US seeks the extridition of three Irish men over selling of military hardware to Iran

nesf · 25-03-2009 02:20AM #1

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/macaviation.html

Interesting case. Should they be extradited? I'm torn actually, do US imposed sanctions bind Irish citizens?

kerry4sam · 25-03-2009 02:38AM

"The indictment says the men violated US sanctions banning the export of military technologies to Iran.

They claim the men violated the sanctions by 'deceit, craft, trickery and dishonest means'."

In my opinion, if they violated the US sanctions as stated here(http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/macaviation.html) that they did, then it doesn't matter what nationality they are, they should be extradited.

P. Breathnach · 25-03-2009 02:44AM

nesf wrote: »

... do US imposed sanctions bind Irish citizens?

I sure as hell hope not, if the sanctions-busting happens outside the US -- unless our government explicitly signs up to them.

Moriarty · 25-03-2009 03:47AM

nesf wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0324/macaviation.html

Interesting case. Should they be extradited? I'm torn actually, do US imposed sanctions bind Irish citizens?

Should they be extradited? Well, we have an extradition treaty with the US. The whole idea of extradition is so that people answer for alleged crimes committed in foreign countries. They're alleged to have committed a crime under US law and the US is requesting that they be extradited to the US to answer for it. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I think the question should be more along the lines of "do US sanctions on the export of military or dual use technology to listed countries apply to (presumably) non-US companies who evade those sanctions", but then I'm not the one trading in questionable technology on the international market so I haven't looked too deeply into that..

It would be hard to claim ignorance in any case, they would have had to explicitly specify that they weren't exporting to sanctioned countries before the purchase(s) could have been made afaik, right before they were asked if it was going to be used in biological, chemical, nuclear or missile weapons research..

I'd imagine theres a decent profit to be made in selling on US technology to sanctioned countries - but then there's a glaringly obvious reason for that decent profit margin too. That's the cost of doing business too close to the wind.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-03-2009 03:55AM

Unless they're US citizens surely they're not subject to US law? If they are, then are we all subject to it?

Perhaps I'm wrong here, but, whereas a UN sanction would govern us - as we're part of the UN - a US sanction wouldn't, a we're not a part of the US (not yet, anyway):D.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2009 05:56AM

I'm torn actually, do US imposed sanctions bind Irish citizens?

Yes, if they bought the items in America and lied to the US government about what they were going to do with them on the authorisation forms.

If you e-bank, and break a half-dozen US banking laws with your trading even though you never set foot in the country, can you not still be extradited? The country in which the contract was made is the one whose laws apply.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Unless they're US citizens surely they're not subject to US law? If they are, then are we all subject to it?

Are we all doing business in the US buying components which have a legally binding restriction on what you can do with them? Trade in items deemed of military value comes with conditions in the US as to what you can or cannot do with them, which invariably includes selling them on to other countries without US permission. In order to export military hardware from the US, you need to tell the US Government what you're planning on doing with it, not just go into your local helicopter showroom and hand over some cash. Lying to the government is liable to land you in jail.

Here's a bit more detail from DOJ.

According to the indictment, beginning as early as August 2005 and continuing through July 2008, the defendants solicited purchase orders from customers in Iran for U.S.-origin aircraft engines and parts and then sent requests for aircraft components to U.S. companies. The defendants wired money to banks in the U.S. as payment for these parts and concealed from U.S. sellers the ultimate end-use and end-users of the purchased parts. The defendants caused these parts to be exported from the United States to third countries like Malaysia before causing them to be transshipped to Iran.

<snip>

According to the indictment, the defendants purchased 17 model 250 turbo-shaft helicopter engines from Rolls-Royce Corp. in Indiana for $4.27 million on behalf of an Iranian trading company. The model 250 engine was originally designed for a U.S. Army light observation helicopter and has since been installed in numerous civil and military helicopters. The defendants concealed from Rolls-Royce the ultimate end-use and end-user of the helicopters engines. In one exchange, one defendant declared that Mac Aviation was not selling the engines to any military organization or government.

<snip>

The indictment further alleges that the defendants caused aircraft components known as vanes to be exported from the United States to Iran. According to the indictment, the defendants caused United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney to export 50 "5th stage vanes" valued at approximately $141,750 from its Connecticut facility to Mac Aviation. The defendants falsely stated that final destination of the components was Belgium. Instead, these components were routed to Iran Aircraft Industries, known by its Iranian acronym as IACI, in Tehran.

NTM

lostexpectation · 25-03-2009 06:05AM

this guy was arrested in miami in 93 and charged for similar reasons, cant' find out what happend

Exneigh · 25-03-2009 06:06AM

Helicopter engines? I thought it was going to be skuds or some crazy weapons.. this is ridiculous.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2009 07:27AM

Exneigh wrote: »

Helicopter engines? I thought it was going to be skuds or some crazy weapons.. this is ridiculous.

