The Sergei Magnitsky Act: Russia Warns Obama Not to Pass Human Rights Bill

Americans must realize that Vladimir Putin was not just in the KGB during the Soviet era, but was part of the Fifth Chief Directorate -- which was tasked to suppress internal dissent.

What could anyone expect from him?

Thanks Yevgeni. The Fifth Chief Directorate, rings a bell but I admit not knowing much about it - Do you think it still exists to a degree? This story reminds me of Chen Guangcheng and Ronald Reagan, Ronald Reagan cared so deeply for dissidents that he made "repeated personal contact with his Soviet counterparts to negotiate their release." The article stated that "Ambassador Jack Matlock, Jr., who served in the Reagan administration and as the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, understood the genuine strategic importance Reagan placed on both personal liberty and liberality in the political order."

I wonder if a personal call would have helped Magvitsky?

The KGB was split into the FSB (едеральная служба безопасности Российской Федерации; Federal'naya sluzhba bezopasnosti Rossiyskoy Federatsii or Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation) and FSV (Служба Внешней Разведки Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki or Russian Foreign Intelligence Service).

The FSB has been criticised for corruption and human rights violations. Some Kremlin-critics like Yulia Latynina and Alexander Litvinenko have claimed that the FSB is engaged in suppression of internal dissent. Litvinenko died in 2006 as a result of polonium poisoning.

Putin's father was also Lenin's and Stalin's personal cook. What does that tell you?

I do not blame people for the acts of their fathers. My father served under Stalin. He didn't like him, but did so because it paid well.

I joined the CPSU because it was necessary and took my training because it meant a good job.

It also got me out of the USSR.

Renee Nal Jul 2, 2012, 2:07pm EDT
I wonder if a personal call would have helped Magvitsky?

It is highly doubtful. Putin would have released him only if there was some advantage.

He might have done so for a Reagan, or someone he respected, but he has little regard for President Obama.

Quite fascinating, and a valuable insight, as always. Thank you, Yevgeni.

Americans do not understand what KGB was really. They think it is like CIA and FBI put together. It was much more as KGB had its own prisons, bombers, tanks and more.

There was even an internal group to watch KGB. And a group to watch the watchers.

Wow, how beaurocratic is that?

It shows how little they trusted those they trusted.

Chessplayer paranoia. Layers and contingencies.

That sounds strange, Joy. Did you read about that in the news?

Military exercises between Russia and the US are not new. These have been done in South Korea. Germany and other places, generally as a means to provide for a joint mission against terrorists.

Because Russia has its own problems with a Muslim area within its borders as well as being much closer to potential terrorists from the Middle East.

BTW, if you wonder why Russia is cozy with Iran, remember they share a common border area.

Joy,

Russia has many actual terrorists, but they rarely admit to them all. The Chechens are Muslims and have been fighting for independence.

When you have a despotic regime like Putin has established, you have those who yearn for freedom.

I said only they were preparing for Muslim terrorists. Not preparing for Muslims.

If you want to distort my words, please be more clever.

oops, I think it was just a misunderstanding. really, I think it was a genuine question. Russia has many actual terrorists, but they rarely admit to them all. That is interesting, Yevgeni. Do you have any theories on that? Would it just be due to bad press?

Interesting post! I had not heard about this.

Thanks, Heather ;-)

Agree, Mr. J.

The law would not have any impact on Russia or internal affairs in their nation. For one thing how cane determine who had anything to do with the man's death if no investigation is held? For another, so long as those who did stay out of the USA it will have no effect on them.

This is posturing, bluster. I suspect it is designed more for its effect on Obama than on Russia. If he signs it he is provoking Russia and needlessly complicating relations with them. If he refuses to sign it then he doesn't care about human rights. It's like one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions, there is no good answer to it.

To be clear, of course this is a case of violation of a man's human rights. Of course it was wrong and despicable. If a law like this could effect change in that regard it would be totally worth supporting. But it can't.

Russia continues to backside into totalitarianism under Putin, if it ever truly got out from under it at all. But there are many more countries doing as bad or worse to their citizens and yet continue to receive favored status from America. Think China, Saudi Arabia, Columbia. If all are going to receive the same kind of rebuke, then fine. Otherwise it's hypocrisy.

