Putin brings in law which makes it treason to talk to a foreigner

[Guru]

Here is the latest on dailymail.co.uk site

"Back to the dark old days: Putin brings in law which makes it treason to talk to a foreigner"

To read , visit  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2232949/Back-dark-old-days-Putin-brings-law-makes-treason-talk-foreigner.html

What are your views on this?

[jone]

I read most of the law as we do business in Russia.  These same rules were in effect when dealing with anyone outside of the country.  The way the law reads, it is an extension to dealing with individuals in the country as well.  It re-establishes internal security measures long since discarded.

I thought the article in the Kyiv Post was much less alarmist and realistic.

I see it as a continuing intrusion of individual rights, but nothing that we have not come to expect.  Why is it that the West continues to sensationalize these occurrences instead of trying to work within the system and with the current government?  What reasonable result can they expect, except to sell newspapers?

Here is the Post article:

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/russia-and-former-soviet-union/tough-laws-enacted-in-russia-under-vladimir-putin-316115.html

[mendeleyev]

To Jone's point, the way the law will be applied to NGOs, as a related example, is also more vague. The 2006 version of the law was vague as well and organizations found a way to work around it.

"Article 23. Denial of State Registration of a Public Association and the Procedure for Appeals.
State registration of a public association may be denied for the following reasons:
1) the charter of a public association runs counter to the Constitution and the legislation of the Russian Federation;

(2006)


However I don't necessarily see it as the West being sensational. If anything, it is Russian citizens who seem to be concerned.

As this Russian citizen in the article:

'It's an attempt to return not just to Soviet times but to the Stalin era, when any conversation with a foreigner was seen as a potential threat to the state,' said Lyudmila Alexeyeva, 85, a former Soviet dissident and veteran human rights activist.

And this Russian citizen:

Dmitry Oreshkin, a political analyst sympathetic with anti-Putin protests this year, said the motivation behind the law was that 'the state is more important than its citizens, so there must be as much control over citizens as possible'.

The official version:

'Citizens recruited by international organisations acting against the country's interests will also be considered traitors,' the official gazette, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, said on its website.

That nothing is defined is intentional. This could include a citizen working for a Western oil company with competitive bids against a state owned company or a journalist who strings for a Western news service.

[Belvis]

It seems the russian laws drift to reproduced more closely  the american ones. While I did not hear any  judicial persecutions in Russia for words or talk with a foreigner there are real cases in US. Viktor Bout was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by a U.S. judge just for words, not actions.
That's why I was careful in my certain talks while being in US 

[ECOCKS]

It seems the russian laws drift to reproduced more closely  the american ones. While I did not hear any  judicial persecutions in Russia for words or talk with a foreigner there are real cases in US. Viktor Bout was sentenced to 25 years imprisonment by a U.S. judge just for words, not actions.
That's why I was careful in my certain talks while being in US 

Unless you are planning to run or facilitate transport of arms and weapons maintenance equipment to enemies of the US or UN-sanctioned countries/warlords, you really have many other things to worry about good sir.


He received the minimum sentence for conspiracy. Justice was done.

[Belvis]

Unless you are planning to run or facilitate transport of arms and weapons maintenance equipment to enemies of the US or UN-sanctioned countries/warlords

Yes, that will be likely a standard wording for convicted persons in a new law. 
Plans for coup, intentions for riots, wish for terroristic plot, potential threats for a state and so on...  It will be easy to prove as no material evidence is required 
Everything is good to accuse  the potential enemy of a state: US before and now Russia too.

[Shadow]

Jone, as you have read the law perhaps you can tell us. Does this law compare to the Patriot Act ?

[Daveman]

Jone, as you have read the law perhaps you can tell us. Does this law compare to the Patriot Government High Level Treason Against The Constitution, Liberty, And Free Citizens Act ?

That's better...

[Maxx2]

That's better...

Plus 1

[Hammer2722]

I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes it. Mark my words.

[CanadaMan]

I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes it. Mark my words.

I'm sure you intended your post to read as follows:

"I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes the government."

As written, it states:
I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes this law.

[Hammer2722]

I'm sure you intended your post to read as follows:

"I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes the government."

As written, it states:
I'm sure that Putin will find ways to use this law specifically to target anyone that opposes this law.

Thanks CanadaMan, yes, thats how I meant it. lol

[jone]

I'm going to zip my mouth from here on out.  Across the street from our banking interests in a Russian oblast is the FSB building.  When I am there, I am introduced, occasionally, to FSB personnel.  They never admit to knowing English, even though most of them do.

Personally, I love Russia.  It would kill me to not have a Visa.

