Why doesn't Joshua Foust of the American Security Project get it about the nature of Putin's Russia today? Is this lack of exposure to "Soviet reality" (as we used to call it, and still can)? Or the factor of a world-view scrim through which he sees events in Moscow? Or what is it?
I took to task his really strange undermining of the Pussy Riot case -- typical of the cunning water-carrying he does for these regimes -- in which he substitutes criticism of the critics of the regime for actual praise of the regime (which would be suspect and obvious), and of course ends up back-handedly leaving the regime status quo just as it is.
Tanya Lokshina's article in Foreign Policy is just fine. There are no factual errors in it. It is not hype, or hysteria, or hypotheticals. It is a valid report on what is really going on in real Russia. Hasn't Foust been paying attention? Massive crackdowns on ordinary demonstrators, usually off camera (and he was the first to claim that all those Western intellectuals were obsessed with the more famous Pussy Riot and not the lesser-known cases). The new "foreign agents" law -- and in case the leading human rights groups missed the memo, chalked graffiti on their buildings calling them "foreign agents" just so the mob knew where to point.
Lokshina herself was targeted with a series of highly creepy and scary threats that revealed that the persecutors knew details of her personal life they could only get from following her, KGB-style -- which is likely why they are not "Islamist extremists" but the FSB.
All of these facts are pretty basic, covered in the New York Times -- like the recent UN CAT session about the appalling practices of torture in Russia.
Admittedly, Russia isn't Foust's direct area of expertise, but this is just basic newspaper stuff. His line of heckling -- there really is no other word for it -- pretends that we have to second-guess a respected figure like Lokshina; that we have to second-guess HRW on the facts. I'm all for criticizing the human rights establishment -- and I do -- and my question about this piece on the eve of a very important human rights legislation -- the Magnitsky Act -- is why the editors at HRW couldn't mention even the case of Magnitsky in this piece. No matter. There's nothing wrong in this piece politically or factually. Only if you feel you have to be protective of Vladimir Putin is there a problem.
Plenty of people are available to explain to these pretend-naifs how Russia's law differs from US law. First, there's the context of Russia itself -- the Soviet legacy and the lack of the rule of law and the lack of judicial independence -- and the hundreds of cases of assassinations, beatings, unjust jailings and so on. Lawyers and journalists are not assassinated in the US and do not die in pre-trial detention.
Adomanis, a notorious apologist for the Kremlin, pretends in this exchange that "American dissidents" -- the kind that "have to go on RT" -- the Kremlin's propaganda outlet -- "have to shut up" about "the truth" regarding these laws. Huh? The US foreign agents law deals with agents of countries, and people performing political lobbying activities. The groups in Russia being targeted now are NGOs, and involved in human rights and charitable work, not politics. That they are seen as political or that they threaten the power of political figures with their critical findings shouldn't be mistaken as a similarity to US legislation.
Do I really have to explain this, kids? Is what is going on in this exchange here not self-evident?
And why would Nate Schenkkan then offer to give Foust and friends a platform to debate this sort of thing at Freedom House (more on this later).
I don't get how the "Foreign Agents Law" is different from disclosure rules in the U.S. on foreign-funded lobbying http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/05/back_to_the_soviet_future …
Mark Adomanis
@MarkAdomanis
joshuafoust
@joshuafoust
@MarkAdomanis Especially when compared to how the U.S. forces foreign-funded lobbying for legislation
Nate Schenkkan
@nateschenkkan
@joshuafoust @MarkAdomanis Well, when combined with a law that makes it potentially treasonous to consult with international organizations?
@nateschenkkan @MarkAdomanis Saying it's principle for groups that receive foreign funding to refuse to register as such is just silly
Sarah Kendzior
@sarahkendzior
@joshuafoust @nateschenkkan @MarkAdomanis Why is that silly? Similar laws have different consequences in diff contexts. In Russia, grim.
@sarahkendzior @joshuafoust @MarkAdomanis And again -- it's now treasonous for orgs to consult with the intl community.
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis So, no it's not. She said so in the piece.
@joshuafoust @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis You're right, we should wait until the first treason conviction before saying anything. Really?
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis That's not what I'm saying, but that op-ed is about how Russia is turning into the new Soviet
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis And I'm wondering where there's any evidence for that at all in the piece. There isn't.
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis But don't worry about a conviction. How about an arrest? Any official notice of enforcement?
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis I don't doubt the fears are real but there's little data to support the claims of that piece
@nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis That's why I asked for more analysis of what the laws mean & how they're being enforced
@joshuafoust @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis The ambiguity of the law is part of the point. Selective enforcement is a goal.
@joshuafoust @nateschenkkan @MarkAdomanis How about the tacit inhibition of living in state where unjust arrests are manipulated by laws?
Myles G Smith
@myles_g_smith
@joshuafoust @nateschenkkan @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis When there is no right to debate meaning of law, the spirit is all that matters.
@sarahkendzior @nateschenkkan @MarkAdomanis You mean like the US? What's your standard on this?
@joshuafoust @nateschenkkan @MarkAdomanis But the fear is enough to suppress engagement on human rights issues. Fear is the point.
@joshuafoust @sarahkendzior @MarkAdomanis Josh, I hope you're aware that there are different levels of judicial manipulation in Rus and US
Oh and BTW, Pirrong's a scumbag too and an apologist for the jihadist takeover of Syria which is being funded by NATO and American allies Qatar and Saudi Arabia and he still absurdly pretends is a 'popular uprising' in much the same way he claims Benghazi wasn't about massive gun running by the U.S. and NATO to jihadists in Syria.
Posted by: Mr. X | December 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM