Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Thailand: Victor Bout acquitted of arms trafficing

The internationally-renowned arms dealer Viktor Bout has just been acquitted in the Thai court. The Russian state broadcaster ITAR-TASS reports:
Russian Foreign Ministry learned with much satisfaction the reports on Thai Criminal Court’s decision to free the Russian citizen Viktor Bout, who was suspected of planning a sale of weaponry to the Revolutionary Armed Force in Colombia (FARC), the ministry’ s deputy official spokesman, Igor Lyakin-Frolov said Tuesday.

Earlier in the day, the Thai Criminal Court issued a non-guilty verdict to Viktor Bout, thus denying a request from the U.S. to extradite him.

The court ruled the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) was a political organization and not a terrorist one, as the U.S. had claimed.

JOTMAN.COM Russian contributor Sanjuro, who translated a rare interview with Victor Bout from his prison cell in Thailand, summarizes an article from the Russian media pertaining to Bout's release:
A more detailed article in the Kommersant said that Thai court considered the case "politically motivated", and that the prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence of Bout's dealings, and of the fact that FARC, indeed, is a terrorist organization. It also briefly quoted an unnamed Russian diplomat in Thailand saying that Thailand simply didn't want to taint relationship with Russia, as in case with Iran (there was a similar case with an Iranian military officer caught in Thailand). The reason was described as Russia and Iran are seen by Thailand as "unpredictable" and hence it is better to please them, while the US has been a reliable partner and shall not be too angry with Bout's acquittal, especially as Obama administration has no vested interest in it.
But according to an article on the acquittal by Douglas Farah in Foreign Policy, "His extradition has become a top priority for an Obama administration seeking to prevent him from being released and further fanning conflicts around the world, particularly in his old stomping grounds of Afghanistan."

It should be noted that the Americans were only too happy to work with Bout when he served their purposes: in the first years of the Iraq war Bout flew "hundreds of missions for the U.S. military and civilian contractors, raking in millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars." Back then, it seems that Bout was too useful to the United States to get arrested.

While the Bush Administration was spending hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer dollars to hunt down Victor Bout, it was funneling hundreds of millions to military contractor Blackwater USA and its CEO Erik Prince. According to Wikipedia:
On August 3, 2009, two anonymous former Blackwater employees swore under oath that Prince may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. In addition, they said that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."
If such allegations are found to be true, perhaps it would be unfair to Victor Bout to compare him to Erik Prince. An amoral arms merchant is not quite in the same league as a hate-inspired holy warrior.

American citizens might have been far better served had their government focused on keeping its own house in order rather than chasing one semi-retired Russian arms dealer halfway around the world.

11 comments:

  1. I've been led to understand that Bout did commit crimes which led to loss of innocent lives; and I think it's fair and just to consider FARC a terrorist organization.

    Just because the U.S. dealt with him in the past, and just because we might have someone worse in our own ranks, doesn't wipe away Bout's culpability - at worst his actions just adds him to the list of people, American or other, that need to be brought to justice.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with J-P. The issue here for me, having been unaware even of the name Erik Prince, is that Bout needs to be brought to justice.

    I do agree with Jotman in that we would be better served having our own house in order - but as J-P indicated, all such individuals need to be exposed and brought to justice.

    It is however difficult to justify any official request for extradition when we turn a blind eye to individuals like Prince. Similar to scolding Russia for attacking Georgia while we are in Iraq.

    -RM

    ReplyDelete
  3. J-P and RM,

    Your point deserves to be addressed more fully, so I posted a response in the next post:

    http://jotman.blogspot.com/2009/08/real-reason-thailand-will-not-extradite.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Duhmerican'ts hate competition especially in the one area they still excel in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. J-P

    "I've been led to understand that Bout did commit crimes ..."

    EXACTLY ! :)

    you have been LED to understand.
    (well, that's I guess can be considered a milder form of more direct ... brainwashed into understanding)

    the thing is however - WHERE are the evidences of theses alleged "crimes" ?
    yeah, yeah, I know - Farah & Co wrote a book. but is this book a sufficient supply of legal evidences to support such a charge?

    in jurisprudence there is a basic and yet important rule or principle called 'presumption of innocence', which basically means : "person is considered INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty". and another important aspect here in this rule is : "burden of evidence lays upon accuser".

    well, whatever and whoever can be said about Bout, it is only an ALLEGATION without properly presented (in accordance with legal international standards) evidences.

    am I right, J-P - or ... am I right ? ;)

    so, the MAIN, and the REAL reason of why Thai courts ha oh so reluctantly (after what, 1.5 year ?) decided to let Bout go is this one, already cited by Jotman in his post :