And, to avoid hypocrisy, the USA has to get its own house in order on human rights, too.

The law would not have any impact on Russia or internal affairs in their nation. Then why are they so vocally opposed to it?

I suspect it is designed more for its effect on Obama than on Russia. even though it was written by a far left supporter of Obama?

It is symbolism, Rory. It shows that this type of behavior is unacceptable.

It has about the same impact as all the Congressional resolutions and Presidential statements about Syria...

Cha, so true, Yevgeni!

J. Thanks for your comment, one word...lemming.

You are wrong on so many counts, j. wright.

I have always admitted to a true love/hate relationship with the USA. As a Canadian, living next to you guys is like sleeping with an elephant: no matter how friendly the beast, you are still disturbed by every twitch and grunt. The US has a storied history full of great achievements like the Declaration of Independence and your Constitution, the moon landing and the entire NASA space program, great leaders like Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, the world influencing arts of Hollywood, Rock 'n' Roll, and an impressive literary heritage. You also have some sordid aspects to your history including the long slavery and civl rights debacle which took almos 200 years to sort out, the interference of the CIA and other American covert agencies in the internal affairs of many other nations, horrible leaders like Nixon and Bush II, and modern things like Guantanamo and extraordinary rendition.

A lot to love. A lot to hate.

But Americans, as individuals, usually strike me as good, decent folks, and I have known a lot of them in my day. Two of my older brothers are now Americans, having emigrated there decades ago. Their children are all American born eligible to be president despite the paternal Canadian lineage. My oldest and dearest friend (of more than 40 years) in an ex-pat Connecticutt Yankee. I have friend living in Boston and San Diego in addition to family in Florida and Minnesota. I've travelled a fair bit in your country as well.

But my comments are not about being unable to "stand" the US. They are honest comments about the truth about the US. What America has done in Guantanamo and through extraordinary rendition is equally dispicable to what the USSR did to Magnitsky, and any honest person would acknowledge that. To lecture the world on human rights without getting your own house in order first is hypocrisy. This is not a left-right issue, it is a reality.

As to supporting Obama in ANYTHING he does, unh-unh. Not this boy. I have written a fair bit about the things that Obama has done wrong and/or failed to do right here on Gather. But I will not go along with the BS excess of villification of him and his administration by the right wing which is based on hyoer partisanship and racism. Everything from the ludicrous birther movement to the amnesia about the state of the nation as he inherited it and the over-the-top claims of communism etc. simply make the Republicans and Tea-baggers look silly.

Unless catastrophe strikes between now and November (and it may, especially on the economy), Obama will win re-election. If he does the main reason will not be that he necessarily deserves another term. The main two reasons will be: 1) the Republican alternative is a joke candidate that even you guys didn't want and tried hard to avoid by test driving a bunch of even worse jokes, and; 2) your criticism of him is so ungrounded in reality that most non-doctrinaire voters have tuned you out.

Actually, if the right toned down their criticism of Obama to focus on his actual faults and mistake you might actually win. But keep calling him a Kenyan born communist agent of the devil (n... n... n... negro!!!) and you will lose.

Of course your perception of the right is way off. Actually, if the right toned down their criticism of Obama to focus on his actual faults and mistake you might actually win. But keep calling him a Kenyan born communist agent of the devil (n... n... n... negro!!!) and you will lose. You are only seeing what the biased media wants you to see. Please, dig deeper, you cannot trust them.

Often when right wingers declare something as "fact not conjecture" it is most indicative of how feeble their grip on the concept of facts is.

To whit: Gallup Daily tracking poll (June 27 - July 3) has Obama 48% and Romney 44%. CNN/ORC Poll (June 28-July 1) has Obama 49% and Romney 46%. Democracy Corps poll (June 23-27) has Obama 49% and Romney 46%. Fox News Poll (June 24-26) has Obama 45% and Romney 40%. NBC News/WSJ (June 20-24) has Obama 47% and Romney 44%. And the Bloomberg National Poll (June 15-18) has Obama 53% and Romney 40%!

