It appears so. Democracy really never catch on over there.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a new treason law which opponents say could be used to smother dissent and put anyone who has contact with foreigners at risk. The law means Russians representing international organisations could be charged with treason. The maximum sentence for the offence is 20 years in prison. The law was published in the official government gazette yesterday, despite a promise by Mr Putin on Monday that he would review it. Political opponents and rights activists say the legislation is the latest in a series of laws cracking down on the opposition and reducing foreign influence since Mr Putin returned to the Kremlin in May for a six-year third term. �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. At a meeting of his human rights council on Monday, Mr Putin listened to a retired Constitutional Court judge�s concerns about the legislation, which she said did not require authorities to prove a suspect damaged state security. Mr Putin indicated that he would move cautiously, but also said �nonetheless, I am ready to return to this again, to look more attentively�. Russian officials have said the law is needed to help prevent foreign governments using organisations in Russia to gather state secrets. The legislation allows Russians representing international organisations to be charged with treason, as well as those working for foreign states and bodies, and expands the range of actions that can be considered treasonous. Putin signed the law on Tuesday and it took effect on Wednesday when it was published in the official gazette, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, despite a promise by the president on Monday that he would review it. '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. She said it would probably be used selectively against Kremlin critics and others 'who irritate the authorities'.
Political opponents and rights activists say the legislation is the latest in a series of laws intended to crack down on the opposition and reduce foreign influence since he returned to the Kremlin in May for a six-year, third term (above) 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 law was backed by the Federal Security Service (FSB), the main successor of the Soviet KGB, and landed on the desk of longtime KGB officer Putin after being approved by both houses of parliament in the space of nine days last month. The FSB, in a rare public comment, was quoted by state-run news agency Itar-Tass as saying the law had been updated after being unchanged since the 1960s because 'foreign intelligence agencies' methods and tactics for gathering information have changed'. Putin whipped up anti-U.S. sentiment during his campaign for the March presidential election, and Russian officials have said the law is needed to help prevent foreign governments using organisations in Russia to gather state secrets. 'Citizens recruited by international organisations acting against the country's interests will also be considered traitors', Rossiyskaya Gazeta said in a commentary on its website. Putin has frequently accused Western nations of seeking to undermine Russia's security and weaken the nuclear-armed nation, and has suggested they use non-governmental organisations to do so. Moscow ordered the U.S. Agency for International Development to cease its Russian operations in October, accusing it of seeking to influence elections. In July, Putin signed a law requiring foreign-funded NGOs deemed to be engaging in political activity to register as 'foreign agents', and critics say other legislation is also aimed at silencing opponents. The United States and the European Union have criticised the laws, and expressed concern about criminal charges laid against several opposition leaders in the last few months. During his election campaign, Putin faced protests which at times drew tens of thousands of people into Moscow's streets, and he accused the United States of whipping up demonstrations against his rule. The maximum sentence for high treason remains 20 years, but the legislation signed by Putin also introduced prison terms of up to eight years for Russians acquiring state secrets in certain ways even if they are not passed on to foreigners. It broadened the spectrum of actions that can attract treason charges to include giving 'financial, material, technical, consultative or other aid' to a government or organisation deemed to be seeking to undermine Russian security. Those changes, as well as the removal of the stipulation that actions must be aimed against Russia's 'external' security to be considered treasonous, have raised concerns the law could be applied broadly to punish government opponents. At a meeting of his human rights council on Monday, Putin listened to a retired Constitutional Court judge's concerns about the legislation, which she said did not require authorities to prove a suspect damaged state security. But although Putin said he would look again at the law, his spokesman said he had signed it a day later. 'It's not the first time Putin has said the right words while slowly tightening the screws,' Alexeyeva said.
Hey Brian, isn't Russia real close to Canada? Maybe you folks up north should start to spend some money on defense instead of free riding on our military.
Putin is running an authoritarian gangster state, with a facade of democratic institutions. It is a far cry from a Stalinist totalitarian state, but also far from what anybody in the West would call a democratic republic.
Hey Brian, isn't Russia real close to Canada? Maybe you folks up north should start to spend some money on defense instead of free riding on our military.
I guess you didn't hear. In our entire history our land has only been attacked twice - both times - by Americans.
And the reason your military needs to out-spend the next 14 countries - COMBINED (11 of which are your allies) is? ...
Too bad we do not define or enforce treason the way the Russians do.
Putin is not going to renew the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program. Billions we borrowed to rent peace, now it can be called by it's proper name, "extortion".
