5 ms·

Digging deeper into the story, it appears that the author (Bill Browder) is someone who profited from the criminal pillaging of Russian economy in 1990s: "[Bill

by osipov 17y ago

Digging deeper into the story, it appears that the author (Bill Browder) is someone who profited from the criminal pillaging of Russian economy in 1990s: "[Bill Browder's] business was very successful, profiting from the wave of privatizations occurring in the Russia at that time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Browder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Browder. May I remind you of a Hacker's News thread that talked about Russia's corrupt oligarchs of 1990s: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=998318 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=998318. In addition to a publication in Foreign Policy, the author managed to produce a very polished video which is also available from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok6ljV-WfRw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok6ljV-WfRw The current politicians of Russia became popular precisely for what they've done to Bill Browder -- they have taken back the money that was stolen from people in the 1990s.

ellyagg 17y ago
Wow, it sounds like you actually condone the spirit of what happened. As an American it's strange to imagine celebrating rule of force over rule of law. The US falls woefully short at times, but I can't imagine anyone cheering fraudulent theft of tax money to pander to voters. I also find it hard to believe someone would behave as the lawyer in this story did merely over ill-intentioned greed.
- osipov 17y ago
  >>As an American it's strange to imagine celebrating rule of force over rule of law What about Al Capone? The guy was caught on tax evasion charges, was US government's rule of force justified in his case?
  - astine 17y ago
    What does that have to do with anything? He was in fact guilty of tax evasion, which was in fact against the law.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      He was clearly guilty of much more than tax evasion. The rule of law failed in regard to most of his misdeeds.
      - prewett 17y ago
        I think what usually happens is the government can prove tax evasion, but they cannot prove "by a preponderance of evidence" (or "beyond a reasonable doubt," whichever is applicable here) so easily. Sure, everyone knew that Capone was guilty of more than tax evasion, but could they prove it in a way that his high-priced lawyer could not convince a jury of his peers otherwise?
chrischen 17y ago
Wikipedia also says: "Browder exposed management corruption and corporate malfeasance in these partly state-owned companies"
- osipov 17y ago
  There is plenty of corruption everywhere in Russia. There is no point in trying to find saints or sinners in the story. Rather one should recognize the hypocrisy of kettle calling a pot black.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - pyre 17y ago
    So are you condoning what happened?
    - camccann 17y ago
      Why does it matter? He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article. Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.
      - chrischen 17y ago
        Even if the author is responsible for misery and destruction, which is debatable, it still doesn't mean we should marginalize his accusations or condone the actions. If everyone is doing it, why does the hypocrisy matter?
        camccann 17y ago
        Don't know, it's not my argument. I was objecting to what seemed to be an attempt to make an issue of osipov's feelings on the matter. Arguments whose topics include the emotional state of one of the participants rarely end well. There also seems to be a lot of presumptive sorting into binary opposition; osipov disliking the author of the article doesn't mean he supports the "other side", and my objection above doesn't mean I agree with osipov (in fact I don't, though it sounded like you and rbanffy assumed I did).
varjag 17y ago
In early 1990s, Putin was pillaging his part of Russian economy in those years, being in charge of metal utilization (huge para-criminal business in Russia until 2000s) under St. Petersburg oligarch and mayor Sobtchak. Somehow this part of his career is always overlooked by his proponents. This of course is just as irrelevant to what has happened with the laywer as your attack on Browder.

by osipov 17y ago

ellyagg 17y ago

Wow, it sounds like you actually condone the spirit of what happened. As an American it's strange to imagine celebrating rule of force over rule of law. The US falls woefully short at times, but I can't imagine anyone cheering fraudulent theft of tax money to pander to voters. I also find it hard to believe someone would behave as the lawyer in this story did merely over ill-intentioned greed.

osipov 17y ago
>>As an American it's strange to imagine celebrating rule of force over rule of law What about Al Capone? The guy was caught on tax evasion charges, was US government's rule of force justified in his case?
- astine 17y ago
  What does that have to do with anything? He was in fact guilty of tax evasion, which was in fact against the law.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    He was clearly guilty of much more than tax evasion. The rule of law failed in regard to most of his misdeeds.
    - prewett 17y ago
      I think what usually happens is the government can prove tax evasion, but they cannot prove "by a preponderance of evidence" (or "beyond a reasonable doubt," whichever is applicable here) so easily. Sure, everyone knew that Capone was guilty of more than tax evasion, but could they prove it in a way that his high-priced lawyer could not convince a jury of his peers otherwise?

chrischen 17y ago

Wikipedia also says: "Browder exposed management corruption and corporate malfeasance in these partly state-owned companies"

osipov 17y ago
There is plenty of corruption everywhere in Russia. There is no point in trying to find saints or sinners in the story. Rather one should recognize the hypocrisy of kettle calling a pot black.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- pyre 17y ago
  So are you condoning what happened?
  - camccann 17y ago
    Why does it matter? He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article. Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.
    - chrischen 17y ago
      Even if the author is responsible for misery and destruction, which is debatable, it still doesn't mean we should marginalize his accusations or condone the actions. If everyone is doing it, why does the hypocrisy matter?
      - camccann 17y ago
        Don't know, it's not my argument. I was objecting to what seemed to be an attempt to make an issue of osipov's feelings on the matter. Arguments whose topics include the emotional state of one of the participants rarely end well. There also seems to be a lot of presumptive sorting into binary opposition; osipov disliking the author of the article doesn't mean he supports the "other side", and my objection above doesn't mean I agree with osipov (in fact I don't, though it sounded like you and rbanffy assumed I did).

varjag 17y ago

In early 1990s, Putin was pillaging his part of Russian economy in those years, being in charge of metal utilization (huge para-criminal business in Russia until 2000s) under St. Petersburg oligarch and mayor Sobtchak. Somehow this part of his career is always overlooked by his proponents. This of course is just as irrelevant to what has happened with the laywer as your attack on Browder.