Why? The Iranian military has quite a collection of US-built equipment that it needs parts for to keep them running. Without the engines, the helicopters are useless. Ditto every other piece of military hardware. It's to the extent that F-14s are being destroyed to the sub-component level because the only country in the world that can use them is Iran. (You can make an argument that this is cutting off the nose to spite the face, I think F-14s deserve a better fate than that, but I can see the logic)

NTM

Darragh29 · 25-03-2009 10:48AM

It's difficult to see what on earth this actually has to do with the US, if the men were not actual on American soil when they exported these parts to Iran.

Just because the US imposes an embargo on a country, this doesn't mean the rest of the world has to comply.

None of their business I'd say, get back to ruling the American people and leave us alone. When you do the analysis, you'd most likely find that the helicopters and military hardware that they are seeking these replacement parts for, were sold to them by the CIA, this seems to be the way of it with every other dispute they get themselves into...

jimmmy · 25-03-2009 11:16AM

nesf wrote: »

Should they be extradited?

in my opinion, yes

If the allegation about the 3 men is true, they should be ashamed of themselves. Rules exist for a reason. They may only have been a very small cog in the machine, in it for private greed / gain. Some of the 9/11 pilots trained in Florida.

wes · 25-03-2009 11:27AM

No, don't see why we should care about US sanctions.

Nodin · 25-03-2009 11:32AM

jimmmy wrote: »

. Rules exist for a reason.
.

Well we might as well close the thread now.....

jimmmy wrote: »

.
Some of the 9/11 pilots trained in Florida.

And the relevance of that to this is............

murfie · 25-03-2009 12:50PM

I am sure there is more information to the story but from what i have read they purchased the parts in India, not the US. So how would US law come into it? I would hope that there is not a legal right for the US to force the Irish government to extradite Irish citizens running an Irish business.

Helicopter parts, come on! its not enriched uranium is it!!

diverdriver · 25-03-2009 01:07PM

The defendants falsely stated that final destination of the components was Belgium. Instead, these components were routed to Iran Aircraft Industries, known by its Iranian acronym as IACI, in Tehran.

Read Manic Moran's post again for you doubters. Having worked in the aviation business long enough. I've come across these end user agreements quite a lot. It's seems they quite deliberately falsified paperwork as to where these items were going to end up. Thus if they broke US law knowingly and intentionally. They have a case to answer. One consequence of Ireland failing to extradite these men could be that it becomes very difficult to import almost any goods from the USA, aviation or otherwise.

Incidentally this doesn't just apply to aircraft parts. If you have a Dell Computer have a look at your 'Product Information Guide'. If you were to sell on your computer to Iran, you too might find yourself in trouble with the US government.

They are in big trouble, quite rightly.

Mr.Micro · 25-03-2009 01:58PM

Originally Posted by nesf
Should they be extradited?

Absolutley not.

oscarBravo · 25-03-2009 02:05PM

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Absolutley not.

Why not?

jimmmy · 25-03-2009 02:10PM

diverdriver wrote: »

Read Manic Moran's post again for you doubters. Having worked in the aviation business long enough. I've come across these end user agreements quite a lot. It's seems they quite deliberately falsified paperwork as to where these items were going to end up. Thus if they broke US law knowingly and intentionally. They have a case to answer. One consequence of Ireland failing to extradite these men could be that it becomes very difficult to import almost any goods from the USA, aviation or otherwise. .

I think we need to do all we can to hang on to whatever US multinational jobs we have in Ireland - I think its something like 100,000 direct jobs.

diverdriver wrote: »

They are in big trouble, quite rightly.

Correct

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 25-03-2009 02:13PM

jimmmy wrote: »

I think we need to do all we can to hang on to whatever US multinational jobs we have in Ireland - I think its something like 100,000 direct jobs.

Surely the difining atribute as to extradition should be whether they are culpable under US law/treaty despite being in Ireland and not how useful/harmful their case may be to the country generally speaking?

Mr.Micro · 25-03-2009 02:25PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not?

Iran being such a moot subject, and the selling of the aircraft parts to such a country then makes this case hugely political. In the US there is no guarantee IMO that these people would get a fair hearing. I would not be against a trial in another country.

Nodin · 25-03-2009 02:28PM

murfie wrote: »

I am sure there is more information to the story but from what i have read they purchased the parts in India, not the US. So how would US law come into it?