[BC]

Is it really that different than the state of affairs with laws in the West, increasingly limiting personal freedoms?

Is it not a global trend?

[ECOCKS]

Is it really that different than the state of affairs with laws in the West, increasingly limiting personal freedoms?

Is it not a global trend?

Certainly appears so, people are afraid of cycles, change, perceptions of instability and, of course, work which rewards based upon efficiency, utility and quality. So, as we increasingly see in the West, there is the continuing movement towards what will be portrayed as paternalistic governments with your best interests in mind which guarantee increasing minimums rather than expecting higher results.


When the number of people being paid to work at a minimal level, or even to not work at all, becomes too great for the rest to beat we will see a deflation and the population level will reset to a more balanced figure.


Listen for the bleating of the lambs as we approach the darker period.

[BC]

Certainly appears so, people are afraid of cycles, change, perceptions of instability and, of course, work which rewards based upon efficiency, utility and quality. So, as we increasingly see in the West, there is the continuing movement towards what will be portrayed as paternalistic governments with your best interests in mind which guarantee increasing minimums rather than expecting higher results.


When the number of people being paid to work at a minimal level, or even to not work at all, becomes too great for the rest to beat we will see a deflation and the population level will reset to a more balanced figure.


Listen for the bleating of the lambs as we approach the darker period.

ED,

The poverty level has been creeping back up again since 2000.  Your argument is lame and not really germane to this discussion.  Although the total number of those in poverty has risen, so has the population.  In addition the baby boomers are retiring.. many of those right into poverty level territory.  Adjustments in social systems, including healthcare address need, not luxury.

The freedoms I mentioned being limited apply to all.. items such as the Patriot Act, monitoring of communication, limitations on free speech, etc etc.  Governments as a rule are 'reactive' entities....  If a new tax comes into play, businesses and individuals seek loopholes that have to be addressed later down the road.  If a need arises, Government reacts.

Obviously RU feels that foreign based / supported NGO's are not in their interests and are reacting accordingly with new laws.  Quite 'normalna'....

When RU starts limiting the ability of it's citizens to travel and emigrate, that is when I will agree that there is a problem.  For now it's 'par for the course'.

[Daveman]

Plus 1

And let's not forget the more recent travesty against We the People...

[ECOCKS]

ED,

The poverty level has been creeping back up again since 2000.  Your argument is lame and not really germane to this discussion.  Although the total number of those in poverty has risen, so has the population.  In addition the baby boomers are retiring.. many of those right into poverty level territory.  Adjustments in social systems, including healthcare address need, not luxury.

The freedoms I mentioned being limited apply to all.. items such as the Patriot Act, monitoring of communication, limitations on free speech, etc etc.  Governments as a rule are 'reactive' entities....  If a new tax comes into play, businesses and individuals seek loopholes that have to be addressed later down the road.  If a need arises, Government reacts.

Obviously RU feels that foreign based / supported NGO's are not in their interests and are reacting accordingly with new laws.  Quite 'normalna'....

When RU starts limiting the ability of it's citizens to travel and emigrate, that is when I will agree that there is a problem.  For now it's 'par for the course'.

BC:


When it comes to being "not really germane to the conversation", you win hands down. We are talking about restrictive laws, not poverty levels.


Clueless.........


Regardless, you have a good day and don't strain your brain.

[Guru]

'The state is more important than its citizens'

My view - You can hear the echoes of the above  statement in corridors of  the East and the West. Its seems that it has become fashionable for governments  to create these new designer laws and force its constituents (people) to wear the so called "fashion labels" by  inducing  in them fear that if they didn’t obey, they would  get harmed. The constituents are further so dumbed down into thinking that these fashion labels are best for their own  self interest . This trend continues as if this was a one big Pavlov experiment  where the motive was to make the constituenst obedient to the state.

This  trend  raises two  critical  questions
(1).What is  the motive  of the state (governments) to pass such laws?
(2).Why do the constituents (people) in a democracy  allow  this to happen continually?

To understand any phenomenon  one needs to see the story from different perspectives. Here are a few.

Loss of Liberty by Judge Napolitano


Ron Paul speak on War, Politics and Peace  at Mises Institute on 27 October 2012


Does the education system make the people passive and obedient to the state?
http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/division_of_labor.html

The Media Propaganda' -  Five classes of filters in Media
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

Please share your perspective. Have a great Friday .

[ML]

My view - You can hear the echoes of the above  statement in corridors of  the East and the West. Its seems that it has become fashionable for governments  to create these new designer laws and force its constituents (people) to wear the so called "fashion labels" by  inducing  in them fear that if they didn’t obey, they would  get harmed. The constituents are further so dumbed down into thinking that these fashion labels are best for their own  self interest . This trend continues as if this was a one big Pavlov experiment  where the motive was to make the constituenst obedient to the state.

