Treason Bill

[shikarnov 7]

Has anybody else heard about this new Treason Bill that's soon to pass in Russia?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081217/ap_on_...sia_treason_law

http://www.gazeta.ru/politics/2008/12/12_a_2909748.shtml

http://www.mk.ru/blogs/MK/2008/12/15/society/386309/100/

I asked my brother in law about it, and he didn't seem at all happy. He said it's going to be very bad news for Russians who live outside of Russia. As near as I can tell, and as well as I could translate his explanation, it'll allow the government to declare anybody that has somehow "harmed" the Russian Federation to be a criminal. Harm, of course, is far from well defined in the legislation...

Is anybody else better informed on this issue? Any thoughts/opinions?

ZS

Edited December 18, 2008 by shikarnov

[slim 1,533]

Don't worry, we'll have one here in the U.S. soon too. Should go nicely with that Patriot Act.

I actually haven't heard anything about the bill in Russia. But, the more they try to get away from us, the more they become like us.

[Ban Hammer 14,483]

i thought this was gonna be about bill clinton.

[shikarnov 7]

Don't worry, we'll have one here in the U.S. soon too. Should go nicely with that Patriot Act.

I actually haven't heard anything about the bill in Russia. But, the more they try to get away from us, the more they become like us.

I'd like to think that our laws are a little different than the Russians' laws are. The Patriot Act and others, while deplorable in their own right, weren't motivated by a paranoid desire keep this government in power. No matter how far overboard they may go, anti-terrorism laws are far from the same thing as laws that allow the government to criminalize anybody for something as generic as weakening it in some way.

But, none of that is my real concern. My worry is how/if this will end up effecting our foreign-married spouses in the future.

Think this is much ado about nothing?

Edited December 18, 2008 by shikarnov

[sweet_peach 0]

i thought this was gonna be about bill clinton.

LMAO

[slim 1,533]

As always, mox, great job! You can also count me in as a big fan of due process. When it comes to things like treason, espionage, terrorism, etc., I'll take the Russian system over the American system any day.

Russia has always had the balls to say, "this is what we're doing and this is why. You don't like it, tough $#!T and please shut up or else you'll be there too."

America, on the other hand, has always tried to keep it secret squirrel while smiling in your face and telling you it's for your own good. "Kidnapped him? What are you talking about? We 'detained' him for some questioning for a few years, that's all. He's fine now. Anyway, we only had him for like six years. Trial? What trial? Dude, we only 'detained' him, that's all. It was a matter of national security. We kept you safe. Don't you like being safe?"

[slim 1,533]

Almost forgot the real reason of this thread - Do I think it'll have any affect on our spouses S/Os.

No.

Several reasons. First, most of those "shopping" for a bride or groom are doing so through easier countries (UA) now and although Russia's not off the list, if they're willing to go the extra mile (oh no, I have to get a visa?) then they'll be willing to do the extra paperwork (read: pay the extra bribe) necessary to get their new wife safely out of the country.

Second, for those already here or married or whatever, they'll be "grandfathered" in and/or will do something to make their trip to the US a "business trip" for the purpose of entry and exit from the Motherland. "I only go for visit my customer in USA" (while handing customs guy a picture of Ben Franklin.)

[1HappyGuy 45]

As with any broadly defined law, it all depends on how it is interpreted by the government. What we should all be concerned about is, if this is just the next step into consolidation of power by Putin. Unfortunately, this proposed legislation has many ways of turning any democratic positions upside down. Only time will tell, but as we have seen, Putin is not planning on retiring from public office any time soon. This has all the possibilities of returning to a totalitarian regime.

[slim 1,533]

On NPR this morning, one of the leading opponents of the bill (I forget her name) was saying that because the bill is defined so broadly, you could be charged with treason for merely corresponding with a foreigner. That could be potentially worrisome.

About as worrisome as being "detained" for suspected terrorism, held without trial or charge, and never guranteed due process. And let's not forget the ommission of necessity of warrants before all that even happens.