Now I'm not saying that Obama has this sewn up. But j. is saying that Romney does and this is a fact. Clearly the evidence does not support his "facts".

We shall see, Rory.

Whatever November brings, Renee, will not change the fact that j. wright doesn't know what constitutes a fact. Even if Romney wins it will not mean that j.'s statement today that Obama would lose in a landslide if the election were held today was correct. The evidence suggests he is dead wrong.

Unless every pollster in the country is wrong, wrong, wrong then j. is simply blowing smoke.

If in Nov. these same pollsters are still showing the kind of small lead for Obama that they are showing today but the election turns out to be a landslide for Romney, then I would concede that he had a point. Otherwise, just more right wing hyperbole. Like calling Obama a communist.

Well, he was raise by communists, hung out with communists and knows lots of communists, an his policie are way socialist (which is a stepping stone to communism) Oh yes, and he has hired plenty of communist "czars". but let's not get nitpicky. All I know, is that you used the word,"concede" in one of your posts. I'm getting a screenshot of this! ;-)

*policies

You do realize that the term "czar" has been applied to cabinet members of an administration since at least the days of Nixon, eh?

You do realize that I could give a hoot if they are called Czars or Comrades or Brown Shirts, I am talking about his actual czar appointees, like Ed Montgomery, Van Jones, Carol Brower, David Bonior, Heather Higginbottom, Mark Lloyd, Samantha Power, Hilda Solis, Antonio Villaraigosa, to name some.

I'm well aware of your archaic, quixotic and undemocratic electoral college, j.

Perhaps you are unaware that only three times in your history has the lower candidate by popular vote won the electoral college and the White House.

The polls I quoted were simply all he most recent polls listed at pollingreport.com, nothing left out. If you check you will see that I made no such claim that every poll proved Obama was winning. I merely pointed out that your wild claim Romney would win in a landslide and that this was a fact was obviously inaccurate.

I stand by that point. Perhaps you should find out what you are talking about before running off at the mouth.

Rory, even though you tend to liberalism, I really enjoyed your posts. I learned from them and from Yevgeni. Two people I was too familiar with before.
I'm strongly conservative but appreciate your way of debate and efforts to be accurate. That's worth a lot :)

Of course these old conservatives in here I'm always pulling for. There's just something encouraging about people that think like me :):)

Anyway glad to meet you and Yevgeni. I'm anxious to follow you some more.

Thank you for posting this! I've been following Russian human rights farces for years.

~15 years ago at UofWA, I attended a speech by Yelena Bonner (d.2011), wife of former Soviet dissident & Nobel laureate, Andrei Sakharov. My particular question was about gay rights in Russia, which caused me to be booed by at least one audience member. But her reply: 'Would that we had your issues.'

Fast forward to 2012: Moscow just passed a law banning gay pride parades. But for a finite amount of time: 100 years. How satirical is that?

I am brand new to Gather - FriendBurst shut down my Hyper-Intellect profile there a few days ago.

Due to (in my opinion) my overabundance of critical analysis on religion, sex, politics, etc. - & not joining any of administrator Kevin's prayer circles. Though likely under the guise of some TOS violation. He even blocked my IP address, so I have to change my normal IP to be able to access ANY FriendBurst content! LOL.

You seem like just the type I need to help me bounce back - I'm off to friend you now.

Thanks for your comment, Mr. Hyper! "Moscow just passed a law banning gay pride parades. But for a finite amount of time: 100 years. How satirical is that?" Really? That is interesting, I will have to look into that and Welcome to Gather!

But we are BFFs already, Mr. j ;-)

It's a good thing to uphold and further the concept of human rights, but not so sure the US can pull that off from under all the hypocrisy that covers us from, things like:

Partnering with Uzbekistan as part of the "Coalition of the Willing" to purge that human rights violator, Saddam, from Iraq. Uzbekistan routinely boils political dissidents.

We've repeatedly demonstrated that we don't care about human rights in geographic areas of strategic importance to us, by supporting oppressive and tyrannical dictators in places like the Middle East, South America, and Asia. We even supported Saddam Hussein after he gassed his own people, and we supplied him with WMD.

