Victor Bout trial: the anatomy of a cop-out

Bangkok Pundit examines the available facts about the Thai court's ruling on the Victor Bout extradition case (now under appeal), and -- after examining which groups have and have not been designated as terrorist by Thailand -- blogs:

. . . . Count 4 of the indictment is about providing support for those committing a terrorist act and Sections 135/2 and 3 isn't limited to providing support to only terrorist organizations, but to those who are committing terrorist acts (a terrorist act is defined in Section 135/1 and in BP's view Bout's acts arguably fit within either Section 135/2 or 135/3).

In other words, arranging to sell missiles to a group engaged in terrorism is arguably enough cause to extradite under Thai law. BP continues:

Nevertheless, the court's statements are bizarre as the court doesn't just state that FARC is not a designated terrorist organization.It goes further and refers to FARC fighting through political means (the Thai word for fighting doesn't necessary imply violence). The court almost tries to excuse FARC's actions and provide justification for its reasoning even though it is designated by the US and EU and other countries as a terrorist organization.

Assuming Bangkok didn't want to see Bout extradited -- presumably so as not upset the Russians -- could they have come up with a less offensive excuse?

I think not.

The excuse they came up with doesn't offend the Russians at all. It's much less offensive to the US than had the court challenged the method of capture -- going along with the defense's claim that Bout was a victim of entrapment. Of course, it offends those of us who care about human rights, but since when was that a priority in Bangkok? The only other party offended is one group the Thai government probably has even less reason to care about than the anti-arms trafficking lobby, and that is the Colombian government.

The wording, as BP points out, was gratuitously insensitive to Columbia's problem, but the essence of the claim was not punitive, that is, it does not blame anyone, and its only inadvertently offensive to Columbia. It looks as if someone in Bangkok had said, "let's try to get Thailand clear of this controversy without even offending FARC."

This observation -- that the justification for the acquittal was not only somewhat lame but also extraordinarily inoffensive to all parties named in the case -- supports my prior conviction that a decision on Victor Bout had probably not been arrived at by consideration of the case on its merits alone.
__
You can read my other recent posts about the Victor Bout case here and here.