Because alas, it was Indiana.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0325/macaviation.html

murfie · 25-03-2009 02:41PM

Nodin wrote: »

Because alas, it was Indiana.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0325/macaviation.html

Ha, I need to put my reading glasses on!! Well in that case yes of course they are in the wrong and there is no question on if their business with Iran come under US law.

diverdriver · 25-03-2009 03:41PM

Surely the difining atribute as to extradition should be whether they are culpable under US law/treaty despite being in Ireland and not how useful/harmful their case may be to the country generally speaking?

Of course, but if extradition is refused on the basis that they are beyond US law We have a problem. Ireland thus becomes a useful conduit for smuggling US products to countries on the restricted list. That will definitely affect our relationship with US companies in Ireland and make it extremely difficult to obtain spare parts for any US manufactured items. Aircraft being one.

It's any case it's no different than if they hired someone to rob a bank in New York. They have broken the laws of the US and the US is entitled to try and bring them to justice.

jimmmy · 25-03-2009 03:45PM

diverdriver wrote: »

Of course, but if extradition is refused on the basis that they are beyond US law We have a problem. Ireland thus becomes a useful conduit for smuggling US products to countries on the restricted list. That will definitely affect our relationship with US companies in Ireland and make it extremely difficult to obtain spare parts for any US manufactured items. Aircraft being one.

It's any case it's no different than if they hired someone to rob a bank in New York. They have broken the laws of the US and the US is entitled to try and bring them to justice.

Yes. If its true what they did, shame on the 3 men.

Zynks · 25-03-2009 04:08PM

The fact that they mislead the sellers with fake information indicates they were aware that they were breaking US laws. If they did this by their own free will, then they are liable and should respond for their actions in my view. Unless there is further information that contradicts this, yes, they should be extradited.

Dr Galen · 25-03-2009 04:17PM

i'd say there's a lot more to this yet to come. You'd have to circumvent and make up a lot of paperwork along the way in order to finally get the parts to Iran, so ignorance can't be a defence on this one.

On the question of an extradition, well it appears there is a case to answer for so then yes, as we've an agreement with the US, and the legal minds in the DoJ deem that that so, then they should be.

Someone posted that they didn't think they would get a fair trial in the US? Any particular reasons why?

Manic Moran · 25-03-2009 04:20PM

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's difficult to see what on earth this actually has to do with the US, if the men were not actual on American soil when they exported these parts to Iran.

Put it this way. The crime was not so much selling parts to Iran. The crime was lying to the US government when filling out the export forms in a contract agreed to in the US, as evidenced by the fact that they sold to Iran.

NTM

P. Breathnach · 25-03-2009 04:24PM

diverdriver wrote: »

Of course, but if extradition is refused on the basis that they are beyond US law We have a problem...

It is quite possible to be beyond US law in Ireland. I consider myself to be out of the reach of US law (hardly very important because, to the best of my knowledge, nobody in the US has a legal issue to contest with me). If we abandon the idea that somebody here can be outside the scope of US law, then we abandon our sovereignty.

youcrazyjesus! · 25-03-2009 04:37PM

jimmmy wrote: »

in my opinion, yes

If the allegation about the 3 men is true, they should be ashamed of themselves. Rules exist for a reason. They may only have been a very small cog in the machine, in it for private greed / gain. Some of the 9/11 pilots trained in Florida.

What does 911 have to do with Iranian helicopters?

There are 2 arguments there.

Morally, there is absolutely no case to answer. Their motives might be greed but the parts are going to machines sold to the Iranians when they were being ruled over by the Shah or when they were slaughtering Iraqi conscripts. Now when the deaths of innocent people no longer serve a purpose the law is stepping in.

Legally, there is a definite case to answer. It's probably a very clear breach of the law. However, until it can be established that Guantanamo Bay has been completely emptied of prisoners, torture practices have ended and due process for all those in American custody/captivity has been seen through all extradition actions in this state should not be entertained.

Just thinking though, if the intermediaries they passed the parts onto were acceptable under the contracts they signed wouldn't it be very hard to prove they knew they were going to end up with the Iranians? They probably did know but proving it could be difficult.

bobbyjoe · 25-03-2009 04:50PM

No way should they be extradiited, they would not get a fair trial and the American prison system is inhumane.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2009 04:56PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There are 2 arguments there.

Let me know when you return to Earth...

No small amount of idealistic detachment from reality there.

NTM

youcrazyjesus! · 25-03-2009 05:18PM

Eh?

I specifically divided the argument between MORAL and LEGAL arguments. Let me know what part in particular was unrealistic.

sovtek · 25-03-2009 05:37PM

jimmmy wrote: »

I think we need to do all we can to hang on to whatever US multinational jobs we have in Ireland - I think its something like 100,000 direct jobs.

