the concept of other countries' jurisdiction and is a violation of international law. If someone commits a crime in one country, like Bout is alleged to have done, then he should be tried in THAT country and not extradited to one which he is not a citizen of and did not commit his crimes. So the 'effects doctrine' is an attempt by America to make itself international law - what a surprise.

Olegek, learn from onigome.

I try

You can be anti-American

I 'm NOT anti - American - I just not looking at US like Holy land ..

but you have to think of clever ways to try to hide it.

It's dangerous ? It's against the law ?

Bringing up Iraq every chance you get means your angry about Iraq and you want to ignore the specifics of this case.

Mr Tyler Vandenberg talking soo pathetically about WAR CRIMES... I was touched by...

Anyway Iraq it's a pride of US foreign policy ....

To Tyler Vandenberg

Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible.

OK OK that's really GREAT.

In the United States, the federal courts have recognized.

The same thing we all have talking about last 5 days - It is US decision. It is not obligatory to other countries. Imagine - the same doctrine putting in action in China, Russia, Iran, N Korea, Mongolia, Germany, Algeria... and other and other... and packs of foreign agents darting here and there and stealing people

Nightmare yeh ?

Exactly - what you propose- nightmare .

@ Olegek

I have shared no personal opinion on this matter, oginome said what the US did was illegal and he should of went to an International Court I was only seeking to prove how the US used international law to their advantage in this case. Oginome seems to think International Law is this perfect power to police the world... when it is far from it...... you can call it a nightmare and some people see as such just ask the parents of the U.K. Student Extradited (from the UK) To the U.S. for Piracy, the fact is since the Internet allows computers to instantly communicate across national boundaries which means none of us are safe from the long arm of the law....... France, Germany ,Russia, Austria, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan, forbid extradition of their own nationals so you will see a lot more of these citizens being extradited from 3rd party countries to face charges in another country. So you can either keep calling it illegal but someday when you take a vacation to a country that has an extradition treaty with the country trying to extradite you for downloading that illegal copy of a movie you will wish someone would have fought to change international law.

I have shared no personal opinion on this matter, oginome said what the US did was illegal and he should of went to an International Court I was only seeking to prove how the US used international law to their advantage in this case. Oginome seems to think International Law is this perfect power to police the world... when it is far from it...... you can call it a nightmare and some people see as such just ask the parents of the U.K. Student Extradited (from the UK) To the U.S. for Piracy, the fact is since the Internet allows computers to instantly communicate across national boundaries which means none of us are safe from the long arm of the law....... France, Germany ,Russia, Austria, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan, forbid extradition of their own nationals so you will see a lot more of these citizens being extradited from 3rd party countries to face charges in another country. So you can either keep calling it illegal but someday when you take a vacation to a country that has an extradition treaty with the country trying to extradite you for downloading that illegal copy of a movie you will wish someone would have fought to change international law.

Nothing you wrote contradicted anything I said and you have provided no evidence to show how the US was had a right to do what it did. The US violated international law by ignoring and not respecting jurisdiction. Country jurisdiction only makes sense within the international context, so by violating it, you violate international law. And yet you didn't understand this? Just because something it is government policy in the US does not make what happened any more legal, the US did not use international law 'to their advantage', they completely disregarded it. How on earth can the 'effects doctrine' be considered an 'off-shoot' of territorial principle when it completely disregards the basis of territorial principle, which is jurisdiction? Once again, it is legal in the US, but that does not make it international law. Under the 'effects doctrine', the US can kidnap any one it wants, any citizen, from any country. Complete violation of other countries' jurisdiction. And Bout did not download movies and music illegally online, so the students case has nothing to do his selling arms. 'Oginome thinks international law is the perfect power to police the world' - yes, that's why it is called INTERNATIONAL law, the US wil never be the world police, no matter how much they try and make themselves so.

140 comments in and onigome still hasn't provided a single link showing any evidence to support his position. What are you waiting for?

onigome: The US violated international law by ignoring and not respecting jurisdiction.

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. Your legal opinion is directly contradicted by legal experts. Legal experts who specifically reviewed the concept of jurisdiction.

The territorial principle is the most important and widely used. It is the idea that a state may claim jurisdiction over persons and events inside its own territory. So, foreign nationals committing crimes in the U.S. are subject to U.S. courts and U.S. laws. Territorial principle doesn't apply to Bout.

Oh, dear. Did you not read the wikipedia entry? It gives plenty of examples where non-US citizens in foreign countries can fall under US jurisdiction, usually as a result of intended targets being American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_jurisdiction_over_international_defendants_in_the_United_States

I'll wait to hear back from you before I decide if any of those cases are legal. I'd hate to rely on the opinion of courts and legal experts when I have such a wonderful resource as yourself to set me straight.

