The Lord of War comes to the U.S.
 

Viktor Bout (the Russian arms dealer who inspired Nicolas Cage's character Yuri Orlov in the movie "Lord of War") has just been extradited to the U.S. He arrived in NYC yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/17/...Top+Stories%29

I also recommend the latest blog post by Douglas Farrah (who wrote the book "Merchant of Death", which is about him):

http://www.douglasfarah.com/

So, what do y'all think?

Is he going to get off like in the movie?

That's what I had in mind. Obviously, it's embarrassing to the U.S. government that (A.) they actually hired him to fly weapons into Iraq (for use by the new Iraqi Army and the Sunni militias we armed in Anbar), and (B.) the CIA actually dealt with him in Afghanistan even though he was known to be a Taliban supplier. But in this day and age, the past two administrations have had so many foreign policy fuck-ups in the War on Terror that this one probably won't get any more attention. There's nothing he can say that would embarrass the U.S. government any more than they've embarrassed themselves already - contrary to what "Lord of War" would have you believe.

On the contrary, I think getting him tried and convicted would be extremely beneficial to the U.S. For the current administration, putting Bout on trial would be another way for Obama to claim that the rule of international law works. It would also let him brag that he can fight a counter-terrorism war better than his predecessors who failed to deal with Bout even while he was selling arms to militants and terrorists that have killed Americans (A.G. Holder is already making claims of this nature).

So the short answer is, probably not. If he was going to get away clean, his best chance was while he was still in Thailand and the Russians still had some leverage (the Thai government tries to keep good relations with us and the Russians simultaneously, so they were in a difficult position when the Russians insisted they not extradite Bout). Now that he's in the U.S. and being tried in Federal court, it's all over for him.

Of course, this doesn't mean he's necessarily going to get the punishment he deserves (death by lethal injection, if I had my way). He'll probably get some sort of deal if he testifies before a CT committee in Congress and provides information that could help us. But he will be looking at a long prison term and the loss of his business and fortune.

In favor of just a slap on the wrist, eh?

So he sold guns to people antagonistic to our national agenda, so what? It's not like he's even an American citizen, he has no loyalty to us. This is like holding gun stores accountable for the actions of their customers, just on a grander scale.

Selling arms to people who really want every man, woman, and child in America to die should get him a heavier punishment than waiting around in jail for 10-30 years and then a painless death if he hasn't already died of natural causes

What you're saying then is that he is responsible for the attitudes and intentions of his customers. It's not like he had a specific anti-American agenda, he's just a businessman, a neutral player, just antagonistic as he was beneficial. Anyway, in the business of killing implements, it's generally accepted that your wares will be used to kill people, it's the nature of the trade.

No, it's not like holding gun stores accountable for their customers' actions at all. It's one thing for an FFL to sell a gun to a person who passes the NICS and shows no sign of being dangerous, who then uses the gun to kill somebody. Then the dealer has done nothing wrong or illegal (although personally, if I were an FFL and I sold a weapon that was used in a homicide, I would feel pretty bad about it).

What Bout has done is the equivalent of an FFL selling weapons repeatedly to fugitives who are wanted for multiple murders, when he knew exactly who they were and what they intended to use the weapons for. Any FFL who did that would go to jail, and likewise, an international arms dealer who sells to people like Mullah Omar or Charles Taylor deserves the same (or worse) punishment. He has to be held accountable for what he's done, and personally, I'm happy that it's us and not some disorganized bureaucratic international body that took custody of him.

The rules apply to Mr. FFL because he is a United States citizen operating within the United States of America. Bout is a Russian citizen operating almost everywhere except the United States, and even then he still did business with the United States government with their full knowledge of who he was and what he did.

I guess the thing that bothers me is not that they're going after him, but that Bout is being handled by the civilian criminal justice system. I find the implications of the government claiming jurisdiction over the entire world to be quite chilling. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be handled the old fashioned way.

I know that. It's a metaphor. I assumed you were doing the same when you compared Bout to an American FFL in the first place?

Anyway, there are international laws regulating arms sales, too. Not all of Bout's sales violated internationl law, but some did - including the sale of RPGs and SAMs to Marxist FARC rebels, which is what he's being charged with. FARC is designated a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and many other countries, which means that selling them weapons is illegal. Especially since we have him on record telling his "customers" that the weapons he had to offer them would be ideal for shooting down U.S. Black Hawk helicopters.

The bottom line is, if you sell weapons to people who you know are prohibited from owning them, you get in trouble. This is true in both U.S. and international law. That's what Bout did, and that's why he's facing charges.

What do you mean by "the old fashioned way"?

Bout is going through the American criminal justice system because he was caught in a DEA operation, and charged by the DoJ. If he had been caught by someone else (Interpol, for instance), he would have gone through the appropriate system. But we caught him, so we get to prosecute him.

