The Lord of War comes to the U.S.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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?

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

Originally Posted by MT2008

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).

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.

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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

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

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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?

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.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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

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

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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"?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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

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.

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

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?

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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"?

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.

[MT2008]

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.

[Swordfish941]

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

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Swordfish941

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

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

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

Assassinate/capture as an enemy combatant or operative.

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)?

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

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.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MT2008

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

Assassinate/capture as an enemy combatant or operative.