International Law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations. It differs from national legal systems in that it only concerns nations rather than private citizens. So what you are try to say is US violated Public international law......I was talking about Mechanism in public international law.................the effects doctrine is NOT IN US LAW it is in the Public international law that is a Statute of the International Court of Justice........ you know one of those International Courts you have been talking about so much.

The only reason the US can Police the World is b/c International Laws let it, If the International Court of Justice changed Public International LAW then then if the US did something like this it would be illegal.

to prove how the US used international law to their advantage in this case Oginome seems to think International Law is this perfect power to police the world... when it is far from it...

But why ? why International Law is not perfect power ? Because in such case we have not supreme power to resolve all disputes and forcing the sides to fulfill decisions. Russian state just NOT recognise US decision in this case, that's all

you can call it a nightmare and some people see as such just ask the parents of the U.K. Student Extradited (from the UK)

Yes - from UK to US UK citizen extradited by UK government - no problem. Two states - US and UK has recognized this crime, comitted by UK citizen. You see ? The same thing we have sometimes between US and Russia concerning IT criminal. And without any problems Russian citizens going to US jails or Russian jails - I have no Ideas which is worse. For crimes against US law from Russian territory . It's so. Nothing special. Russia does not cover crime.

But this is another case. Russian state does not recognize US decision.

To the U.S. for Piracy, the fact is since the Internet allows computers to instantly communicate across national boundaries which means none of us are safe from the long arm of the law....

It is US law. Not universal. Are you ready to meet Iranian Justice ? Why not ?

France, Germany ,Russia, Austria, the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Japan, forbid extradition of their own nationals so you will see a lot more of these citizens being extradited from 3rd party countries to face charges in another country

What about US ? We both know that US does not recognize right of any international Courts toward US citizens. Am I right ?

So you can either keep calling it illegal

Like Russian Foreign Minister...

Sorry - it's not US vs Viktor. It' US against Russia.

Let's look what we have as a result

Russia's State Duma, or the lower house of parliament, has no jurisdiction to defend third person at international courts, Dmitry Vyatkin, deputy head of the Duma Committee for Constitutional Legislation and State Construction said Thursday.......................... really cause this is what I heard..

Again....."The Russian State Duma had no legal right to meet his request and this is not in our competence," Vyatkin was quoted as saying by the Itar-Tass news agency.

Seems like the not all of Russia...... just the Foreign Minister......... The only results I see is maybe he will be transfer to Russia to serve his 25 years in Jail..

Vyatkin's comment was made after Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Thursday in New York, called on the State Duma to file a lawsuit against the United States and Thailand.

"The Russian State Duma had no legal right to meet his request and this is not in our competence," Vyatkin was quoted as saying by the Itar-Tass news agency

•Before 2008, the most high-profile target was Monzer al-Kassar, an arms dealer with a long history of supporting terrorists. The sting that nabbed him using false FARC representatives occurred in 2007, leading to his arrest in Spain and extradition. He eventually received a 30-year prison sentence. •In February 2010, the DEA worked another sting operation to capture Paul Mardirossian, a Swede who agreed to sell agents posing as FARC members grenades and AK-47 rifles -- weapons the false FARC members claimed were for the express purpose of attacking a U.S. military base. Mardirossian pleaded guilty and is expected to be sentenced this May. •Later that year, former Salvadoran army officer Hector Antonio Martinez-Guillen agreed to sell weaponry for an attack against Americans to a purported FARC representative he thought would supply him drugs in exchange for the arms -- and again, the man was working for the DEA. Martinez-Guillen was sentenced to 31 years in prison.

"We had used [the FARC sting] for al-Kassar and it worked fine," he recollects. "When it came to Bout I was concerned - why are we using the same scheme again? What's the risk here? But as I talked to the agents responsible for moving the initiative forward, it made perfect sense to go ahead and use it again."

Those 3 did the same thing as Viktor Bout (Actually the DEA used the same exact operation to get all of them)........ they are all still in US jail so........ I guess we will see what happens

to Tyler Vandenberg

Vyatkin's comment was made after Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, who was sentenced to 25 years in prison on Thursday in New York, called on the State Duma to file a lawsuit against the United States and Thailand. "The Russian State Duma had no legal right to meet his request and this is not in our competence," Vyatkin was quoted as saying by the Itar-Tass news agency

And Allen West accuses Congressional Democrats of being members of the Communist Party...

and what does it means ? Freedom of speech and liberty of discussons.