It guess it would be tough trying to control the world - if you only out-spent the next three or four countries COMBINED.
How many years in the last 100 or so - has America NOT been involved - militarily - somewhere?
Would it be as high a number as a dozen?
The era of trying to police the rest of world - is coming to an end.
You can't keep putting endless wars - on a credit card.
In case you haven't noticed - the military-industrial complex is bankrupting your country.
I agree. But will you agree that Canada is much safer due to it's proximity to America? And on your comment-"Canada has only been attacked twice, and both times from America" let's at least fast forward a hundred + years. How about it.
It guess it would be tough trying to control the world - if you only out-spent the next three or four countries COMBINED.
How many years in the last 100 or so - has America NOT been involved - militarily - somewhere?
Would it be as high a number as a dozen?
The era of trying to police the rest of world - is coming to an end.
You can't keep putting endless wars - on a credit card.
In case you haven't noticed - the military-industrial complex is bankrupting your country.
I agree. But will you agree that Canada is much safer due to it's proximity to America? And on your comment-"Canada has only been attacked twice, and both times from America" let's at least fast forward a hundred + years. How about it.
America could cut it's military expenditures by 50% - and no country on earth would dare threaten America's shores.
Only the naive believe it's actually about defense.
It's about control.
2012 Military expenditures: USA - 1,735 Billion Chine - 711 Billion Russia - 72 Billion
Most of rest - further down the list - are American allies.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes � known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.� No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Only the naive believe it's actually about defense.
It's about control.
Now that's gratitude. Without the American military providing Canada a security blanket across the globe your country would go bankrupt inside 5-years. Where would you ship products without the security provided by the US Navy? Control? How about an America that cancels your access to offshore markets and then squeezes you just for the fun of it.
You should probably stop looking a gift-horse in the mouth.
America could cut it's military expenditures by 50% - and no country on earth would dare threaten America's shores.
Only the naive believe it's actually about defense.
It's about control.
2012 Military expenditures: USA - 1,735 Billion Chine - 711 Billion Russia - 72 Billion
Most of rest - further down the list - are American allies.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes � known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.� No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
� James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Peacenik, I think everyone can agree that only one country can be the world's most powerful militarily at a time. Now, exactly which country should it be and how much of an edge should they have exactly? Enough to win a war or enough that other countries don't even try to start one in the first place?
I wonder how much longer the USA is going to keep a good portion of its Navy in Middle Eastern waters given that most of its oil will be coming from North America and Brazil in the near future. China is the one that is benefiting most from the US military at the moment given its reliance on Iraqi oil.
As China Expands its Navy, What Are the Implications for the Middle East? Mona Sukkariehin World,
According to Xu Hongmeng, deputy commander of the People�s Liberation Army � Navy (PLA-N), China is planning to put its first aircraft carrier into service by the end of this year, much sooner than generally expected. Whether this announcement is confirmed or not, it signals the rapid expansion of the Chinese Navy, raising concerns and fuelling military expenditure in neighboring countries.
The PLA-N�s increasingly frequent patrols in Asia-Pacific waters, including in disputed maritime territory, its rapid modernization, and its declared aspiration for blue-water naval capability suggests that the deployment of the first aircraft carrier announces a much more visible Chinese presence far from its usual shores.
Last year, while denying reports that China was building a naval base in Pakistan, Major-General Xu Guangyu said it was only a matter of time until China had foreign bases. As the world�s biggest oil importer, Chinese socio-economic development depends largely on foreign energy supplies. Despite efforts to diversify its energy sources, by increasing imports from Central Asia and Russia through a network of newly-built or planned pipelines, China continues to rely massively on the Arab-Persian Gulf region (which provided it with 46% of its oil imports in 2010), and to a lesser extent, on Africa (which represented 22% of its oil imports in 2010). Securing the maritime supply routes, in an increasingly hostile environment whether in the Arab-Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea or the Strait of Malacca, is therefore a priority for Chinese leaders. It is strongly expected that China would seek to establish naval bases along these routes to protect its tankers and strategic supplies.
Historically reluctant to project power abroad, on the grounds that it infringes upon national sovereignty, China gradually started to break with its traditional policy in the early 1990s by participating in peacekeeping missions, paving the way for a growing engagement in the international arena. Besides peacekeeping operations in Lebanon and Sudan, China has been carrying out anti-piracy operations off the coasts of Somalia and along the Gulf of Eden for the past three years, in what represents the first patrolling mission outside its own waters or what it considers as its own maritime territory.
