In the case of Booth found a "political motive" of the U.S.

In the first, according to BBC, a team attorney Buta – Albert Dayan, Kenneth Kaplan and Schreiber Mayo – argues with the answer the prosecutor's office to demand protection and close the deal raises a purely legal arguments. The second, signed by one Dayan, is an attempt to make the case Bout politically motivated. According to his lawyer, his petition contains a number of original argument, not previously advanced by the defense. Chief among them is the fact that the "U.S. National Security Council or the White House seemed to have forced the police to bring charges against Bout" for purely political reasons. " The aim – to bring with them the accounts for the fact that he "has put the Bush administration in an awkward position," or "a scapegoat and so unworthy to divert attention from U.S. government bonds, the" merchant of death ". Despite the fact that Booth had a reputation for notorious arms dealer, according to Dayan, the end of 2003, "a company owned by Bout, or controlled by them, received contracts for the transportation of tents, food supplies and other goods for American companies working in Iraq for U.S. forces . Beginning in May 2004, in newspapers, primarily in the Financial Times, reports began to appear that the companies associated with Bout, allegedly the world's largest arms dealer, supplying American troops in Iraq. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz were immediately summoned to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for an explanation. As the lawyer sees Russians, both argued that nothing in this thread do not know, and hardly admitted that they knew at least the name of the bout, but promised to make inquiries. " "Two weeks later the State Department advised the Committee that the preliminary investigation did not reveal any involvement of Bout's cargo to the Iraqi contracts," – says Dayan. Only 7 months after Wolfowitz "reluctantly accepted" that "the contractors of the U.S. Army used the aircraft, which belonged to companies linked to Bout." In July 2004, the U.S. Office on foreign holdings, part of the U.S. Treasury, including Bhutan to the proscription list of individuals with whom U.S. citizens are prohibited to enter into commercial relationships. The immediate cause, it's called supply Bout weapons to Liberia in the midst of civil war. The U.S. Treasury also accused him of supplying weapons to the Afghan Taliban, to whom Booth allegedly earned $ 50 million in spite of this, according to Dayan, the U.S. military continued to use in Iraq, Bout's companies, that it was "flagrant violation" of these sanctions, the Treasury. According to the magazine New Republic, the military might as well take advantage of "more for mounted cargo carriers, but nevertheless continues to contract with Bout. According to counsel Bout, an article in this magazine has identified "the incompetence (or worse)," U.S. Department of Defense and State Department, after which the department decided that they needed to "deal with Bout. According to Dayan, the authorities have set themselves are not law, but purely political purposes, because "at that time, Booth had not committed any crimes against the United States, as well as committed no act and made no statements that would give reason to believe that he had or contemplating such a crime. " If the judge decides Shendlin Dayan argued, it would create new legal precedents, which will be known under the name of Booth. July 21 will hear the latest arguments of the parties before the court. Recall Bout arrested in Thailand at the request of the United States in 2008 and fall 2010 were given to American justice. Entrepreneur all accusations denied. The trial should begin in October 2011. If the Russians are convicted of trafficking in weapons, it could be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 25 years to life.