Fact of the matter is a rule like that is going to affect the average person there the same way the Patriot Act affects the average person here. Not at all. The average person of both countries gave up their rights a long time ago.

As with any broadly defined law, it all depends on how it is interpreted by the government. What we should all be concerned about is, if this is just the next step into consolidation of power by Putin. Unfortunately, this proposed legislation has many ways of turning any democratic positions upside down. Only time will tell, but as we have seen, Putin is not planning on retiring from public office any time soon. This has all the possibilities of returning to a totalitarian regime.

No matter how much we like or dislike Putin, he's here to stay. But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

[Blues Fairy 0]

But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

You must be completely nuts.

[sara..... 371]

But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

You must be completely nuts.

Well...you have to admit that Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is now. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the overall statement. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian regime that could possibly benefit from being invaded and democratized. The only problem is there is no country on the planet that has either the credibility or the ability to pull it off.

Edit: Having said that, I lack the conviction to actually defend this post. Feel free to disagree, anyone, you're probably right. I'm really not sure how I stand on this.

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

[Ban Hammer 14,483]

well i have no love for saddam but at least there was schooling, clean water, electric, he had rape rooms yes but for the most part women walked around freer than now, he killed a lot of his people but we have killed more........they had a system maybe not one u or i like or would make the choice to live under but i dont see that their life as improved since we invaded and occupied that region, in fact i would go as far as to say it has gone so far backwards in time its anyones guess when they will come back to the stability that they had before we went there.

we have destabilized that region to the point that if we didnt have reason to worry about it before it is now become our worst nightmare

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

[Brad and Vika 129]

But, if we learned anything from Saddam Hussein, it was that even a totalitarian regime is better for the stability of a country than being invaded by a foreign power and "democratized."

You must be completely nuts.

Well...you have to admit that Iraq was more stable under Saddam Hussein than it is now. Having said that, I don't necessarily agree with the overall statement. Zimbabwe is a totalitarian regime that could possibly benefit from being invaded and democratized. The only problem is there is no country on the planet that has either the credibility or the ability to pull it off.

Edit: Having said that, I lack the conviction to actually defend this post. Feel free to disagree, anyone, you're probably right. I'm really not sure how I stand on this.

I think mox and Slim have a point here, if I am understanding them. And there is no difference between certain goals of the government in Saddam's Iraq, or the current governments in other parts of the world including Russia, the US, and Zimbabwe. Those goals definitely in my mind include survival of the current party or government - the difference is the methods used to to neutralize the other players in each country's political game.

IMO casting opposition members as crazy, unpatriotic, or enemies of the state is pretty common everywhere. Here we are used to seeing political fringe candidates caste this way even when they have a fairly large following. We then, behave as we are expected to behave and ignore them. People who are sympathetic to groups that advocate violence against the government are arrested, detained, etc. In places like Belarus or Russia, the method seems to include arrest/detention for even the nonviolent dissidents or any one else who is publically critical of the government. Sometimes people even vanish without explanation. In either case, the result is "stability", just like in Saddam's Iraq. Sometimes "stability" (people moving about without protest or violence, doing business, etc.) is fear based, sometimes disinformation based. Sometimes stability is affluence based - the easiest method IMO.

In Zimbabwe the method of suppressing the voice of opposition includes beating opposition leaders half to death in the street without consequence, and public rape and execution of opposition members regardless of their nonviolent protests against their current government. I think it is safe to say that silencing dissidents by hacking them and their relatives apart with machetes in public creates enough terror to slow political opposition down short term - but the backlash of armed violence further destabilizes the country.

[slim 1,533]

Summed up quite well above.

[Ban Hammer 14,483]

yes but.........? you make that sound like it's forgivable :blink: :blink:

You know how to read, that's clear. It's comprehension I think you need help with.

i'm finding it odd that someone considers rape rooms to be not such a big deal. got that?