It's quite normal situation

But Russian Foreign Policy - this is Mr Lavrov

@ tyler vandenberg

The US does not recognise the jurisdiction on international court when it comes to its own citizens. The effects doctrine needs to be scrapped because it is a violation of its 'mother law', territorial principle, by dismissing the basis of what territorial principle is in the first place. It is not an off-shoot, but a negation. If you go back to your link, you will see than what Bout did (illegally selling arms) constitutes a war crime and meets the criteria for the universality principle. But the universality principle has not been ratified by the US, because they say it impedes the 'sovereignty' of nations- very hypocritical for the US not to recognise territorial principle, but then apply the effects doctrine. So it can kidnap any one if wants, anywhere in the world, US citizen or no, but the US won't allow other countries to prosecute its war criminals. Says it all really.

The bottom line is that Bout should have been tried in the country where he committed his crimes, and if that wasn't possible, it should have gone to an international court, NOT the US. You are NOT the world police. The arrogance displayed by the land of the free never fails to amaze me.

The only reason the US can Police the World is b/c International Laws let it, If the International Court of Justice changed Public International LAW then then if the US did something like this it would be illegal.

No, not every country recognises the effects doctrine just as America does not recognise universality principle.

According to the international law experts who reviewed it, it was not a violation of international law. According to onigome on Japan Today, it is. I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. Your legal opinion is directly contradicted by legal experts. Legal experts who specifically reviewed the concept of jurisdiction.

Um, I don't have much faith in American judicial system considering its your country which allowed Robert Bales to escape being tried in the very country where he committed his heinous, blood soaked masscare in. Again, jurisdiction was dismissed. If he isn't tried in the country he committed his crimes, then why should those UK teens be extradited to America for piracy and hacking? They committed their crimes in the jurisdiction of the UK even if it was in the 'international' world of the internet - so why should they face their crimes in the US, when Bales didn't face trial in Afghanistan?

Now you're mixing in private agreements between the US and Afghanistan. I'm not privy to their specific agreements, but if you are then please post them. Otherwise, they don't have any impact on this case.

The arrogance displayed by the land of the free never fails to amaze me.

Comments like this have no place in our discussion. It just shows that you have anger and bias towards the US which creates a credibility issue with your comments. I don't understand why you would do that to yourself. Same with ignoring Thailand's role in the case. You are very open and candid about your selective outrage which again undermines your claim that your motivation is justice. You can't say you want justice from only one party when you know many parties were involved. It's like saying there is a group of 4 criminals but you only want to go after the Jewish one because you really want to see justice served while ignoring the other 3. It doesn't add it up.

The laws on this issue are most likely very complex. People don't want to have to police and hand over criminals to other nations if they don't need to, but on the other hand countries don't want a situation where it invites criminals from country A who commit crimes in Country B from going to Country C for safe haven. It simply creates an avenue where anyone can get away with anything they want as long as they cross the right borders. Bin Laudin (Saudi) was operating in Afghanistan which, by your definition, means it would be illegal for the US to go after him since he's not a US citizen operation outside of the US. Over the years the legal systems have tried to find ways to close these loopholes.

You should read the wikipedia page. It gives examples of operating from one country to harm another. It also brings up thorny legal issues like crimes committed in international waters. There are quite a few cases where the court are still trying to figure out a way to handle these things.

The facts that haven't changed is that Thai authorities took the jurisdiction information into account and felt comfortable going forward with the extradition. That means the legal experts from Thailand disagree with you. He arrived in the US and went on trial where his defense lawyer brought up the same claims, and legal experts gave their opinions again and said the jurisdiction was appropriate. Your opinion is that a wide range of legal experts who specialize in international law were simply all wrong while at the same time providing no information showing that you are right. I don't see why you'd have a problem with people being skeptical with your position under those circumstances.

Superlib, I think my comments about the US's arrogance ring perfectly true, Bout was already tried in Thailand, so why did he have to face another trial in the US? His charges were overturned, but US prosectors appealed the case and instead of facing another trial in Thailand, which is what should have happened, the US asked for his extradition. Bout did not commit his crimes in America, and he is not an American citizen, so why did America dismiss jurisdiction like that? And no, I'm not 'selective' about my outrage, I never said Bout shouldn't have stood trial and I also stated that Thailand was complicit for agreeing to the extradition. That does not absolve the US of course, considering it's the US which asked for the jurisdiction and it is the US which ended up taking Bout, so the final burden of responsibility lies with them. And I'm sorry, but the Bales case proved a perfect example of jurisdiction not being considered important, Bales committed his massacre in Afghanistan, so should have been tried there, regardless of the agreement the US brokered with Afghanistan, because the US should have respected the jurisdiction issue in the first place. But they didn't. Oh and Bin Laden engineered an attack on American soil, trying to sell arms to a guerilla movement in the Columbia is not the same thing, even if the guerilla members use the weapons to kill US soldiers, the crimes would not have taken place under US jurisdiction.

