The Lord of War comes to the U.S.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

As far as i see it, we have no authority to arrest or try him.

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.

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

His crimes were committed outside the US and who cares if he wants to sell bad guys stuff to shoot down Black Hawks.

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.

Originally Posted by Mandolin1

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.

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.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

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".

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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.

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).

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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

[BurtReynoldsMoustache]

Originally Posted by MT2008

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).

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.

[S&Wshooter]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

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