    "prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence of Bout's dealings"

    I mean, come on, J-P, RM (and perhaps the old good mysterious Sanjuro, who somehow never comments here in person) - just admit that US side did NOT provide the evidences !

    if they wanted Bout so much that they have cooked up so elaborate scheme to lure him to Bangkok (where he said he came 1st time ever) - the so called "sting operation" (which reportedly they've been preparing like few years ?) to arrest him - then surely they MUST have done enough homework and prepared some CREDIBLE story and sufficient EVIDENCES which would have enabled Thai Courts to allow his extradition to US without major "face loss" for Thailand, hey ?

    in reality though, since the beginning the whole affair was very fishy. US agents has apprehended Bout and his buddy and tried to smuggle both of them away ASAP out of Thailand. and somehow Thai police has interfered and decided that they actually should handle the situation (well, even Thai police has its bright moments ! :D ).

    so, this whole affair was NOT planned as some sort of legal process or court case with extradition, but more like one of those snatch arrests of alleged terrorists in some other countries, and shipping them secretly to some secret prison abroad (as Guantanamo or as the one reportedly in Thailand too).

    that is what I see as an explanation of WHY "prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence "

    I have been following up this case since the beginning. there were the reports that "prosecution" (US side) could not even provide the WITNESSES ! instead they were giving some sort of coded names, ala Milosevic Hague trial (like "witness code number XXX").

    this is pathetic ! :) how could they expect to drag it through the LEGAL system?

    ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. ....

    so, dear friends J-P and RM - sorry to disappoint you, but "I think" is not good enough argument and neither it is good enough LEGAL EVIDENCE to prove that accused is really guilty of the alleged crimes he was charged with.

    and without such evidences - by NORMAL justice (not the "American" one, which Jotman has already pointed out in his next post on this matter :) ) - according to the principle of 'presumption of innocence' - Bout was rightly found NOT guilty by Thai Courts.

    so, you may accept it or not, like or dislike it - but it is a fact.

    why "prosecution" (US side) didn't / couldn't / didn't bother provide sufficient and "trustworthy" evidences - that is actually entirely whole another story.

    I mean, let's assume that indeed Bout did commit those alleged crimes... well, why they couldn't provide the EVIDENCES during long 1.5 years ?

    my brief and simple guess is:
    1) they DON'T have any evidences;
    2) they do have some, but producing them would implicate themselves.

    of course I am sure others may provide many other possible reasons, or variation of those 2 above mentioned.

    but the fact remains the same:
    evidences were NOT given, or those so called "evidences" which were given, were fond NOT sufficient / trustworthy to support the allegation.

    on the final accord, I suggest my dear friends J-P and RM to watch the whole movie "Lord of War" (which is again, ALLEGEDLY, about Bout) and please do pay attention in the very end to very brief few lines before the Credits, which say something like (can't remember exact words):

    "the world’s largest suppliers of arms remain US, UK, France, Russia, and China - who are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council"

    and the main point is : those 5 countries are the permanent members of the UN SC precisely because they have a near monopoly on the arms trade, not despite it.

    so, I tend to suspect that this whole Bout affair was much more intricate and messy than it appears on the surface to our eyes. most likely, US wanted to get him on their soil by any means for some more deep reason, perhaps because he had/ has information (aka dirty secrets) vital to certain plans (like some speculate that last Aug 2008 S. Ossetia - Georgia conflict was a well arranged distraction for US & Israel preparing major invasion of Iran from the North). or merely to use Bout's case as a leverage in dealings with Russia.

    anyway, whatever it is. but again, the fact remains: US didn't provide evidences to prove him guilty. therefore Thais found him innocent.

    Cheers ! :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are many different views on what constitutes "legal evidence"... only half joking.

    I understand your anger and resentment towards American views and policies. I might even agree on a few points. But I would venture to guess from your tone that regardless of what evidence was produced for Bout, you would hold in dispute.

    Respectfully - (I sincerely appreciate insight into your opinion, regardless of the animosity) - in view of the time and effort, research, and persuasion it would take to pursue this with you, we must agree to disagree.

    Regards,
    RM

    ReplyDelete
  8. I had some coffee, and the kids are out of my hair for the moment...

    To antipadshist, you wrote,
    " the thing is however - WHERE are the evidences of theses alleged "crimes" ?
    yeah, yeah, I know - Farah & Co wrote a book. but is this book a sufficient supply of legal evidences to support such a charge?"

    I don't rely on fiction, books or movies for this information. Here are the charges, and evidence/guilt of selling arms to operatives: Bout was arrested in March 2008 after U.S. agents posed as arms buyers for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which Washington classifies as a terrorist organization.