China will continue to dispatch naval forces to the region. Somali piracy operations represent an entry-point and China will seek increased military cooperation with countries in the Middle East, much to the ire of Washington, the strongest military presence in the region, and perhaps conveniently for some Arab countries which do not always see eye-to-eye with the American administration on recent developments in the Middle East. Amid troubled relationships with the U.S. last year over Hosni Moubarak�s ouster in Egypt, and � more alarmingly for the Saudis � American calls for Bahrain�s ruling family to make concessions to the protesters, just hours before Saudi-led Peninsula Shield forces invaded the small island to suppress the opposition, King Abdullah dispatched his national security advisor Prince Bandar bin Sultan to Beijing to meet with President Hu Jintao. This is a signal, albeit cautious as is traditionally the case with Saudi diplomacy, that the Kingdom is also considering diversifying its allies.
China often finds itself in the position of an alternative partner whenever relations with traditional powers strain: For developing countries, it offers its own experience in economic development as a model, not conditioned by human rights or democratic reforms. Also on offer, its vital investments, particularly in the petroleum industry. It has helped in the past develop and expand Sudan�s oil industry. While investing in Iran and importing Iranian crude has become increasingly controversial, Iraqi oil constitutes a better alternative. Chinese National Oil Companies are now reaping the benefits of the Iraq war, grabbing five lucrative contracts so far.
At a time when U.S. military strategy is reorienting its focus from Europe and the Middle East towards Asia � an area where military spending have dramatically increased over the last few years and where maritime and political disputes are abundant, threatening regional stability � China is looking for opportunities in the Middle East, America�s military playground, and is more confidently setting a foot there. This leaves the door open for political maneuvering between the United States, China, and Arab countries.
America could cut it's military expenditures by 50% - and no country on earth would dare threaten America's shores.
Only the naive believe it's actually about defense.
It's about control.
2012 Military expenditures: USA - 1,735 Billion Chine - 711 Billion Russia - 72 Billion
Most of rest - further down the list - are American allies.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes � known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.� No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
� James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Peacenik, I think everyone can agree that only one country can be the world's most powerful militarily at a time. Now, exactly which country should it be and how much of an edge should they have exactly? Enough to win a war or enough that other countries don't even try to start one in the first place?
For argument's sake - you would be afraid of what country's invasion - if you spent say, half as much annually?
It appears so. Democracy really never catch on over there.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a new treason law which opponents say could be used to smother dissent and put anyone who has contact with foreigners at risk. The law means Russians representing international organisations could be charged with treason. The maximum sentence for the offence is 20 years in prison. The law was published in the official government gazette yesterday, despite a promise by Mr Putin on Monday that he would review it. Political opponents and rights activists say the legislation is the latest in a series of laws cracking down on the opposition and reducing foreign influence since Mr Putin returned to the Kremlin in May for a six-year third term. �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. At a meeting of his human rights council on Monday, Mr Putin listened to a retired Constitutional Court judge�s concerns about the legislation, which she said did not require authorities to prove a suspect damaged state security. Mr Putin indicated that he would move cautiously, but also said �nonetheless, I am ready to return to this again, to look more attentively�. Russian officials have said the law is needed to help prevent foreign governments using organisations in Russia to gather state secrets. The legislation allows Russians representing international organisations to be charged with treason, as well as those working for foreign states and bodies, and expands the range of actions that can be considered treasonous. Putin signed the law on Tuesday and it took effect on Wednesday when it was published in the official gazette, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, despite a promise by the president on Monday that he would review it. '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. She said it would probably be used selectively against Kremlin critics and others 'who irritate the authorities'.