Hopefully, something like this:

Spook: "Are you Viktor Bout"
Bout: "Yes"
*pwert pwert*

Well that makes a bit more sense then. So he got caught up in an ongoing operation as opposed to being specifically targeted because we got sick of him.

Yes I did mean that but I overlooked the part about the DEA in Colombia, this makes a bit more sense now.

No, we targeted him specifically. We've been trying to get him since Clinton was in office. But since the DEA (an American agency) caught him for conspiring to help kill Americans, isn't it fair that we get to prosecute him?

Yes it is. :D

We should just kill him. The trial is going to take forever

Amen. I also don't think this should be controversial to American gun owners, either. I think we should all be happy that Bout no longer will be able to sell weapons to the most reprehensible killers on the planet, some of whom would use those weapons to kill Americans.

We live in a messed-up world where bad people win and go unpunished all the time. It's nice to see the good guys win every once in a while. And this is one of those times.

First of all, as long as he's in custody and not selling weapons, that by itself is important.

Second, the case against him is very, very strong. And as slow as the American justice system can be, it's still better than some messed-up international court (where killers like Slobodan Milosevic and Foday Sankoh actually died in custody before they could face trial).

Heart of the argument right here: Matters such as that shouldn't be handled by a law enforcement agency such as the DEA. The DoJ shouldn't be concerning itself with activities in foreign countries like this. Our involvement in Colombia is akin to our involvement in Vietnam, but longer, quieter, and with federal agents in place of real soldiers; a small struggling country with some left-leaning civil war issues that we give some half assed support to for far too long without accomplishing anything because it wouldn't be politically prudent to do so.

I don't understand...you are saying that because you think we shouldn't be in Colombia, Viktor Bout is somehow justified selling weapons to FARC? The DEA also arrested Bout in Thailand, a country which has an extradition treaty with the U.S. If two countries have an extradition treaty, there is nothing wrong with having a wanted criminal arrested and prosecuted under one of those countries' criminal justice systems. That's why extradition treaties exist in the first place. It's not like we kidnapped Bout while he was in Russia (if we had, that would be extraordinary rendition).

And for the record, Colombia is nothing like Vietnam. FARC is also currently breathing its dying breaths. Our involvement in Colombia actually represents a successful example of counterinsurgency.

Yes. He has no allegiance to the United States or Colombia.

He didn't commit any crimes in the United States. He's being extradited to the United States for breaking United States laws in countries that are not the United States. If anything he's Colombia's problem and they should be the ones dealing with him.

Since when, the 1970's? That's an awfully long time. And it's still not over. And even if FARC does collapse that won't end the drug trade that funds it, which means the DEA's involvement will continue. And then what? Will Colombia fall into the same situation Mexico has found itself in with criminal power decentralizing and balkanizing once FARC disbands?

That still doesn't change the fact that selling arms to FARC violates international law.

No, he's being extradited to the U.S. for conspiring to aid a designated FTO in killing American military personnel. He may not have been the guy who would be pulling the trigger, but being cognizant that he was helping people who would (as he made clear on tape) makes him culpable.

FARC has lost many of its senior-most people who were the driving personalities behind it. Without them, it will almost certainly fall apart and not remain viable.

Getting rid of FARC doesn't mean that Colombia's drug problem will end, but it is still highly desirable because FARC has been the main instigator behind the conflict. The drug trade and the Civil War are two different (though closely related) conflicts.

He's not accused of violating international law here. He's being extradited to the United States, not the Hague.

Then he should be handled as a military threat, or he should be tried in an international court. I find this blending of military and law enforcement agendas discomforting.

The question is "what happens after FARC?" Does the US remain? Does a new power struggle emerge from every two bit pimp and pusher trying to become the next Escobar? If that happens does it really count as "success"?

Yes, but that doesn't mean he can't also be tried for conspiring against us. Again, given that he was planning to help an FTO kill Americans.

Then you're still thinking with a Cold War/1990s mentality. One of the things that 9/11 taught us is that fighting non-state threats (terrorists, cartels, etc.) pretty much requires blending law enforcement and military methods. One can debate back and forth whether we've gone too far in one direction or the other, but that doesn't change the reality of necessity.

As far as trying him in an international court, Interpol issued an arrest warrant for him years ago. If they decide that they want to prosecute him, they probably could, but I'm not sure they'd be able to build the kind of case against him that our own prosecutors can. It was our people who caught him and got the evidence that can put him away.

And what does "handled as a military threat" mean? You want him to go before a military commission?

Considering the size of the territory FARC controlled at one point, defeating them would put a great deal of Colombia back under government jurisdiction. Colombia would not be nearly as "balkanized" as Mexico is becoming now.