    Two months later, he was indicted on charges of conspiring to sell millions of dollars worth of weapons to FARC, including more than 700 surface-to-air missiles, thousands of guns, high-tech helicopters and airplanes outfitted with grenade launchers and missiles.

    So if agents posed as FARC operatives, and Bout is guilty of attempting to sell to them, what more evidence do you need? Do you want his fingerprints on the weapons themselves? :)

    I will continue in a second post:

    -RM

    ReplyDelete
  9. Antipadshist, you then continued: "
    in jurisprudence there is a basic and yet important rule or principle called 'presumption of innocence', which basically means : "person is considered INNOCENT until and unless proven guilty". and another important aspect here in this rule is : "burden of evidence lays upon accuser".

    well, whatever and whoever can be said about Bout, it is only an ALLEGATION without properly presented (in accordance with legal international standards) evidences.

    am I right, J-P - or ... am I right ? ;)

    so, the MAIN, and the REAL reason of why Thai courts ha oh so reluctantly (after what, 1.5 year ?) decided to let Bout go is this one, already cited by Jotman in his post :

    "prosecution failed to provide trustworthy evidence of Bout's dealings"

    RM: In my opinion your story falls apart here - yes, you are right in principle. There is ample legal evidence - When the Thai court took up the request to extradite Bout in June 2008, it seemed like an open and shut case - EVEN TO THE THAIS. Under the Thai-American extradition treaty, authorities only needed to identify Bout, prove his crimes merit a trial and show the case was not political.

    But from the start, Bout's extradition hearing was marred by repeated delays as a defense attorney fell sick and witnesses failed to turn up... what was happening in the Thai courts? The delays seemed to inspire a Cold War-era tug of war between Russia and the United States...

    Arms trade experts have alleged Bout has been useful for Russia's intelligence, and that Russia did not want him to go on trial in the United States. American lawmakers led by Royce accused the Russians of influencing the process. The Russian Foreign Ministry has publicly criticized the pressure it said was being applied on Thailand by the Americans.

    In interviews with The Associated Press, representatives on both sides have leveled unproved accusations of Thai officials being bribed by the other side.

    Still, Bout's extradition appeared inevitable after a Thai Foreign Ministry official told the court in May that the request met the conditions of the Thai-American extradition treaty.

    Then on Tuesday, Judge Chittakorn rejected the extradition request because he deemed FARC a political movement, rather than a terrorist group, which meant that Bout's alleged crimes were political offenses. Extradition cannot be granted when it involves a political offense.

    Continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  10. Chittakorn also ruled the extradition treaty did not apply because Bout's alleged crimes couldn't be prosecuted in Thailand and did not involve Thai citizens or Thai interests.

    To put it bluntly, bribing Thai officials is a common practice in a country where the judiciary is notoriously corrupt.

    You then made this comment:
    " so, dear friends J-P and RM - sorry to disappoint you, but "I think" is not good enough argument and neither it is good enough LEGAL EVIDENCE to prove that accused is really guilty of the alleged crimes he was charged with."
    --

    To clarify my statement, "I think" = means "in my opinion, there is enough legal evidence to pursue this case".


    So in summary:
    1) Bout's crimes have clear and ample evidence, but the Thai court deemed FARC as political. This does not mean Bout did not violate laws - only that prosecution in Thailand cannot be politically motivated. (in other words, like Jot said, they don't want to piss off Russia)

    2) Thai officials had previously indicated this case would be supported by the Thai courts - an open and shut case -- working in cooperation. (despite what you say, American operatives could not operate freely in Thailand without Thai approval and support)

    3) You wrote: "...anyway, whatever it is. but again, the fact remains: US didn't provide evidences to prove him guilty. therefore Thais found him innocent."

    Actually, as indicated above, there was ample evidence, but the ruling was changed regarding FARC - not Bouts crimes. A political technicality to avoid angering Russia.

    Lastly, as Jotman himself has indicated, Thai officials can be notoriously corrupt or politically influenced - so you can't really level the righteous hammer of justice exclaiming the Thai court ruling as "pure justice"...

    Even in the original article, it has been noted that these types of decisions are likely politically motivated...

    So the high and mighty rhetoric about court justice and legal evidence is not too strong in this case...

    Respectfully,
    -RM

    ReplyDelete
  11. The fact is that bout is essential to both americans and russians and all countries need gun tradesmans to sulitify their influences on a particular country (iraq,afghanistan), and mostly bout like many other gun tradesman sell weapons to the enemies of a countries enemies (U.S)

    ReplyDelete

Because all comments on this blog are moderated, there will be some delay before your comment is approved.