So Ireland should do whatever the US government wants to hang on to some jobs (of course this line of logic is dubious as companies will come here anyway)?

oscarBravo · 25-03-2009 05:42PM

sovtek wrote: »

So Ireland should do whatever the US government wants to hang on to some jobs (of course this line of logic is dubious as companies will come here anyway)?

Ireland should either respect its extradition treaties, or revoke them. I'm not sure why this is up for discussion here; it's a question of law, not opinion.

Maguined · 25-03-2009 05:43PM

If it is not against Irish Law to sell these parts to Iran then I do not see why they should be extradited to the US just because that is their laws, should all Irish business owners selling Cuban cigars also be extradited?

oscarBravo · 25-03-2009 05:50PM

Mikaboshi wrote: »

If it is not against Irish Law to sell these parts to Iran then I do not see why they should be extradited to the US just because that is their laws, should all Irish business owners selling Cuban cigars also be extradited?

It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.

youcrazyjesus! · 25-03-2009 05:53PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.

Not true. There is not a total embargo on Iran.

This alleged offence would have come about from legally binding declarations the importers would have made prior to purchasing the equipment, ie they shouldn't have sent the equipment to somebody the US says is involved in WMD profileration, or maybe would have needed to obtain permission before passing them on again no matter who the recipient was.

If they were sending lawnmower engines or medicine to Iran the same (probably - these things were denied to Iraq) wouldn't apply.

tfitzgerald · 25-03-2009 05:58PM

reminds me of the joke that the americans were so sure that iraq had wmd was because they kept the invoices. with the yanks its one law for them and a different one for everyone else i would hand over no one to them

Victor · 25-03-2009 05:59PM

So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).

Darragh29 wrote: »

When you do the analysis, you'd most likely find that the helicopters and military hardware that they are seeking these replacement parts for, were sold to them by the CIA, this seems to be the way of it with every other dispute they get themselves into...

No, many of the sales were above board approved by American presidents. And then, remember that Oliver North chap?

Were American and British companies similarly treated when they exported aircraft parts to Iraq in the 1990s?

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ireland should either respect its extradition treaties, or revoke them. I'm not sure why this is up for discussion here; it's a question of law, not opinion.

And those treaties have equivalence clauses. Did the USA extradite the pair that did the assisted suicide in Donnybrook a few years ago? They broke Irish law in Ireland.

youcrazyjesus! · 25-03-2009 06:06PM

Victor wrote: »

So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).

Tell that to the hang 'em high brigade. What a joke some of the reponses on here are. Our economy is going down the tubes because we won't extradite a couple eijits selling helicopter engines. There was a comment about realism up above. I politely suggest to that poster he start looking elsewhere first.

No, many of the sales were above board approved by American presidents. And then, remember that Oliver North chap?

Were American and British companies similarly treated when they exported aircraft parts to Iraq in the 1990s?

To quote a famous tribunal witness, were they ****.

Dr Galen · 25-03-2009 06:09PM

Victor wrote: »

So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

While the accused may have a case to defend in the USA, I don't think a court is going to extradite them unless they also broke Irish law (the usual test for extradition is equivalence).

thats a very interesting point. I know we don't have an extradition treaty with Iran, but if we did, and this was the case, what would happen then? I'm not legally minded at all, but I'd hazard a guess that when these treaties are being drawn up things like this maybe accounted for in clauses etc.

Maguined · 25-03-2009 06:11PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's against US law to purchase something in the US for sale to Iran.

Yes it's against "US Law" but not against Irish law as far as I am aware, the entire point of extradition laws is that if someone has committed a crime in another country severe enough that it would be of concern to the current inhabited counrty that they ship them back. For serious crimes like murder we of course extradite as Ireland also shares laws regarding murder however for laws that Ireland do no share with the US ie drinking ages, cuban cigars and selling to Iran why should we bow down to their law?

Should we extradite single women that are sexually active to countries with Sharia law in effect to be stoned to death as well?

Victor · 25-03-2009 06:17PM

Oh, Irish courts have been slow to extradite for what have been perceived as political offences (mostly in relation to NI). Hence, Irish law allows offences committed in the UK to be tried here.

youcrazyjesus! · 25-03-2009 06:22PM

Victor wrote: »

is probably the wrong word.

Yes, it is, changed.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2009 06:34PM

So what if Iran has a law that says you can't obey American sanctions?

Not equivalent, there's no jurisdiction over the contract.

The contract was sealed in the US, making it subject to US law. Iran has nothing to do with it.

Equivalence requires not an exact match, just that there is nothing in principle which is contrary to Irish jurisprudence. You would have to show that the Irish government could not put restriction clauses in place or that such restrictions were inherently unfair or illegal.

NTM

US seeks the extridition of three Irish men over selling of military hardware to Iran

Comments