Viktor Bout’s case is an attempt by US authorities to prove that the interests of their country prevail over those of every other state.

Viktor Bout’s case is an attempt by US authorities to prove that the interests of their country prevail over those of every other state. This is how Bout’s lawyer Albert Dayan has described the process in an exclusive interview for the Voice of Russia.

Bout’s case is a real hodge-podge of inconsistencies and violations of the laws of several countries, the lawyer insists. His client was arrested in Thailand in the course of talks on a deal that US authorities considered criminal under US law, overlooking the fact that Bout was detained in a country with laws that differ from American legal norms, notes Albert Dayan:

"The US prosecution says that the deal that Viktor was discussing at the point of his arrest was criminal under US laws. However under Thai and Russian laws, this deal does not constitute a crime."

Recall that US law enforcement officers made contact with Viktor Bout in Thailand while posing as members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC who were seeking to source surface-to-air missiles, which they said would be used against American citizens. All arguments as to the absence of a crime and unproven intent are not being considered, the lawyer notes:

"The prosecution argues that the fact that Viktor took part in such talks is quite enough to convict him of conspiracy to kill Americans. As I now understand, the prosecution never intended to verify whether Viktor would actually sell the weapons. Viktor’s real intentions were of no interest to prosecutors, both before and after his arrest."

The desire to prove their rightness at any cost pushes legal norms into the background. The US government has given itself the right to arrest a foreign citizen who has never been to the US in a country where he did not commit any crimes, the lawyer reminds. Subsequently, the court had just one task – to make Bout the accused at any cost, Albert Dayan concludes:

"Everything in Viktor Bout’s case ran counter to common logic from the very beginning. Usually, the way it goes is someone commits a crime and the police start looking for the culprit. It’s the other way around here. Law enforcers conceived a crime that would fit a particular person. The US never had any proof that Viktor was conspiring to kill Americans. Thus US law enforcers decided to create a situation, a trap of sorts, which Viktor could fall into while talking with the US agents. The conversation was being recorded and this now forms the basis of the prosecution’s evidence."

At first, it is unclear why the law is being so stubbornly side-stepped in Bout’s case. But everything falls into place when you take into consideration that US law is based on precedent. This means that after convicting Viktor Bout once, the US will be able to use similar mechanisms with respect to citizens of other countries, warns Albert Dayan:

"Every new ruling creates a new precedent. The precedent that this case would create, if it is ruled that Viktor’s case may be considered in the US, would be extremely negative for the world. Having such a precedent would pave the way for the US to legally enforce a completely totalitarian approach to its jurisdiction on a global scale. US special services will be able to arrest any person who falls out of favour with the US anywhere in the world and put him before a court in the US – even with the shakiest proof of his complicity under US laws."

Even having found itself inside a legal vacuum, the defense is sure that the jury will help bring the truth out, especially since for the first time since the beginning of the process, Viktor will be able to tell the jury the whole truth, Albert Dayan says:

"I believe that when it comes to the jury, they will give Viktor a chance and will listen to the truth of what happened. He hasn’t had such a chance as yet: there was political wrangling in Thailand, which meant Viktor didn’t have the opportunity to find people who would hear him out."

Even so, the Americans have done everything possible to complicate the jury selection process, with the release of the 2005 blockbuster Lord of War. US media actively speculated that Bout was the basis for the film’s protagonist Yuri Orlov, who smuggled weapons to Africa in the movie. Few people remember that Hollywood producers refused to finance the film, questioning the credibility of the plot. However, US media have today done everything to make Bout look like the bogeyman. And there is a real threat that emotions will get the better of members of the jury, Albert Dayan warns.

However, the defense hopes that common sense will prevail, given that it isn’t just an individual case, or even the American justice system that’s at stake here – this is an issue of observing laws in all countries. If Bout’s case culminates in a conviction, no person in the world can be sure that he won’t be accused of conspiring against the US tomorrow, arrested the next day, and put before a US court the following week.

You Might Also Like :