This  trend  raises two  critical  questions
(1).What is  the motive  of the state (governments) to pass such laws?
(2).Why do the constituents (people) in a democracy  allow  this to happen continually?

To understand any phenomenon  one needs to see the story from different perspectives. Here are a few.

Loss of Liberty by Judge Napolitano


Ron Paul speak on War, Politics and Peace  at Mises Institute on 27 October 2012


Does the education system make the people passive and obedient to the state?
http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/division_of_labor.html

The Media Propaganda' -  Five classes of filters in Media
http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2002----.htm

Please share your perspective. Have a great Friday .

Get real here man.  This is total BS in a country such as USA;  although it might be true for some other places.

We elect our leaders.  A president can only be  in office for 8 years; and it's not a given they will last that long.

Why would our leaders move us along to such a bad path that their own children and grandchildren would live in such a society.

Yes, in the economics area, our leaders make terrible decisions because everything is so uncertain and even our economic experts disagree concerning  the expected outcome from any particular action.

But outside that area, I can't believe that our leaders set out to deliberately harm the citizens.

However, I realize that many thrive on conspiracies lurking around every  corner.

[Daveman]

well, I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist.... buuuuuuuut....

...

We elect our leaders.  A president can only be  in office for 8 years; and it's not a given they will last that long.

True, but we have no real choices.  Third party or independent candidates aren't even allowed to debate.  Remember Nader, a legitimate candidate at that time, being escorted out of the venue - unable to even watch it?  It's farcical.

Why would our leaders move us along to such a bad path that their own children and grandchildren would live in such a society.

An excellent question, to which I can only answer that they don't expect to reap what they sow...

Yes, in the economics area, our leaders make terrible decisions because everything is so uncertain and even our economic experts disagree concerning  the expected outcome from any particular action.

But outside that area, I can't believe that our leaders set out to deliberately harm the citizens.

Perhaps "deliberately harm" the citizens is not quite the correct vector.  I'd say it's more along the lines of just not really giving a damn about anyone (i.e., us pissants) other than themselves, their power, their agendas, making deals with devils to gain whatever. 

However, I realize that many thrive on conspiracies lurking around every  corner.

There is absolutely nothing theoretical (as in conspiracy theories) about the Patriot Act, NDAA, Guantanamo, Abu Graib, torture, lies, and imo, violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and at minimum -  dereliction of duty for the absolute failure to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution as per their oaths,  and at maximum - water boarded for a few hours until they confess to treason.


Free Speech Zones?  Warrant-less searches, seizures, and secret surveillance?  Arrests based on suspicion? Held indefinitely without charges?  Legal to murder anyone, including US Citizens on US soil without actual evidence of *anything* or accountability for such action?  Due Process negated by Judicial Process?   Putin shmutin... WE have fallen behind the Stupidity Curtain. 


Whether or not they would actually do any or all of that is absolutely, positively irrelevant.  Circumventing the Constitution in any way shape or form is NOT an option. 


Did more than one entity act in collusion to manifest any of the above?  It's walking and quacking like a Mother Ducker... and has been for quite some time now.

[Shadow]

The law as I see it is a reaction on things observed in the Middle East and North Africa, and similar events going on in ohter countries.
By selecting a group of opposition and supporting them by funds and tactics they are formed to be a 'threat' to the existing government, and given attention on world scale. Even if initially they are locally irrelevant, the amount of attention put on them combined with underground political support will gain them support and could place them in a position where they become relevant.

This law simply limits the possibility for anyone to seek underground funding and help to illegally fight the government. That includes selling weapons and explosives to groups in Dagestan and activities of Al-Qaida.
As the opposition that frequently demonstrates against Putin denies to obtain any funding or support from outside Russia, they should not be affected by this law.

[Guru]

Get real here man.  This is total BS in a country such as USA;  although it might be true for some other places.

We elect our leaders.  A president can only be  in office for 8 years; and it's not a given they will last that long.

Why would our leaders move us along to such a bad path that their own children and grandchildren would live in such a society.

Yes, in the economics area, our leaders make terrible decisions because everything is so uncertain and even our economic experts disagree concerning  the expected outcome from any particular action.

But outside that area, I can't believe that our leaders set out to deliberately harm the citizens.

However, I realize that many thrive on conspiracies lurking around every  corner.

