U.S. Congress Advances Bill to Pressure Russia on Human Rights, Journalist & Lawyer Assasinations - Polidicks

[quote] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A congressional committee unanimously approved on Thursday a measure to penalize Russian officials for human rights abuses, adding to tensions with Moscow and complicating White House efforts to pass Russian trade legislation in the coming months. The House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee approved on a voice vote the "Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act," named for a 37-year-old anti-corruption lawyer who worked for the equity fund Hermitage Capital. His 2009 death after a year in Russian jails spooked investors and blackened Russia's image abroad. The measure has bipartisan support among lawmakers but its prospects for passage in Congress remain uncertain. The measure would require the United States to deny visas and freeze the assets of Russians linked to Magnitsky's death. The Obama administration already has imposed visa restrictions on some Russians believed to have been involved in Magnitsky's death, but kept their names quiet. The bill would make public the list of alleged offenders, broaden it to include other abusers of human rights in Russia and prohibit them from doing their banking in U.S. institutions. Russian officials have warned that the bill would harm American-Russian relations, and U.S. business groups say it could hurt their interests in Russia. The White House worries the bill will get embroiled in President Barack Obama's efforts to reap the trade benefits of Russia's looming entry into the World Trade Organization, a key achievement of the "reset" in U.S.-Russia ties of recent years. Approval by the panel was just the first step in advancing the Magnitsky bill by Democratic Representative Jim McGovern through the Republican-controlled House. Before it can get a vote of the full House, two more committees must approve it or waive jurisdiction. The Democratic-controlled Senate has not acted on a similar bill by Senator Ben Cardin, a Democrat. 'RISKING THEIR LIVES' The committee's vote sends a message to the Kremlin "that they cannot threaten us into silence, they cannot forever suppress the evidence of their crimes, they cannot make the world abandon those brave individuals who are risking their lives to exercise their basic human rights," said Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the Republican head of the House panel. Magnitsky was jailed in 2008 on charges of tax evasion and fraud. His colleagues say these were fabricated by police investigators whom he had accused of stealing $230 million from the state through fraudulent tax returns. The Kremlin's own human rights council said in 2011 he was probably beaten to death. The House panel's move is likely to be the opening salvo in a congressional debate over trade relations with Russia this year. Some lawmakers want to attach the Magnitsky bill to a trade bill establishing permanent normal trading relations with Russia, thereby preserving a link between trade and human rights dating back to a 1974 provision called the Jackson-Vanik amendment. "If we were to consider such changes to our trade law, it should be done in conjunction with legislation to address serious human rights violations in Russia," said Representative Howard Berman, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He said he favors extending the Magnitsky bill to cover human rights abuses in other countries besides Russia. In Moscow, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said the U.S. government aimed to prevent the Magnitsky legislation from blocking the shift to normal trade relations once Russia joins the World Trade Organization in August. "Our preference is for ... a clean (trade) bill that deals only with our ability to maintain our competitiveness," Kirk said. Constantin Dolgov, the Russian Foreign Ministry's representative on human rights, told Russian news wire Interfax the measure passed by the House panel was "counterproductive" and would be considered "nearly interference in internal affairs, which would be a negative development." U.S. business groups fear the Magnitsky legislation will further inflame already fractious relations and jeopardize export sales they expect to make after Russia joins the WTO. Russia is the largest economy still outside the organization. If Congress does not remove Russia from Jackson-Vanik, Moscow could under WTO rules potentially deny U.S. exporters some of the market-opening concessions it made to join the WTO. Russian political analyst Dmitry Trenin said despite Russia's criticism of the legislation, its effect on Russian-American ties would be limited. "It may spoil the atmosphere a bit, but on the whole I do not see a threat to the relationship," said Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center. [/quote] [b]Sources:[/b] [url]http://www.cnbc.com/id/47723523[/url] [url]http://www.northjersey.com/news/international/157960685_U_S__Congress_Advances_Bill_to_Pressure_Russia_on_Human_Rights__Moscow_.html[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sergei-magnitsky-bill-addresses-russia-corruption-head-on/2012/06/06/gJQAy8cbJV_story.html[/url]

Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36259805]Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.[/QUOTE] :geno: Or we can at least try and do something. I seriously don't care if we're hated if we're actually trying to improve conditions in a country. Your brand of isolationism is just plain dumb.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36259805]Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.[/QUOTE] Isolationism was awesome for the world when the Blitzkrieg was rolling over Europe and the Japanese were occupying China.

