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 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. 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, 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, 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.