Err... Wait... What?

[FunkyTown]

Alleged Russian arms trafficker arrested and extradited to the US:

Russian arms trafficking suspect arrives in NY - Yahoo! News

His crimes? He provided weapons to rebels in Colombia and various countries that had UN weapons embargoes on them.

My question is this:

1) Should a man be arrested for simply providing the means for other people to commit acts of war?

2) What should the statute of limitations on that be?

The reason I have that question is because the US is well-known for providing weapons to foreign insurgents. While the most famous would be George Bush, Sr. and the Iran/Contra affair, several South American states have faced rebels armed with US weapons. If this man is arrested, should George Bush, Sr. be? If this man was arrested for breaching UN convention in providing weapons that destabilize various nations, should those who ignored UN edicts and invaded Iraq be arrested as well?

I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I honestly don't see a difference between someone being arrested for providing weapons to counter-government insurgents and the Iran/Contra affair... Which was exactly the same thing.

JAG? Legally speaking, what's the difference between the two?

[NeuroTypical]

It's nice to think that international law has fairness and justitutde at its foundation. Nice in the way that little kids think the tooth fairy is nice.

Geopolitics is a bloody vicious nasty dirty game where all the players try to make what they have bigger and more powerful. Size and power means leverage. Leverage means more favorable stuff for your country and less favorable stuff for everyone else. Because everyone else is a potential future enemy.

I'll fall down on my knees and praise God when Christ brushes all that aside and implements something truly nice. But until then, well, it's been the same game since we got the boot from the garden. I don't see fairness or justice or right suddenly becoming relevant.

LM

[FunkyTown]

Hahah. Touche, Loudmouth. Maybe it is naive to expect the same rules to apply to everyone. But I do, and I think it's important that we not accept injustice no matter where or who.

But all that aside, I'm uncertain why they don't just simply shrug and say 'We don't like this guy because he's on the wrong team, so we're arresting him.'. If everyone knows that geo-politics isn't fair or just, why put on the show? We aren't mindless. We can see hypocrisy in action. If everyone is simply going to accept that "we" are just as injust as "they", then why put on the front?

And would the Saviour accept injustice? Would Enoch or his people?

It's almost like the illusion of personal righteousness is more important than actual righteousness, so sweeping our sins under the rug is a natural and easy consequence of that.

It's nice to think that international law has fairness and justitutde at its foundation. Nice in the way that little kids think the tooth fairy is nice.

Geopolitics is a bloody vicious nasty dirty game where all the players try to make what they have bigger and more powerful. Size and power means leverage. Leverage means more favorable stuff for your country and less favorable stuff for everyone else. Because everyone else is a potential future enemy.

I'll fall down on my knees and praise God when Christ brushes all that aside and implements something truly nice. But until then, well, it's been the same game since we got the boot from the garden. I don't see fairness or justice or right suddenly becoming relevant.

LM

[PeaceRoseRest]

I won't be one to criticize George Bush for providing arms to the Contras. The Contras were fighting to prevent their country from being taken over by the Communitsts.

As far as arms trafficing goes, those firearms typically come from very questionable sources. They aren't being legally sold and shipped to customers. Frequently they've been stolen from somewhere and are up for grabs to the highest bidder on the black market.

Personally, I see a world of difference between these two situations, but I agree it will be wonderful when the Lord comes again and the world will finally experience some true peace for a change.

[FunkyTown]

I won't be one to criticize George Bush for providing arms to the Contras. The Contras were fighting to prevent their country from being taken over by the Communitsts.

As far as arms trafficing goes, those firearms typically come from very questionable sources. They aren't being legally sold and shipped to customers. Frequently they've been stolen from somewhere and are up for grabs to the highest bidder on the black market.

Personally, I see a world of difference between these two situations, but I agree it will be wonderful when the Lord comes again and the world will finally experience some true peace for a change.

Err... I don't mean to be contrary, but no. The Contras were trying to oppose the elected, religious officials that were running the place. They were trying to overthrow an elected government, which had become the state after overthrowing the Shah. Iran isn't Communist in the slightest.

Also: This was a major shipping magnate. His arms were all purchased legally. He was only arrested for selling to the wrong people. I think maybe you see a world of difference between the situations because you aren't quite aware of what the situation is.

[Dravin]

We don't like this guy because he's on the wrong team, so we're arresting him.'. If everyone knows that geo-politics isn't fair or just, why put on the show? We aren't mindless. We can see hypocrisy in action.

Can we though? Enter most partisan debates on the internet, if you used that as a base the conclusion would actually be the opposite one about our ability to detect hypocrisy as a whole (we seem really good at pointing it out in other people though). The reason we do the Dog and Pony show is because it is surprisingly effective.

Edit: Note that I'm not defending it because it's a effective. I'm just saying it is done because it is reasonably so, mainly amongst the populace of the party putting on the Dog and Pony show.

Edited November 17, 2010 by Dravin

[FunkyTown]

Can we though? Enter most partisan debates on the internet, if you used that as a base the conclusion would actually be the opposite one about our ability to detect hypocrisy as a whole (we seem really good at pointing it out in other people though). The reason we do the Dog and Pony show is because it is surprisingly effective.

Maybe you're right, Dravin. That's disappointing. I certainly am not calling this guy a saint, but I just don't see how there's an ethical basis for arresting the guy for doing the exact same thing our side does: The US has provided arms and weapons to numerous anti-government groups in their respective country. Canada sold CANDU reactors to India that allows them to weaponize Uranium, etc, but when a country does the exact same thing with someone we don't like, we get righteously indignant. It seems silly.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG? Legally speaking, what's the difference between the two?

Gotta reread your Nixon. When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.

Seriously--I have no legal experience in this regard, but I note from the Yahoo article that the Ruskies wanted him too. And the UN seems to want the guy tried somewhere, though AFAIK they don't seem to particularly care who does it.

I suppose the underlying policy is power, and what benefits who. If--say--Canada is trafficking in arms, it can give political favors to those who are willing to look the other way. Thus it will benefit some nations to stop those pesky Canucks, but not others; and ultimately nothing will get done. By contrast, everyone has a vested interest in keeping the uber wealthy from acting like sovereign nations--we've already got enough rogue dictatorships without factoring a few thousand mad millionaires into the mix.

[FunkyTown]

By contrast, everyone has a vested interest in keeping the uber wealthy from acting like sovereign nations--we've already got enough rogue dictatorships without factoring a few thousand mad millionaires into the mix.

A few mad Billionaires, JAG! Let's be specific.

And you're right. I guess for a guy who constantly states that I'd rather have government with certain powers because I can vote out the government but not a CEO, me being upset about this is kind of hypocritical.

*ponder* Wait... Is it hypocritical if I don't think any government should try to overthrow another and that a nations sovereignty should remain sacrosanct?

ARGH! Too many subtleties! Too many variables to consider. Turning off brain and going to go watch Simpson reruns.