If you go back to your link, you will see than what Bout did (illegally selling arms) constitutes a war crime

He wasn't charge with selling weapons illegally............. conspiring to sell arms to anti-U.S. guerrillas in Colombia and to kill American service personnel. Also he got the minimum possible sentence of 25 years not life so I doubt there is enough to charge him with anything more District Judge Shira Scheindlin said the minimum sentence was appropriate because there was no evidence that Bout would have committed the crimes for which he was convicted had it not been for the sting operation.

Bales case proved a perfect example of jurisdiction not being considered important, Bales committed his massacre in Afghanistan

Bales is a Uniformed Service member (Military) falls under another set of International law........ not on topic so we don't need to debate this.

No, not every country recognises the effects doctrine just as America does not recognise universality principle.

Yeah kind of makes International law a If we need it we will use it kind of thing......

The US does not recognise the jurisdiction on international court when it comes to its own citizens. The effects doctrine needs to be scrapped because it is a violation of its 'mother law', territorial principle, by dismissing the basis of what territorial principle is in the first place. It is not an off-shoot, but a negation. If you go back to your link, you will see than what Bout did (illegally selling arms) constitutes a war crime

and meets the criteria for the universality principle. But the universality principle has not been ratified by the US, because they say it impedes the 'sovereignty' of nations- very hypocritical for the US not to recognise territorial principle, but then apply the effects doctrine. So it can kidnap any one if wants, anywhere in the world, US citizen or no.

International law not looking so perfect after all..............

You are NOT the world police.

Yeah I know I'm not I'm just a Guy trying to hold a civilized debate.

He wasn't charge with selling weapons illegally............. conspiring to sell arms to anti-U.S. guerrillas in Colombia and to kill American service personnel. Also he got the minimum possible sentence of 25 years not life so I doubt there is enough to charge him with anything more District Judge Shira Scheindlin said the minimum sentence was appropriate because there was no evidence that Bout would have committed the crimes for which he was convicted had it not been for the sting operation.

You're talking about the sting operation again, but I hope you understand by now that just because the agents working for Interpol were American, it doesn't automatically confer on the US magical new jurisdiction over a case. Interpol is an international organisation, the nationality of its agents is irrelevant. Conspiring to sell arms to anti-US guerillas in Colombia does NOT meet the criteria for the effects doctrine. The effects doctrine needs to be removed because it clearly is not an 'off-shoot' of the territorial principle, since it is a complete violation of the basis of the territorial principle in the first place. Yes, the US applied the effects doctrine to itself, while deciding to not ratify the universality principle. That way, the US does not recognise international courts when it comes to their own citizens but misuses the effects doctrine to give itself power to arrest any citizen it wants in any country in the world, what a nightmare. But even going with the fact that the effects doctrine is indeed a component of international law, the US still violated international law.

The effects doctrine is an off-shoot of the territorial principle. Briefly, the effects doctrine says that if the effects of extraterritorial behavior or crimes adversely affect commerce or harm citizens within the United States, then jurisdiction in a U.S. court is permissible.

Bout conspiring to sell arms to guerilla forces in Colombia does does not 'harm citizens within the United States'. Just like the territorial principle, its bizarre offspring the 'effects doctrine' does not apply to Bout. If the arms he wanted to sell were going to be used to kill American soldiers, those American soldiers still happened to be stationed OUTSIDE the US. So the effect doctrine does not justify the US extraditing Bout.

Bales is a Uniformed Service member (Military) falls under another set of International law........ not on topic so we don't need to debate this.

Bales committed his massacre as Robert Bales and not as a soldier, it was a massacre that did not take place in warfare. He should have faced trial in Afghanistan. And if people are insistent that it is a war issue, then it becomes a war crime and Bales should face trial in an international court.

International law not looking so perfect after all..............

No, it is perfect if the US starts abiding by it. The US is using the effect doctrine to kidnap anyone it wants, completely distorting what the effects doctrine is in the first place.

Yeah I know I'm not I'm just a Guy trying to hold a civilized debate.

Of course I don't mean 'you' as in Tyler Vandenberg, I mean 'you' in the general sense of the USA.