US prosecution of arms dealers

[jmm99]

I'm starting this as a new thread, although the issue has come up in a number of different threads where some discussion has summed to:


(my paraphrase of the logic)

(1) arms are coming from the US and ending up in the hands of foreign nationals;

(2) the US has adopted the doctrine that it can intervene in foreign nations whose residents allegedly supply arms to our enemies; and

(3) the nations who are harmed by US armed sales should have the same right to intervene in the US, since the US does not take steps to halt those arms shipments.

So, there, we shouldn't intervene in foreign nations.

The factual fallacy in that argument (leaving aside the mixing of apples and oranges problem) is that the US has taken and does take steps to halt arms traffic from or through the US. Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/02/24/national/a133447S20.DTL) is the latest case result.


Syrian-born arms dealer gets 30 years in prison
By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
(02-24) 17:01 PST NEW YORK, (AP) --

A Syrian-born arms dealer was sentenced Tuesday to 30 years in prison for conspiring to sell weapons to Colombian militants while knowing they sought to kill Americans.

Monzer al-Kassar, 63, long suspected of aiding militants in some of the world's bloodiest conflicts, was convicted in November of conspiring to sell millions of dollars of weapons to militants in a sting operation. No weapons were ever exchanged.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff said al-Kassar and co-defendant Luis Felipe Moreno Godoy, 60, had engaged in terrorism-related crimes that were chronicled with overwhelming evidence, including videotaped conversations. He sentenced Moreno to 25 years in prison.

"I think it's fair to say Mr. al-Kassar is a man of many faces," the judge said. "It is a tragedy that a person of his intelligence has spent so much of his life in activities that certainly weren't calculated to advance the human race."

A federal jury convicted the men of conspiring to provide aid and equipment to a terrorist organization, conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers, conspiring to acquire and export anti-aircraft missiles and money laundering. The charges required a mandatory minimum sentence of at least 25 years in prison. Rakoff said sentencing guidelines called for a life sentence for both defendants, but the U.S. government had agreed when the men were extradited not to seek the maximum sentence.

Both defendants proclaimed their innocence after the judgment.

[davidbfpo]

I hesitate to mention this arms dealer, Russian born, ex-KGB Viktor Bout, who is currently detained in Thailand, after action by the US DEA (IIRC) with local help and awaiting an extradition hearing - well covered on other websites.

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

Here is the Wiki on Victor Bout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Bout). There are 10000s of Google hits.

I thought it was worthwhile to bring up this topic since one sees comments that the US is not doing enough in this area. These operations have to fly at a low level. They are also complicated by legal proceedings, etc., as the Bout proceedings evidence.

They are also complicated by international politics (from above link):


The Russian lower house parliament State Duma, raised concerns: "Political motives, attempts to link this issue with the fight against international terrorism and thus damage the interests and reputation of Russia, are present in Bout's case. It is necessary to intensity efforts aimed at securing the rights of Russian citizen Viktor Bout, prevention of his illegal prosecution and return to his home country, as well as at curbing attempts to use this case against Russia."

While I happen to agree with those who correctly say (e.g., Bob's World) that we should not shape our national policies on Cold War premises, there are still remnants of the Cold War that have to taken into account.

[120mm]

jmm, plz not to bring facts into this argument, as the "US imports arms to Mexico" is pure and simple a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution Hater and gun grabber ploy to destroy the US Constitution.

There are no facts necessary nor desired for that crowd.

But this DOES come into the military milieu in one other point. When I was commissioned an Officer into the US Army, I swore to support and defend the Constitution... etc..

Since the 2nd Amendment quite obviously, unless you torturously transmogrify its meaning, as the anti-2nd Amendment mob has, supports the ownership of military-style and useful individual arms to private citizens, whats with all the Army Officers, who allegedly meant it when they swore that oath, doing supporting the quite transparent efforts of those groups who want to destroy said Constitution and Bill of Rights?


Curious minds want to know...

[Ken White]

One I've pondered for a long time. I put it down to becoming somewhat political instead of remaining totally apolitical.

[Rex Brynen]

jmm, plz not to bring facts into this argument, as the "US imports arms to Mexico" is pure and simple a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution Hater and gun grabber ploy to destroy the US Constitution.

As the long history of the second amendment makes clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), its meaning is far from unambiguous. Moreover, constitutional rights are invariably subject to interpretations that change with changing social times (a process which, in my own admittedly liberal view, has tended to extend the rights of citizens on balance, rather than restrict them).