Thanks to all of you who responded  and shared your views.  The objective of my post is  to have a dialogue with people all over the globe who will like to exercise their  freedom of speech to express their views.  ML, I appreciate your response but I disagree with you that this is BS. This is real, even in West.  Maybe  you should listen to  Ron Paul's Farwell speech to congress. It has it all.  As far as conspiracy theory,  I agree there are lots of them out there but I won't consider any of these people as conspiracy theorists. Irrespective  of their political ideologies,  I admire people who  have the courage to speak their mind irrespective of the consequences.  Very few people can actually  do that nowadays.  Ron Paul is one of them.  I rather listen to harsh truth than listen to eloquent lies. Below are the excerpts from Ron Paul's  farewell speech  to the congress.

Congressman Ron Paul's farewell speech before leaving Congress.

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled. If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government. During my time in Congress the appetite for liberty has been quite weak; the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good news is that compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of teenagers and college age students are, with great enthusiasm, welcoming the message of liberty.

We Need an Intellectual Awakening
Without an intellectual awakening, the turning point will be driven by economic law. After over 100 years we face a society quite different from the one that was intended by the Founders. In many ways their efforts to protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger has failed. Skeptics, at the time the Constitution was written in 1787, warned us of today’s possible outcome. The insidious nature of the erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave us, allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we now live

The Patriot Act and FISA legislation passed without much debate have resulted in a steady erosion of our 4th Amendment rights. Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as aggression, with no complaints from the American people. It’s now the law of the land that the military can arrest American citizens, hold them indefinitely, without charges or a trial. Rampant hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in Washington. Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation and WTO trade retaliation, call the true free traders “isolationists.” Sanctions are used to punish countries that don’t follow our orders. Bailouts and guarantees for all kinds of misbehavior are routine. Central economic planning through monetary policy, regulations and legislative mandates has been an acceptable policy.

Trust Yourself, Not the Government
Too many people have for too long placed too much confidence and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the past several decades. The blame is shared by both political parties.  Seeking the truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promotes the optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that difficult if politics doesn’t get in the way. We have allowed ourselves to get into such a mess for various reasons. Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with arbitrary government power, can bring about fairness, while facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian dream and destroys wealth and liberty.

Achieving Liberty
Liberty can only be achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, more than lip service is required.

A Culture of Violence
American now suffers from a culture of violence. It’s easy to reject the initiation of violence against one’s neighbor but it’s ironic that the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people—practically at will. Because it’s the government that initiates force, most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force have no sense of guilt.  Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified, is the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis hits and becomes a political crisis as well. The internet will provide the alternative to the government/media complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is why it’s essential that the internet remains free of government regulation.

Limiting Government Excesses vs. a Virtuous Moral People
Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their concerns were justified. Most politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but spend all their time in trying to reform government.

The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliance and productive, become the true victims

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community. The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change.

To watch  the video or read the transcript visit

http://www.infowars.com/ron-pauls-farewell-to-congress-speech-transcript/

[Eduard]

Get real here man.  This is total BS in a country such as USA;  although it might be true for some other places.

We elect our leaders.  A president can only be  in office for 8 years; and it's not a given they will last that long.

Why would our leaders move us along to such a bad path that their own children and grandchildren would live in such a society.

Yes, in the economics area, our leaders make terrible decisions because everything is so uncertain and even our economic experts disagree concerning  the expected outcome from any particular action.

But outside that area, I can't believe that our leaders set out to deliberately harm the citizens.

However, I realize that many thrive on conspiracies lurking around every  corner.

ML, didn't you hear Obama in his own words talking about "colonialist" US constitution and how it needs to be amended? Watch the video above, it's telling and it's in his own words! You think they are concerned that their kids are going to not enjoy the nice lifestyle when they grow up? They are the elite so they can live very well even if the whole country is starving, plus who says that they are going to stay in this country anyway? I agree with almost everything Ron Paul preaches with the exception of the strong military. But while having a strong military I think it's a mistake to go to war to other countries as we have been. Instead of sending our boys to die in Iraque or Afghanistan we should have implemented stricter visa rules for people from that part of the world (instead we have been focusing on trying to prevent FSU women from coming here!  )
I know, you will just call me a conspiracy theorist but it all really does make sense if you look beyond what the main stream media has been feeding you. All one needs to do is connect the dots. Things are right in front of you but you refuse to see them. People like Obama do not become US presidents without powerful interests behind them. Look at Obama's background, look at his associations in the passed and look at his billionaire supporter (don't forget to look up this billionaire's world view and goals), connect the dots. Gosh I hope I'm wrong about this!!! And I hope you are right and this is just a silly conspiracy theory of a dumb Russian man.

[clancyhound]

Daveman  nice post - I agree with your thoughts. 
Freedom in USA today is not the same as it was 20 years ago, this trend has been moving since 9/11.