There's a distinct difference between saying, "hey guys, human rights, learn to. Capiche?" and saying "hey brown people, we want your oil so we'll pretend you have WMD to justify a war that's illegal anyway". The former is more [I]respectable [/I]than the latter.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36259805]Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.[/QUOTE] What a retarded isolationist point of view you have.

You people have no idea what isolationism versus interventionism is.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36260055]You people have no idea what isolationism versus interventionism is.[/QUOTE] Interventionism is good as long as it justifies itself. For example, killing "gooks" (as the US army often officially refereed to the Vietnamese) to fight "The Red Menace" doesn't justify itself. However, sanctioning the bank accounts and visas of those involved in lawyer killings does.

I'm all for the US and Russia giving each other shit over their human rights abuses. Perhaps they [I]might[/I] learn something.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36260220]I'm all for the US and Russia giving each other shit over their human rights abuses. Perhaps they [I]might[/I] learn something.[/QUOTE] This will do nothing of the sort. It'll just antagonize Russia even more so than before. It will honestly achieve nothing but pissing them off.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36260233]This will do nothing of the sort. It'll just antagonize Russia even more so than before. It will honestly achieve nothing but pissing them off.[/QUOTE] So Russia should just get off [I]scot-free[/I]?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36259805]Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.[/QUOTE] this doesn't really have much to do with the energy policy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36259805]Awesome, let's intervene more in other nation's affairs and antagonize the world further.[/QUOTE] Yeah! Why the fuck should we care if people in another nation suffer,it'll solve itself!

Russia's one of the few first-world countries that's more corrupt than the U.S. I'm glad we're at least trying to get them under control. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [sp]Before anyone jumps me I'm not bashing the U.S, but Russia seriously has some human rights problems that need to be addressed[/sp]

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;36260780]Russia's one of the few first-world countries that's more corrupt than the U.S. I'm glad we're at least trying to get them under control. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [sp]Before anyone jumps me I'm not bashing the U.S, but Russia seriously has some human rights problems that need to be addressed[/sp][/QUOTE] Russia is a Second World country. [img]http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/third_world_map.jpg[/img] Also, if you mean 'economically developed', you're wrong. Many of its regions live in complete poverty, while others are enriched. The middle class is very small (less than 20% of the population), and the social inequality level is high. For example, I recently visited my grandmother. She lives in a region which has the average salary of around $150-$180 dollars per month. However, the region that I was born in has a higher average salary (around $600-700). Libya was (during the revolution) and currently is more economically developed than Russia, at least in the terms of GDP per capita. There have been around 100-150 journalist assassinations under the Putin-Medvedev rule. The Putin-Medvedev regime human rights record is infinitely worse than that of the United States. If the US human rights abuses would be 1, the Russian ones would be 35. DPRK would be 45.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36260883]Russia is a Second World country. [img]http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/third_world_map.jpg[/img] Also, if you mean 'economically developed', you're wrong. Many of its regions live in complete poverty, while others are enriched. The middle class is very small (less than 20% of the population), and the social inequality level is high. For example, I recently visited my grandmother. She lives in a region which has the average salary of around $150-$180 dollars per month. However, the region that I was born in has a higher average salary (around $600-700) Libya was (during the revolution) and currently is more economically developed than Russia, at least in the terms of GDP per capita.[/QUOTE] Originally, the terms "first" and "second" world meant that the respective countries were capitalist or communist, respectively. But now, since the Cold War is over, most people mean "first world" as economically developed to the point of being involved in the global economy. This term now encompasses North America, the majority of western europe, Japan, China, and Australia, with a few other countries dotted across the globe. Almost nobody uses the term "second world" and "third world" generally means that they aren't economically developed or involved in the global economy. I'd still say Russia is first-world because of its heavy involvement in global trade and politics, even if there are a lot of poor people. There are also a lot of poor people in North America, and in western europe.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;36260923]Originally, the terms "first" and "second" world meant that the respective countries were capitalist or communist, respectively. But now, since the Cold War is over, most people mean "first world" as economically developed to the point of being involved in the global economy. This term now encompasses North America, the majority of western europe, Japan, China, and Australia, with a few other countries dotted across the globe. Almost nobody uses the term "second world" and "third world" generally means that they aren't economically developed or involved in the global economy. I'd still say Russia is first-world because of its heavy involvement in global trade and politics, even if there are a lot of poor people. There are also a lot of poor people in North America, and in western europe.[/QUOTE] The definitions of the First, Second and Third world haven't changed. You're using wrong definitions. Second World countries = ex-Warsaw Pact countries and China. ----------------------------------- "I'd still say Russia is first-world because of its heavy involvement in global trade and politics, even if there are a lot of poor people. There are also a lot of poor people in North America, and in western europe." So is China a first world country too? Was Libya a first world country as well? There are far less poor people in North America and Western Europe. Far less. In fact, the Russian GDP per capita is lower than that of Libya, and all of the First World countries. ----------------------------------- Also: Freedom of the press in Russia. КНДР means DPRK (North Korea). Швеция means Sweden. Россия means Russia. 100 is the worst, 0 is the best. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Freedomofpressrussia.png[/img]