Put simply, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what the 2nd Amendment means. That doesn't make them Constitution-haters.

[Ken White]

As the long history of the second amendment makes clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ), its meaning is far from unambiguous. Moreover, constitutional rights are invariably subject to interpretations that change with changing social times (a process which, in my own admittedly liberal view, has tended to extend the rights of citizens on balance, rather than restrict them).True on the change. I believe that the net effect is as you state, extension -- but that there have been a number of restrictions imposed on that uniquely American shibboleth, individual liberty, many of them unnecessary and in some cases detrimental to society.

The erosion of personal liberty builds excessive reliance on the state -- which can never do all the things it's political leaders promise. Never.
Put simply, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what the 2nd Amendment means. That doesn't make them Constitution-haters.True but that does not excuse those on both sides of the argument who twist things and lie in an attempt to achieve their aims. My observation has been that while there are those on both sides who do that, the anti-gun crowd is much the worse of the two.

[jmm99]

I am a Life Member of the National Rifle Association (NRA (http://www.nra.org/home.aspx)); and have been so since the 1970s. I was a pro bono trial attorney (pro bono within reason, of course, and depending on the significance of the 2nd Amendment issue) for the Second Amendment Federation (SAF (http://www.saf.org/)), as part of its Attorney Referral Service (see here (http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=mission)), until I had to leave trial work.

My views on the 2nd Amendment are carved in stone. I, like you 120mm and many here, am sworn to support the Constitution (in fact, thrice oathed and still serving as an officer of three jurisdictions, SCOTUS, NY and MI). That oath carries the 2nd Amendment along with it.

But, that oath also carries along with it another amendment, the 1st. So, I am not bothered by those who make arguments contrary to my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. They are not going to change my beliefs anyway; and, when their arguments are "dumb", they can be easily refuted. When those whom I consider 2nd Amendment opponents move from argument and spin into legislative and judicial action, then we (those who think as I) fight them in those arenas without compromise.

My purpose in starting this thread was not to initiate a 2nd Amendment discussion - although I am not surprised that one has developed. My purpose was to expose the factual fallacy in the argument I paraphrased in the OP.

Nuff said by me on this, since I could go on about these issues for a long time.

[120mm]

I My purpose in starting this thread was not to initiate a 2nd Amendment discussion - although I am not surprised that one has developed. My purpose was to expose the factual fallacy in the argument I paraphrased in the OP.

Nuff said by me on this, since I could go on about these issues for a long time.

The problem with the above statement is, that this issue IS all about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Period. The "help the Mexican government control crime" legend is mere Trojan Horse-ism.

Of course, the most I can do is look down my nose at those who exercise their 1st Amendment Rights in the process of attacking the 2nd. But that'll teach 'em.

[jmm99]

from 120mm
The problem with the above statement is, that this issue IS all about the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Period. The "help the Mexican government control crime" legend is mere Trojan Horse-ism.

Please explain more fully what you're getting at - step by step.

[Ron Humphrey]

Please explain more fully what you're getting at - step by step.

He's referring to the high probability that the "we are enabling them to get weapons" bit will be used by particular groups as the catalyst for stronger weapons control measures at home.

Thus the concern over one amendment is used to counter another.

Just a guess;)

[jmm99]

The reason I didn't get it is that in the OP, I was focused on the crowd who argue that "we shouldn't intervene in foreign nations" because we don't want them to intervene when ""we are enabling them to get weapons" (the fallacy).

Yup, agreed that a crowd (not necessarily the same as the non-interventionists) could very well argue that the solution to keep firearms out of Mexico is to disarm the US - and, of course, that as a part of disarming the World. That crowd has been quite successful in other countries and in the UN. I'm well aware of all that.

The fallacy in their argument is that international trade in firearms is almost all in military weapons and is already very illegal. So, let's have enforcement of existing laws - and perhaps making them less difficult to enforce (horrors of all horrors - bringing some logic into the picture :eek:). And practically, confiscation of my puny little arsenal would mean zero to international arms trafficers - I'm not their source.

One of our earliest constitutional scholars, William Rawle (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm), in discussing the 2nd Amendment in 1829, noted how laws impinging on the right to bear arms were justified by one reason, but with the real reason being unexpressed (italics added):


Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.

So, the crowd who are afraid of armed and vigilent populace have been with us a long time - and then as now are not above subtrafuge to achieve their end goal.