Also, I don't know if it makes a difference, but I just read that the DEA operation which caught Bout was in fact aimed at weakening FARC, not arresting Bout. The DEA was going after known conduits transporting FARC's cocaine out of Colombia and guns into Colombia for FARC's armed campaign. Bout was one of several targets. So it looks like I may have over-stated this earlier.

But it's still true that the U.S. government has been trying to arrest him for the past 5 years, and he was wanted long before that.

MT2008, you are one of the most knowledgable people I've ever known.

I didn't mean the state or the territory would be balkanized, I meant the criminal element. Without FARC running things the various "duties and responsibilities", so to speak, of the drug trade would be scattered amongst what ever willing individuals care to pick them up. That's where the comparison to Mexico comes from, the one drug lord running routes through Mexico went to prison and control was passed onto numerous underlings who then went to war with each other and have been at it for some time. It's not an "Us vs. Them" scenario in Mexico, it's a "Them vs. Them vs. Us vs. Them" scenario.


Assassinate/capture as an enemy combatant or operative.

I have my opinions like anyone else, and that's that.

Except that he hasn't personally tried to kill anyone, in which case, he doesn't meet "unlawful combatant" status. Not to mention that the liberals would be up in arms (errr, flowers) over us doing something like that. How can you possibly be so concerned about the rule of law if you would advocate us treating Bout like an enemy combatant (rather than a criminal, which is what he really is)?

Those "willing individuals" would still need to find a way to establish control in the areas that FARC previously controlled. Part of the reason FARC gained control of the areas of Colombia it held is because, like any capable insurgency, it followed the Maoist strategy of winning hearts and minds through social programs that were intended to help the most destitute peasantry in those regions. Its social system started to fall apart in later years, but that was how it gained control originally. That isn't something that any newcomer could do overnight; it takes many, many years.

The drug cartels in Mexico work in a similar way; the major cartels that currently operate in Mexico spent years administering government and economic activity in order to cultivate population loyalty. Mexico is also (due to its geography) a far more difficult country to control than Colombia.

As far as i see it, we have no authority to arrest or try him. His crimes were committed outside the US and who cares if he wants to sell bad guys stuff to shoot down Black Hawks. Arms dealers may be bad, but there is no real international authority to stop them and they do business in countries that have no real government or just bribe their way through. He told bad guys the stuff he had was good for killing Americans? He's probably told that to all his customers, just replace America with the name of the buyer's enemy.

Sure we do. He was extradited to this country from Thailand with the approval of their justice system. Since we have an extradition treaty with Thailand, and since they arrested/detained him (after a DEA operation), they had the final say. And they chose to allow extradition. People are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts just because they happen to be citizens of different countries than those where they were arrested.

Who cares? Are you an American? Personally, I care if someone is selling weapons to enemies of America. So does almost everyone I know who is in the service. I'm sure they'd take offense to your comment.

Then let this be the precedent. If you are really indifferent to the idea of men like Viktor Bout profiting from civil wars, then you must be an extremely cynical person. I don't see how you can't feel some degree of disgust and outrage at such evil actions. Anyone who would sell weapons to men like Mullah Omar or Charles Taylor - repeatedly - needs to be locked up.

What about other people who would do business with those kinds of people? What about people who help them obtain medical supplies, fuel, and food? Not weapons, but necessary for the effort, and therefore an indirect means of killing our soldiers.

Come on, do you really think there's no difference between a gun (which is designed to kill) versus food or medicine? Selling weapons is far more important to a rebel army's ability to wage war than food, fuel, or medical supplies. There is a reason that most sane human beings think it's intuitive that convicted criminals not be allowed to own lethal weapons, and that this be written into law. The same logic applies to war lords and terrorists.

That being said, there are economic sanctions that can be placed on rogue regimes and militant groups which prohibit observing parties to the sanctions from selling anything to them.

I never said there was no difference, but you cant have an army of nothing rifleman, therefore any other form of support is still somewhat complicit in whatever damages occur.

And as far as criminals owning weapons goes, I believe that if you can't be trusted with a firearm then you can't be trusted with freedom. If you are walking the streets than you should be allowed to have a gun, if you are too dangerous to have a gun then you are too dangerous to be walking the streets.

That would be like saying that the doctor who treats a criminal for a broken hand (which the criminal needs to hold/fire a gun) is complicit in any crimes he commits afterwards.

Also, many rebel armies don't rely much on hired logistics; they get what they need by looting and stealing. This is what the R.U.F. in Sierra Leone (one of Bout's customers) did; they were pretty much bandits masquerading as "freedom fighters".