[QUOTE=GenPol;36260883]Russia is a Second World country. [img]http://www.nationsonline.org/bilder/third_world_map.jpg[/img] Also, if you mean 'economically developed', you're wrong. Many of its regions live in complete poverty, while others are enriched. The middle class is very small (less than 20% of the population), and the social inequality level is high. For example, I recently visited my grandmother. She lives in a region which has the average salary of around $150-$180 dollars per month. However, the region that I was born in has a higher average salary (around $600-700). Libya was (during the revolution) and currently is more economically developed than Russia, at least in the terms of GDP per capita. There have been around 100-150 journalist assassinations under the Putin-Medvedev rule. The Putin-Medvedev regime human rights record is infinitely worse than that of the United States. If the US human rights abuses would be 1, the Russian ones would be 35. DPRK would be 45.[/QUOTE] Why is turkey first world on this map, and china 'second world'? This might as well just be a political map. Russia is much more wealthier than libya, gaddafi was just something of a social democrat and had many social programs. Russia has way more wealth concentration, it has a shitload of billionaires. It's not really fair to compare the russian economy to others, as they didnt have to endure shock therapy and rapid liberalization.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36261035]Why is turkey first world on this map, and china 'second world'? This might as well just be a political map. Russia is much more wealthier than libya, gaddafi was just something of a social democrat and had many social programs. Russia has way more wealth concentration, it has a shitload of billionaires. It's not really fair to compare the russian economy to others, as they didnt have to endure shock therapy and rapid liberalization.[/QUOTE] "Why is turkey first world on this map, and china 'second world'?" - because that's what the definitions of the First, Second and Third World are. The First World countries were the NATO countries. The Second World - China + Warsaw Pact. The Third World - none of the above. "Russia is much more wealthier than libya" - wrong. At least if you refer to the wealth in terms of the GDP per capita. [img]http://i.imgur.com/WfzfO.png[/img] [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Marbalo;36261086]Uh, infinitely worse? Not even close. Russia is in fact far more terrible when it comes to human rights than the US, but no where near as bad as you put it. Both nations are fairly shit, stuff like Guantanamo Bay and prisoner torture are rampant. Also GDP per capita isn't an accurate measurement system by any standard, it doesn't even account for unemployment nor the price level of a region. A country can have a high GDP but also an extremely high cost of living.[/QUOTE] "Russia is in fact far more terrible when it comes to human rights than the US, but no where near as bad as you put it. " I've lived through the Eltzin and through the Putin years in Russia. I've witnessed the barbaric privatization which caused an enormous economic decline, the corruption and the misery. Thankfully, I don't live in that country anymore. However, I've learned a lot about it by living in there, and I would rather trust my knowledge than baseless judgments of an arrogant person who puts out conclusions out of his ass without having the proper data to reach such conclusion to sound "smart" and "intellectual". That's called being a pseudo-intellectual. There have been more than a hundred cases of journalist assassinations ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia[/url]) and kidnappings. There's also widespread electoral fraud, government ownership of the media (which uses it to promote itself), enormous corruption. It's a mafia state, as some have put it. My parents are painters, and they had to pay enormous bribes in Russia to just be able to transport their own paintings. You're nothing more than a person who over-dramatizes the human rights problem in the US - these problems are absolutely nothing compared to the Putin-Medvedev regime human right abuse. Just look up the political indicators of Russia, and compare them with the US. It should give you a hint. ------------------------ "Also GDP per capita isn't an accurate measurement system by any standard, it doesn't even account for unemployment nor the price level of a region. A country can have a high GDP but also an extremely high cost of living." It does. It's called GDP per capita, PPP adjusted. Please take a course in economics, it could teach you more about the statistical tools used in economics, and how exciting they are. GDP per capita PPP adjusts the GDP per capita to a specified consumer basket, which gives you a level of GDP per capita which is adjusted to the unit costs of various commodities in the economy.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36260233]This will do nothing of the sort. It'll just antagonize Russia even more so than before. It will honestly achieve nothing but pissing them off.[/QUOTE]Wasn't being entirely serious, though admittedly hadn't realised the point you made. I just want to see Obama and Putin twatting each other over the head with sticks.

