rss search

Deccan Chronicle Review

line

Popular Reviews

Source: Deccan Chronicle

Country: India

Link: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/dc-comment/bringing-merchant-death-justice-864

This piece was reviewed on 16 September 2010 by the ViktorBout.Net team. Please read the article before reading our review.

–

Review

Jeffrey Stevens, ViktorBout.net

16 September 2010

The Deccan Chronicle is the largest circulation English language newspaper in the South of India, and enjoys circulation of over 1.3 million with many online visitors also reading the paper. The article, copyright of The Deccan Chronicle, is entitled: ¨Bringing Merchant of death to justice.¨

The article states several things as fact that, simply, are not. Including:

  • Paragraph 2 states: ¨In the first ruling by a lower court, the grounds for Bout’s extradition to the US were dismissed since Bout was not in possession of the weapons he was alleged trading.¨

Forgetting the ¨-ly¨ omitted there, Mr. Bout´s initial case was not dismissed because of this reason. The Thai court actually ruled that Mr. Bout could not be charged, because it ruled that the FARC organization was not a terrorist group, but was a political movement. The extradition treaty between the US and Thailand does not allow for political prisoners to be extradited. Additionally, the court ruled that Thailand would not extradite a non-Thai citizen (Russian) to a country not administered by Thialand (USA) for something the latter country (USA) claimed he did. In effect, because Thailand dropped all charges against Mr. Bout shortly after his arrest, Viktor Bout had been held without charge in Thailand for many months. After dropping all charges, the Thai government has not charged him with any crime.

  • Paragraph 2 states: ¨The court stated that discussing a crime was not grounds enough…¨

To this day, there has been no evidence produced that can back up that statement. There is no record of Mr. Bout discussing a crime. Simply put, if there was evidence to show that Viktor Bout was agreeing to commit a crime, this entire website would not exist. The evidence only suggests that Viktor Bout was in Thailand to discuss selling some of his cargo planes to other businessmen.

The sting operation undertaken by the US DEA was corrdinated through a man named Andrew Smulian. If one reads the OFFICIAL US indictment, one would see that the DEA never met with Mr. Bout before arresting him. According to the official US indictment, Andrew Smulian agreed to things with the DEA. Mr. Smulian was sent to the US immediately after Mr. Bout was arrested at the Sofitel Silom Hotel in Bangkok in March 2008. His current whereabouts and status are unknown.

  • Paragraph 3 states: ¨…on the basis of new evidence which the US provided against him, of financial irregularities and money laundering which were linked to weapons trade and narcotics.¨

The writer is very confused here. In 2008, the US initially charged Bout with 4 counts, accusing him of conspiracy to kill Americans and American soldiers, and conspiracy to commit crimes related to weapons and terrorism. On the other hand, the additional 9 charges filed in 2010 had NOTHING to do with weapons or narcotics. The writer is simply wrong; one only has to read the official US court documents to know this. The additional 9 charges relate to a law passed by the George W. Bush administration, putting Mr. Bout on a black list of people who could not do business with the US or American companies. The 9 charges relate to a deal between a foreign company and an American company. The foreign company wanted to buy Boeing passenger planes and related parts from the American company. The US accused Bout of secretly giving money to the foreign company in order to purchase the planes on his behalf. Boeing passenger planes. No weapons. No narcotics. In fact, there is no connection between Bout and the foreign company. The US indictment even admits that there is no proof to their claim. Read the official US court documents.

  • Paragraph 5 states: ¨In fact, Hollywood’s 2005 Nicolas Cage film Lord of War was inspired by Bout’s life. The sobriquet “Merchant of Death” is from the title of his 2007 biography — Merchant of Death: Money, Guns, Planes, And the Man Who Makes War Possible — by Stephen Braun and Douglas Farah.¨

Viktor Bout Dot Net would like to point out that any story that bases its factual proof on a Hollywood movie (Nic Cage is fine, of course), is bound to have a hard time with credibility. Additionally, the moniker ¨Merchant of Death¨ actually came from a former British foreign office minister. The title of the Braun & Farah book came from that. Just to note, neither of those men has ever met with Mr. Bout, the man they claim to know so much about.

Finally, we would like to urge Dr. Shankari Sundararaman, an associate professor of Southeast Asian Studies, to review the official court documents and indictments from thee case.

Note: All quotes are used for educational purposes and remain the property of The Deccan Chronicle and/or its author, Dr. Shankari Sundararaman. Viktor Bout Dot Net does not condone copyright infringement, and respects all original content produced about this case and others.

This is Viktor Bout Dot Net, on the ground, getting the real story. If you have an article you would like us to critique, please contact Jeffrey Stevens at Jeff@ViktorBout.net

.::.