I've heard this argument before (when I used to post on Libertarian Facebook groups). Do you want to pay MORE taxes to keep these people in prison? That would seem rather ill-libertarian, if so. America already imprisons more people per-capita than almost any industrialized country in the world (so many criminals get reduced sentences because of this).

Some people are just too damn unpredictable to have a gun. However, criminals generally don't care what the law says and if they want guns, they'll buy illegal ones or steal them

If it makes me safer by permanently locking up psychopaths AND allowing me absolute liberty to wheel and deal as I please with firearms, then yes, I would gladly pay the higher taxes.

Just fucking kill them. That's what we would have done a hundred years ago

I have no idea how serious you are about this, but unless you want us to become like one of the fascist/communist countries that conservatives and libertarians bitch about endlessly, I'd hope you understand this is contrary to American principles. Killing people who have committed any felony involving firearms (and remember that murder isn't the only one) would make us more like Saudi Arabia, China, or Nazi Germany than all of the health care bills Obama could ever push through Congress.

Until you see how high those taxes are.

Anyway, you already can wheel and deal as you please with firearms, provided you aren't using them for illegal purposes. This is not about whether you sell a gun to somebody who you had no reason to believe was a murderer. This about whether you sell a weapon to somebody who you know for sure is planning to use it to kill somebody, and you do it anyway. Obviously, that's not a situation an average FFL or even most private sellers in the U.S. would experience. But metaphorically, this is the equivalent of what Viktor Bout did.

Personally, I don't regard a law which makes it illegal for me to sell weapons to criminals as an infringement on my personal liberty, or collective liberty. I regard it as common sense. So do most Americans, including those who own and sell guns. Actually, I would think that selling weapons to bad people who you know will use them in murder, and not feeling any guilt about your actions whatsoever, is characteristic of a "psychopath" (bearing in mind that lack of empathy and remorse are key sociopathic personality traits). I'm sure that a psychological profile of Viktor Bout (and most men like him) would identify him as a textbook sociopath or possibly psychopath.

And I hate to break it to you, but just because somebody is not considered trustworthy with firearms doesn't mean they need to be locked up. That's an extremely fallacious assumption. There's a good reason why it's illegal for minors, those with mental illnesses, or even people who have committed minor criminal acts to own firearms. Do you lock up all of those people because they aren't considered trustworthy to own firearms?

I'm talking about those "permanantly locked up pscopaths" burt mentioned, not just any regular old felon

I consider background checks, waiting periods, and all other associated paper work antithetical to the ideal. They only exist because of criminals.

Then should Colt and FN be held liable for selling to the US and our allies? They know what we're going to be doing with their products. The only difference between us and them is our ideological goals. Nobody ever fights on what they would consider to be the "wrong side", members of FARC have the same sense of duty and righteousness as any legitimate army.

It's possible Viktor Bout genuinely believes that what he is doing is right. He doesn't see hurting Americans as wrong because we are not on his side.

Except that he's considering unfit to own a firearm as somehow equivalent to being worthy of permanent lockup and/or death sentence.

Unfortunately, the world rarely works in "ideal" ways. Wanting to fulfill some sort of ideal is just not rational.

Those measures also exist because of people other than criminals - again, children, the mentally ill, people who aren't citizens, etc. Liberty isn't about being able to do anything you want without any laws whatsoever. It's about having the least intrusive government possible, which is not the same thing as complete anarchy. Most reasonable people accept that their personal liberty has limits where there are tensions with societal cohesion. And this isn't something new, either - John Locke, and Montesquieu, and almost every philosopher who inspired the founding fathers agreed. What people like you promote is basically total freedom for its own sake, as opposed to freedom for the sake of preserving life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (which is the intent of classic American liberalism).

"The only difference"? You talk about that like it's trivial? Are you so morally bankrupt that you see no important difference between the U.S. government and FARC?

This is quite curious to me. Libertarians claim to be "patriots", and yet when it comes to foreign policy, their sense of moral equivalence (equating the U.S. with FARC, as you are doing now) reeks of the same sort of idiocy I hear from leftists. Of course, it's possible (albeit rare) for leftists to be right about some things for the wrong reasons, but I still don't get how the Libertarians don't see how similar they are to the people they despise. If they had their way, America would be unassertive in the world.

Actually, it's one of the reasons I stopped identifying as a Libertarian...they talk so much naive bullshit about foreign affairs that I find them impossible to respect on almost anything else.

Then we have no reason to see ourselves as wrong because he's hurting us. Besides, Bout isn't helping FARC for ideological reasons, anyway. His cause is himself, and profiting by selling weapons to people who need them but shouldn't have them. Leaving FARC and the U.S. aside, anyone who doesn't think it's wrong to sell weapons to people who use them to carry out ethnic cleaning, genocide, and campaigns of terror (like most of Bout's customers) obviously is not right in the head.