[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;36259910]There's a distinct difference between saying, "hey guys, human rights, learn to. Capiche?" and saying "hey brown people, we want your oil so we'll pretend you have WMD to justify a war that's illegal anyway". The former is more [I]respectable [/I]than the latter.[/QUOTE] If we wanted oil we would have invaded fucking Canada, pick up a book some time. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=GenPol;36261108]Snip[/QUOTE] Oh I [I]like[/I] you. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Conscript;36261035]Why is turkey first world on this map, and china 'second world'? This might as well just be a political map. Russia is much more wealthier than libya, gaddafi was just something of a social democrat and had many social programs. Russia has way more wealth concentration, it has a shitload of billionaires. It's not really fair to compare the russian economy to others, as they didnt have to endure shock therapy and rapid liberalization.[/QUOTE] Probably cause China is one of the biggest civil rights shit hole in the world?

Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india or china. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources. Gdp/c doesnt tell us much, stop relying on it. But that map is just arbitrary. Former yugoslavia is 'second world' and a handful of central asian and caucasion former soviet republics are 'third world'? China is definitely not second world, even mao with the 'three worlds theory' called it third world, and for good reason, because china was only in the soviet camp for 5 years. Is this a political map, or an economic one? Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. Otherwise turkey would be lumped in with china.

[QUOTE=Conscript;36261652]Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources. But that map is just arbitrary. Former yugoslavia is 'second world' and a handful of central asian and caucasion former soviet republics are 'third world'? China is definitely not second world, even mao with the 'three worlds theory' called it third world, and for good reason, because china was only in the soviet camp for 5 years. Is this a political map, or an economic one? Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources. But that map is just arbitrary. Former yugoslavia is 'second world' and a handful of central asian and caucasion former soviet republics are 'third world'? China is definitely not second world, even mao with the 'three worlds theory' called it third world, and for good reason, because china was only in the soviet camp for 5 years. Is this a political map, or an economic one? Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. Otherwise turkey would be lumped in with china. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources. But that map is just arbitrary. Former yugoslavia is 'second world' and a handful of central asian and caucasion former soviet republics are 'third world'? China is definitely not second world, even mao with the 'three worlds theory' called it third world, and for good reason, because china was only in the soviet camp for 5 years. Is this a political map, or an economic one? Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. Otherwise turkey would be lumped in with china.[/QUOTE] "Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources." - It is, when the population size is adjusted. China would be a very rich country, far richer than all of the European countries if we wouldn't adjust to its population size, which is essential. "Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. Otherwise turkey would be lumped in with china." - Never said it was. I've provided a map, and I've explained how the 1st/2nd/3rd world distinction is made. It isn't economic - it's political. This distinction is also outdated. What's up with all the people who can't read on Facepunch?