Political opponents and rights activists say the legislation is the latest in a series of laws intended to crack down on the opposition and reduce foreign influence since he returned to the Kremlin in May for a six-year, third term (above) 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 law was backed by the Federal Security Service (FSB), the main successor of the Soviet KGB, and landed on the desk of longtime KGB officer Putin after being approved by both houses of parliament in the space of nine days last month. The FSB, in a rare public comment, was quoted by state-run news agency Itar-Tass as saying the law had been updated after being unchanged since the 1960s because 'foreign intelligence agencies' methods and tactics for gathering information have changed'. Putin whipped up anti-U.S. sentiment during his campaign for the March presidential election, and Russian officials have said the law is needed to help prevent foreign governments using organisations in Russia to gather state secrets. 'Citizens recruited by international organisations acting against the country's interests will also be considered traitors', Rossiyskaya Gazeta said in a commentary on its website. Putin has frequently accused Western nations of seeking to undermine Russia's security and weaken the nuclear-armed nation, and has suggested they use non-governmental organisations to do so. Moscow ordered the U.S. Agency for International Development to cease its Russian operations in October, accusing it of seeking to influence elections. In July, Putin signed a law requiring foreign-funded NGOs deemed to be engaging in political activity to register as 'foreign agents', and critics say other legislation is also aimed at silencing opponents. The United States and the European Union have criticised the laws, and expressed concern about criminal charges laid against several opposition leaders in the last few months. During his election campaign, Putin faced protests which at times drew tens of thousands of people into Moscow's streets, and he accused the United States of whipping up demonstrations against his rule. The maximum sentence for high treason remains 20 years, but the legislation signed by Putin also introduced prison terms of up to eight years for Russians acquiring state secrets in certain ways even if they are not passed on to foreigners. It broadened the spectrum of actions that can attract treason charges to include giving 'financial, material, technical, consultative or other aid' to a government or organisation deemed to be seeking to undermine Russian security. Those changes, as well as the removal of the stipulation that actions must be aimed against Russia's 'external' security to be considered treasonous, have raised concerns the law could be applied broadly to punish government opponents. At a meeting of his human rights council on Monday, Putin listened to a retired Constitutional Court judge's concerns about the legislation, which she said did not require authorities to prove a suspect damaged state security. But although Putin said he would look again at the law, his spokesman said he had signed it a day later. 'It's not the first time Putin has said the right words while slowly tightening the screws,' Alexeyeva said.
Evahbuddy who read all this bullshit raise your hand.
It guess it would be tough trying to control the world - if you only out-spent the next three or four countries COMBINED.
How many years in the last 100 or so - has America NOT been involved - militarily - somewhere?
Would it be as high a number as a dozen?
The era of trying to police the rest of world - is coming to an end.
You can't keep putting endless wars - on a credit card.
In case you haven't noticed - the military-industrial complex is bankrupting your country.
Humm, I thought is was EBT cards bankrupting us. I know a lot of poor people use the LONEB STAR CARD for free food on their summer vacations to Hawaii. Our percent of military expenses has fallen drastically while welfare expenses have risen drastically over the last many years.
America could cut it's military expenditures by 50% - and no country on earth would dare threaten America's shores.
Only the naive believe it's actually about defense.
It's about control.
2012 Military expenditures: USA - 1,735 Billion Chine - 711 Billion Russia - 72 Billion
Most of rest - further down the list - are American allies.
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes � known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.� No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
� James Madison, Political Observations, 1795
Peacenik, I think everyone can agree that only one country can be the world's most powerful militarily at a time. Now, exactly which country should it be and how much of an edge should they have exactly? Enough to win a war or enough that other countries don't even try to start one in the first place?
For argument's sake - you would be afraid of what country's invasion - if you spent say, half as much annually?
Who said anything about invasion? The Japanese tried it. We responded, the word was safer. Occasionally new generations must test the waters and learn anew what their fathers learned. If you think the relativity stability of civilized nations around the globe for the last century was due to something other than the perceived willingness and strength of the U.S military and her allies to insure such, I'd love to hear what you attribute it to. The U.S. is no longer willing and quickly growing less able to secure our interest much less that of our allies overseas and this administration would like to hasten that demise. If you think that's a good thing for the world or Canada, I'll just accept your right to be dead wrong.
With three large oceans separating my own country - from all others (except for our good neighbor to the south) - an invasion is the stuff for the tin-foil hat crowd. It has never really happened (border skirmishes excepted) - and it won't happen.
No country has ever invaded the USA either - nor will any country try.
Enough already.
You are safe from invasion - that is a fact you should get used to.
It's time to stop being so afraid of other countries - and of what has never happened in recorded history.
With three large oceans separating my own country - from all others (except for our good neighbor to the south) - an invasion is the stuff for the tin-foil hat crowd. It has never really happened (border skirmishes excepted) - and it won't happen.
No country has ever invaded the USA either - nor will any country try.
Enough already.
You are safe from invasion - that is a fact you should get used to.
It's time to stop being so afraid of other countries - and of what has never happened in recorded history.
Oh the oceans. I keep forgetting about those. You're right. Whew. But hey, one day they'll event ships and planes and missles and then who knows what crazy countries will be capable of! But we've probably got some time before that happens so..... Brian, your reading skills aren't working, it's not about INVASION. It's about security of our interests domestic AND foreign. We have some of those by the way.