BTW (IMO - so also the preceding paragraph): Rawle was a moderate urbanite with respect to the 2nd Amendment, as you can see by reading the rest of his discussion at the above link. His generally unfavorable view of Blackstone as a non-proponent of liberty is interesting in light of the overuse of Blackstone by some.

[120mm]

jmm99 - Sorry for seeming dense, but I don't get what you don't get about my prior statement. Because you then go on to state my case extremely succinctly:)

Bottom line: Those who say they are concerned about Mexican insurgents getting weapons from the US, in the whole, couldn't care less about Mexican insurgents. They are mostly interested in nullifying the 2nd Amendment to the constitution.

After all, the real threat here is military arms, and always has been. (Actually, the real threat is ignorance, but I digress) As you said in your above post. Frankly, they're cheaper and easier to get than commercial US weapons.

Because the anti-gun folks have been defeated recently whenever they try to attack the 2nd Amendment directly, they are forced to get their victories by indirect means, such as ammunition taggants, physical appearance legislation and ammunition bans based upon power (so-called "cop killer" bullets). Those bills were so vague, as to effectively destroy the 2nd Amendment without appearing to directly do so. The "let's help our good buddies in Mexico" b.s., is just one more indirect attack, imo.

[jmm99]

but following your comment


120mm
... they are forced to get their victories by indirect means ...

there are some post-9/11 executive orders out there, which could be used by the wrong crowd to do some very nasty things to US firearms owners. So far, that shoe has not dropped.

PS: SAF is the Second Amendment Foundation, not the Second Amendment Federation - a brain fart on my part.

[120mm]

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...mar15,0,229992.story

Drug cartels' new weaponry means war

Narcotics traffickers are acquiring firepower more appropriate to an army -- including grenade launchers and antitank rockets -- and the police are feeling outgunned.
By Ken Ellingwood and Tracy Wilkinson
March 15, 2009
Reporting from Zihuatanejo, Mexico, and Mexico City -- It was a brazen assault, not just because it targeted the city's police station, but for the choice of weapon: grenades.

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

The proliferation of heavier armaments points to a menacing new stage in the Mexican government's 2-year-old war against drug organizations, which are evolving into a more militarized force prepared to take on Mexican army troops, deployed by the thousands, as well as to attack each other.

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

"There is an arms race between the cartels," said Alberto Islas, a security consultant who advises the Mexican government.

"One group gets rocket-propelled grenades, the other has to have them."

There are even more ominous developments: Authorities reported three thefts of several hundred pounds of blasting material from industrial explosives plants in Durango during a four-day period last month. Authorities believe the material may have been destined for car bombs or remotely detonated roadside devices, which have been used with devastating effect in Iraq, killing more than 1,822 members of U.S.-led forces since the war there began nearly six years ago.

The Mexican army has recovered most of the material, and there has been no reported use of such devices.

Grenades or military-grade weapons have been reported in at least 10 Mexican states during the last six months, used against police headquarters, city halls, a U.S. consulate, TV stations and senior Mexican officials. In a three-week period ended March 6, five grenade attacks were launched on police patrols and stations and the home of a commander in the south-central state of Michoacan. Other such attacks occurred in five other states during the same period.

At least one grenade attack north of the border, at a Texas nightclub frequented by U.S. police officers, has been tied to Mexican traffickers.

How many weapons have been smuggled into Mexico from Central America is not known, and the military-grade munitions are still a small fraction of the larger arsenal in the hands of narcotics traffickers. Mexican officials continue to push Washington to stem the well-documented flow of conventional weapons from the United States, as Congress holds hearings on the role those smuggled guns play in arming Mexican drug cartels.

There is no comprehensive data on how many people have been killed by heavier weapons.

But four days after the assault on the Zihuatanejo police station, four of the city's officers were slain in a highway ambush six miles from town on the road to Acapulco. In addition to the standard AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the attackers fired at least six .50-caliber shells into the officers' pickup. The vehicle blew up when hit by what experts believe was a grenade or explosive projectile. The bodies of the officers were charred.

"These are really weapons of war," said Alberto Fernandez, spokesman for the Zihuatanejo city government. "We only know these devices from war movies."

U.S. law enforcement officials say they detected the smuggling of grenades and other military-grade equipment into Mexico about a year and a half ago, and observed a sharp uptick in the use of the weapons about six months ago.

The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years, in contrast to 59 seized over the previous two years.

The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico's, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say.

[davidbfpo]

A "plug" for an interview to be shown tonight on the UK Channel Four News: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/15/viktor-bout-merchant-of-death . Note he denies supplying AQ.

davidbfpo