Gdp/c is reflecting of wealth distribution, not population. China is a rich country, they produce a lot of value, as reflected by their gdp. Americans have tremendous buying power compared to the chinese, but let's not pretend the chinese economy is similarly much smaller, or that luxembourg's rivals the USA's. As you can see, GDP can be very illusory and misleadinf, which is why i would avoid it. And the second part you replied to wasnt directed at you.

[QUOTE=GenPol;36261750]"Genpol, by that logic luxemburg is wealthier than india. Russia will always have more capital than libya, thanks to its vast oil amount and other natural resources." - It is, when the population size is adjusted. China would be a very rich country, far richer than all of the European countries if we wouldn't adjust to its population size, which is essential. "Also human rights abuses have nothing to do with determining the 'worlds'. Otherwise turkey would be lumped in with china." - Never said it was. I've provided a map, and I've explained how the 1st/2nd/3rd world distinction is made. It isn't economic - it's political. This distinction is also outdated. What's up with all the people who can't read on Facepunch?[/QUOTE] Thanks for the logical, well-reasoned arguments. We don't get enough of those here. [editline]1[/editline] I think you're going to fit in nicely.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;36262215]Congratulations, you weren't the only person to live through the Soviet collapse. Although I was only 6 when Yeltsin took office, Ive lived through his later years -- and through primarily Putin's term. Also, living in a country doesn't mean you somehow gain a better understanding of it, let alone a country as vast as Russia. If there's one thing I have however learned, is that the population is often divided into 2 basic groups and the way they view the nation. There are those who actively believe the Soviet Union was infinitely better, and 'progressives' who think modern Russia is terrible by actively comparing it to other Western nations. Two radical notions that never admit the pros and cons of both the Russian Federation and the Union. I see you're one of the progressives, seeing as you dont even live in the country anymore, like me. Not going to argue against journalist assassinations because I agree with you. However if you were to compare the situation to the US, you'd see that electoral fraud is replaced by a solid 2-party system that actively pushes any other party right out of the water simply because the situation is locked between the two with massive support on either side. This results in both parties being incredibly incompetent and seriously reduces the chance of ever electing actually decent presidents because of the aforementioned, 2-party, "if you're against us, you're with them" mentality. I agree with you about the government ownership of the media. (Not that local Western media is any better, mind you, but a moot point to argue for as it doesn't hold a candle to what is happening in Russia) Corruption is also a major problem ever since the collapse. Also not to insult your parents or anything, but 'painters' dont tend to make it big the west either. Have you seriously just said shit like the Guantanamo Bay is an 'over-dramatization' of human rights issues in the US? Because I could just as easily and selfishly, mind you, dismiss your claim that the journalist assassinations are nothing more than over dramatization.[/QUOTE] "Also, living in a country doesn't mean you somehow gain a better understanding of it, let alone a country as vast as Russia." - Never claimed it meant this. I've spent several years learning about the Putin-Medvedev corruption, as well as compiling the statistics. "Also not to insult your parents or anything, but 'painters' dont tend to make it big the west either."- They're artists. They own an art enterprise, and are at least 'medium'. "Have you seriously just said shit like the Guantanamo Bay is an 'over-dramatization' of human rights issues in the US?" - No. I'm well aware of non-judicial torture performed on [b]terrorism suspects[/b] (and not political dissidents). In the US, there are just a few incidents of human rights abuses. In Russia, there are thousands. There are so many that nobody cares about them anymore "Not going to argue against journalist assassinations because I agree with you. However if you were to compare the situation to the US, you'd see that electoral fraud is replaced by a solid 2-party system that actively pushes any other party right out of the water simply because the situation is locked between the two with massive support on either side. This results in both parties being incredibly incompetent and seriously reduces the chance of ever electing actually decent presidents because of the aforementioned, 2-party, "if you're against us, you're with them" mentality." - This is a problem of the US society, not the US political system. It's not a systematic crisis. More than 2 parties are allowed by the US constitution.

Terrorism suspect and political dissident are not mutually exclusive.

APLES