Hey Brian, isn't Russia real close to Canada? Maybe you folks up north should start to spend some money on defense instead of free riding on our military.
I guess you didn't hear. In our entire history our land has only been attacked twice - both times - by Americans.
1812
November 23 Americans retreat from eastern Canada November 27 Americans attack outlying positions at Fort Erie
For argument's sake - you would be afraid of what country's invasion - if you spent say, half as much annually?
Brian, I know you're just playing dumb to get a rise out of people, but seriously.....do you really think the American military's sole job is to prevent an invasion of the US mainland?....the last ones we had were from Canada (!) and Mejico.
Our enemies don't have to invade us physically any more to fug us.
Because you can see through the verbal jousts - I'll say seriously - I do think it is in the involvement in the affairs of other sovereign nations - that causes so much of the strife we see around the world today.
Blowback is inevitable - and predictable.
I think all countries should do less of it.
If we all concentrated on actual defense - and less on arm-twisting "influence" - it might work out better - all around.
Actually Canada has caught ALL of the terrorists who've targeted us.
AND - for what it's worth - Canadian intelligence never believed Iraq had any hidden "weapons of mass destruction".
Maybe - just maybe - it's us who have the intelligence.
Yeah, old Dudley Doright was never fooled like those idiots at the FSB, Mossad, MI6, BND, etc etc.
I'm sure Canada had a freaking HUGE intel apparatus in Iraq to make that call.
Answer me this - Why isn't Canada hated by any country in the world today?
nobody hates their bish.
Canada simply is without impact in world affairs, and I'm sure you're perfectly happy with that, as long as the US and the UK are protecting you from foreign threats.
as long as we keep the sea lanes open for you, who's Canada going to get in a dispute with?
Actually Canada has caught ALL of the terrorists who've targeted us.
AND - for what it's worth - Canadian intelligence never believed Iraq had any hidden "weapons of mass destruction".
Maybe - just maybe - it's us who have the intelligence.
Yeah, old Dudley Doright was never fooled like those idiots at the FSB, Mossad, MI6, BND, etc etc.
I'm sure Canada had a freaking HUGE intel apparatus in Iraq to make that call.
Answer me this - Why isn't Canada hated by any country in the world today?
nobody hates their bish.
Canada simply is without impact in world affairs, and I'm sure you're perfectly happy with that, as long as the US and the UK are protecting you from foreign threats.
as long as we keep the sea lanes open for you, who's Canada going to get in a dispute with?
"Foreign threats"?
I must have been watching a hockey game when we got the last one of those. And our damn liberal press never bothers to tell us about them - when they happen!
Are you referring to real ones - or just the usual imagined ones?
Last I heard Canadians turn up at every party you lot throw.....and manage to die along with your lot.
Doesn't sound like much of a free ride to me....or is spite and bad manners how you treat your allies?
Brian started this crap, as he is fond of doing, and I'm not into dissing our Canadian friends, but Canada didn't show up for Vietnam, didn't show up for Iraq, and wasn't in WWI or WWII at our request but because of your mother country's peril.
Last I heard Canadians turn up at every party you lot throw.....and manage to die along with your lot.
Doesn't sound like much of a free ride to me....or is spite and bad manners how you treat your allies?
Brian started this crap, as he is fond of doing, and I'm not into dissing our Canadian friends, but Canada didn't show up for Vietnam, didn't show up for Iraq, and wasn't in WWI or WWII at our request but because of your mother country's peril.
Ya, good point.
Vietnam and Iraq were real good ideas...
Those two took some REAL intelligence to get into.
Canada simply is without impact in world affairs, and I'm sure you're perfectly happy with that, as long as the US and the UK are protecting you from foreign threats.
as long as we keep the sea lanes open for you, who's Canada going to get in a dispute with?
Canada lives it's life of ignorant bliss as a spoiled child too immersed in its own self importance to realize we are the dependant child hiding behind, holding on to mother Americas apron for protection, basking in our own irrevelancy meanwhile shouting insults. Without America, Canada certainly wouldn't exist today as we know it. Whether we like it or not we are the 52nd state that is kinda allowed to run independantly as long as we stay on the leash. Thing that pizzes me off is the American election is of more importance to Canada than our own federal elections yet we're not allowed to vote......never mind the majority would have voted demo anyways
The Bear was just asleep. Now he's a teddy bear waiting on your kids. Socialism --> communism --> Marxism. It's either big government managing the evolution of mankind or freedom as experienced in America ("One nation, under God, indivisible...")
