Arms dealer Viktor Bout sentenced

[hellheaven1987]

Because he sold weapons that have been used to kill Americans.

Arms dealer Viktor Bout, dubbed the "merchant of death", has been sentenced to 25 years in jail by a US judge.

During the sentencing, the ex-Soviet officer shouted "it's a lie" as the prosecution said he had agreed to sell weapons to kill Americans.

The 45-year-old was found guilty in November of attempting to sell heavy arms to a Colombian rebel group.

He was arrested in Bangkok in 2008 after a sting operation in which US informants posed as Colombian rebels.

Bout - who was the inspiration for the arms smuggler in the 2005 Hollywood film Lord of War - remained in custody in Thailand for two years, before being extradited to the US to face trial.

Source

Irony enough US government is allowed itself to sell weapons that kill others, but not allow others to sell weapons that would kill its citizens. Either way, ignore the moral issue now, I wonder does US has right to charge a foreigner despite he did not commit crime in US? Furthermore, shouldn't he be charge in an international court? What the heck US charge him privately?

[s.rwitt]

The US government is also allowed to tax, fine, and imprison people! Why can't private citizens do it too? Irony!

Seriously, that guy. There is literally nothing bad about him going to prison.

[MadBurgerMaker]

There is literally nothing bad about him going to prison.

Well, this thread is pretty ing bad.

[AqD]

Seriously, that guy. There is literally nothing bad about him going to prison.

Where are the victims? None. Case closed.

[priam11]

Where are the victims? None. Case closed.

Except for the little sentencing part.

[DimeBagHo]

I wonder does US has right to charge a foreigner despite he did not commit crime in US? Furthermore, shouldn't he be charge in an international court? What the heck US charge him privately?

The rules of jurisdiction can be complicated at times but, generally speaking, if a crime involves a citizen of country X as perpetrator, or involves a citizen of country X as victim, or involves the property of any citizen of country X, or includes some action that occurs in country X, then country X has jurisdiction. Obviously there will be cases where more than one country has jurisdiction.

In this case the US claims that Viktor Bout performed part of a plan to kill US citizens so the US obviously has jurisdiction.

[Nikitn]

The rules of jurisdiction can be complicated at times but, generally speaking, if a crime involves a citizen of country X as perpetrator, or involves a citizen of country X as victim, or involves the property of any citizen of country X, or includes some action that occurs in country X, then country X has jurisdiction. Obviously there will be cases where more than one country has jurisdiction.

In this case the US claims that Viktor Bout performed part of a plan to kill US citizens so the US obviously has jurisdiction.

The US has no laws on its side, no jurisdiction (if you claim otherwise, cite the law). US law doesn't apply in Thailand. That's how simple it is.

I dont think any sane person can say this guy doesn't belong in jail. Its funny/sad that people like the OP get upset when I can gurantee that they wouldnt give 2 figs if any other country that was trying to catch him did. But because its the US they can get on here and feign moral outrage

Do you understand the concept of "precedents"? If the US is allowed to continue like this we may see US agents arresting any1 they want in any country they want, citing US law.

[Kanaric]

Nonsense. If that was the case, then USA would have the jurisdiction to arrest every illegal arms dealer in the world.

The US has no laws on its side, no jurisdiction (if you claim otherwise, cite the law). No part of this alleged agreement had anything to do with US or US citizens.

Yet the US has fact on its side, this man is in custody and is charged. So apparently laws are also on the side of the US since this was allowed to happen and nobody but forums members and a defense attorney contest it.

[Fluttershy]

The US has no laws on its side, no jurisdiction (if you claim otherwise, cite the law). US law doesn't apply in Thailand. That's how simple it is.

Do you understand the concept of "precedents"? If the US is allowed to continue like this we may see US agents arresting any1 they want in any country they want, citing US law.

except thats not the case, its just you and broseph doing your usual "USA = bad" trolling. As I said, if any other country that was attempting to capture him had done it your ilk wouldnt care.

its just poorly disguised trolling

[Heathen Hammer]

except thats not the case, its just you and broseph doing your usual "USA = bad" trolling. As I said, if any other country that was attempting to capture him had done it your ilk wouldnt care.

its just poorly disguised trolling

No its not. Again, he wasn't under America's jurisdiction. He had nothing to do with US whatsoever. A fact that US fanboys tend to ignore.

[boofhead]

Come on now, the US has global and galactic jurisdiction over everyone and everything. I think they actually own Mars.

[DimeBagHo]

Why is anyone surprised that the US has jurisdiction in a case that involves a plot to kill US citizens?

[hellheaven1987]

Why is anyone surprised that the US has jurisdiction in a case that involves a plot to kill US citizens?

You mean a plot that sell arms to insurgents that those insurgents may use those weapons to kill Americans (it can be Colombian troops, other rebels or whatever)? Should Supreme Court also arrest every gun dealer in US because their cargo "may" involve plots of killing other Americans, despite those dealers have no knowledge or intention?

[Condottiere 40K]

Assuming an Islamist terrorist killed some Americans in China, who has jurisdiction?

[DimeBagHo]

You mean a plot that sell arms to insurgents that those insurgents may use those weapons to kill Americans (it can be Colombian troops, other rebels or whatever)? Should Supreme Court also arrest every gun dealer in US because their cargo "may" involve plots of killing other Americans, despite those dealers have no knowledge or intention?

Selling weapons to terrorists is illegal in the US, in Thailand, and in Columbia. Knowingly selling a weapon to a convicted felon is a crime in the US. Selling a weapon to anyone if you believe the weapon is likely to be used in a crime is also illegal. So yeah, the whole international aspect here really doesn't make any difference.

Assuming an Islamist terrorist killed some Americans in China, who has jurisdiction?

China would have jurisdiction because it happened in their territory. The US would also have jurisdiction because US citizens were victims. The countries of origin of the terrorists (if they are not from China) would also have jurisdiction. Like I said above, it is common for multiple authorities to have jurisdiction.

[Kanaric]

Cool now lets arrest Obama and Bush for selling weapons as well.

Also the ATF, the entire agency. Lets just get rid of them and arrest them all for that Mexican fiasco.

Really those ATF agents should get twice the sentence as this man, we are supposed to trust those people yet they did what this guy was arrested for except selling guns to far more dangerous people to Americans.

[s.rwitt]

FFS please don't force me to explain the fact that governments are allowed to do things that individuals are not allowed to do...

[mrmouth]

It's sad that threads like this often take on the appearance of the comments section for RT videos on youtube. You wanna see some seriously deranged people, check any of those comments out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Ab6...feature=relmfu

[Kanaric]

FFS please don't force me to explain the fact that governments are allowed to do things that individuals are not allowed to do...

Neither the Nazis or Dahmer were allowed to mass murder. Why should one person be allowed to sell arms and not another just because one has a government backing them? If we were Iran selling arms we would be embargoed and punished.

[s.rwitt]

Neither the Nazis or Dahmer were allowed to mass murder. Why should one person be allowed to sell arms and not another just because one has a government backing them? If we were Iran selling arms we would be embargoed and punished.

That's geopolitics for you. Not that Iran doesn't sell arms mind you. Also, selling arms is not mass murder. It is different when states do it in the same way taxation is different when states do it.

Where are the victims? None. Case closed.

It's really too bad for Victor there that you weren't available to represent him.