We have a recent history of denial of human rights for many Americans. Just look at the controversy over Gay marriage and other Gay rights, and within the lifetime of many Americans, Black Americans had to go to the back of the bus, couldn't drink from drinking fountains reserved for whites and were denied service at many restaurants and hotels.

And does anyone really think corruption doesn't exist here? Hell, during the Iraq invasion our Vice President gave a no-bid contract to his company (Halliburton) with barely an acknowledgment that other firms (like Schlumberger) could have BID on the job.

Geez, Robert. You are too much. Can we please remember the past, but move ahead?

Nice idea in theory, Renee, but we can't do that. "We" don't remember the past because most Americans are ignorant about it. Most Americans aren't even aware of half of the stuff I mentioned in my little comment bubble, and many don't acknowledge the rest.

With the ongoing issues... Lot's of people who live in Beverly Hills have never driven through South Central LA (for real... AND it's a metaphor).

... and a lot of these are ongoing issues. We STILL support tyrannical dictators (who deny human rights to their people) around the world right now; today as we will tomorrow. It's what superpowers do, but that doesn't make it any less hypocritical to be "lecturing" (or legislating) others on human rights issues.

The US supported Hosni Mubarek for years. He was considered by some to be a dictator, the problem of course is that he was the best of a bad bunch. Now that he has gone, the Muslim brotherhood has taken over and among their primary goals is the extermination of Israel. And our president supports the likes of the muslim brotherhood, but could not be bothered with the likes of Magnitsky.

Renee Nal said: "Geez, Robert. You are too much. Can we please remember the past, but move ahead?"

Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It always amazes me how those on the right actually cultivate an ignorance of history. It's like saying: I know we were rat bastards right up to last year, but we're all better now, honest! Clueless.

j. wright said: Robert said, "We even supported Saddam Hussein after he gassed his own people, and we supplied him with WMD. "

That's a flat out lie. Once Hussein did that US support stopped. Robert knows that to be true, but his ideology and deep rooted hatred of his own country just won't allow him to be honest."

False, j. America supported Iraq both financially and diplomatically right up until the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The gassing of Kurds occured in 1988 with other abuses going on through the 1980s while Reagan was sending billions in aid and military intelligence to Iraq.

How is saying, "REMEMBER the past" ignoring it? I often write about historical figures and events. For example, here is a history of racism in the democrat party, (for example, did you know that Bill Clinton belonged to an all-white country club in 1992? Crazy, right?

I have written about how the Blac Block was present at Ronald Reagan's famous "Tear Down this Wall" speech,

and I have also written about American Heroes, Booker T. Washington and Robert Smalls. So, as usual, you are wrong. It is a shame, because you seem like a smart guy, but you are sadly blinded by some crazy hatred toward the right. Let me tell you, Rory, you are wrong.

Very wrong, and the sad thing is that this polarization is being perpetuated by people like you, who do not do what we should all strive to do, and that is, to consider character, not party or race or sexual orientation, but character.

So I guess when you say, back to Magnitsky If he [Obama] signs it he is provoking Russia and needlessly complicating relations with them. Does "needlessly" complicating relations mean that Magnitsky's life was in vain? Perhaps that "needless" provoking is why Obama is doing nothing about the plight of the Christians in Nigeria or Kenya, or the "perceived" homosexuals in Iraq being murdered. But it doesn't explain why he ramped up the Bush Drone program, Operation Fast & Furious, failed to rid us of Guantanimo or have "kill lists".

Here is some more actual history, as opposed to revisionist history - the real story of the Civil Rights act of 1964. Should have added it above.

And those foreign policy failures of Obama's are things I have criticized here on Gather, too.

But, Renee, let us not pretend that you do not engage in the polarization you claim I am perpetuating. We have had this discusssion before about how you respond to right wing comments with remarks like "you're one of the good guys" and to left wing comments with faux incomprehension and questions like "exactly how do you mean that?"

You are smart and polite but you are not by any means non-partisan nor fair and balanced. Don't pretend to be. Its dishonest.

But, Renee, let us not pretend that you do not engage in the polarization you claim I am perpetuating. One example.

j. wright - You are just plain wrong about what you characterized as my "lie." Rory has it right. We funded Saddam AFTER the 1988 gas attack that killed 100,000 of his own people (Kurds = genocide). In fact we INCREASED funding to his regime the following year.

You're also presuming a lot to think you know that I haven't been to South Central. I have. When I was a kid, my father worked in South Central during the Watts Riots, and I saw the neighborhoods at that time. Later when going to sporting events at the Colosseum (where the Rams and Raiders played football, and USC) it was a standing tragicomedy joke about the poor misguided souls who used to try to save a couple bucks on parking by parking in the "neighborhood." I also visited South Central to jam with musicians. At one time, in my youth, was a distance runner and demonstrated the poor judgment to run through the edge of Compton and was chased by a dozen black kids who were throwing rocks and bottles at me. Why do you think that was? I was a complete stranger. Could it be that they felt some resentment that stemmed from civil rights issues, and the general relegating of blacks to second class citizens by some whites? I also spent considerable time in Beverly Hills, and although it's only about a 20 minute drive, it's a different world. Point is -- Discrimination and class oppression is alive and well, and that's a human rights issue.

So are you ready to take back the history comment?

Robert, how about what is happening NOW?

What about what's happening now? All I said, was that signing on to the Human Rights Act cited, while a noble thought, would be hypocritical.

I just gave you two examples. You know the conversations when I raised these points, stop pretending.

ok, Robert, so we just won't stand for anything. We will hide from the rest of the world, no matter what they are doing. Don't you understand that if we do not stand, someone else will? And who will it be? I am curious as to what you and Rory think of the UN Agenda 21 program? I feel like I have proven myself by now to be open minded. Yes, I lean to the right, but I would never dismiss an honest and well thought out opinion. I am very concerned about Agenda 21, and I don't think it should be a partisan issue. Would love to hear your thoughts.

What example? What are you talking about?

Something I personally said, Rory, that makes me polarizing?

You are seriously picking me apart not based on my own words, but on your perception of how I should respond to people?

"What example? What are you talking about?"

There you go again!

Unless you have one of those brain injuries where you can't format new memories I don't buy that you don't remember those instances I have already pointed out.

You respond to right wingers with jovial camaraderie, and to left wingers with deliberate obtuseness. If you are unaware of doing this you really need to review your wrok. And, no, I will not do this work for you.

I asked you to back up your claim that I am polarizing and you came back with nothing to do with my words but of your "perception of how I should respond to people" which I mentioned above. Do I ever say, "the left sucks"? No, I try to explain where I am coming from (hopefully an opinion based in intelligence) and yes, I am conservative, and yes, I will concede a point and have no problem calling out bad behavior on the right or the left. I don't believe you can argue that. You would never see a comment like this, "It always amazes me how those on the right actually cultivate an ignorance of history" coming from me. I look to the individual, right or left.

Actually, perhaps you can explain that comment, Rory, when you say, "It always amazes me how those on the right actually cultivate an ignorance of history." How so?

What does that mean "If we do not stand, someone else will" (?) We are one nation of 164, and our days as an empire are over - we're broke. We can't go on, endlessly manipulating events in all the strategic countries worldwide and imposing our will. And where we "do not stand" who will? Exactly what does that look like? Stand in what way. Wake up - the rest of the world doesn't look to us as a shining beacon of "freedom" and light. They mostly see us as an overbearing bully who is.... hypocritical.

Bringing this back to the article. It's like a scandalized Catholic priest telling parents how to raise their children, for the reasons mentioned above.

And ad to those reasons a few more things like rendition and torture of "SUSPECTS" coming from a country that presumes all are innocent until proven guilty.

Thanks for this one, Renee. Passage of this bill might make those "flexibility issues" our dictator spoke about in his second term a little less malleable.

I was thinking of that too, Viki. Thanks for bringing it into the conversation ;-)

I think it was in one of Noam Chomsky's interviews where he said that the US always sides with dictators until those dictators are no longer useful and that's pretty much the way it is, I think.

Relationships of varying convenience at the time you could say... even Stalin was "our great ally" once.

Thanks Renee, interesting article and great respondents. :)