I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are. That is not the same thing as denying them due process. In other words, it's just a website.
On the other hand, the actual due process part happen when the actual authorities of those countries, follow the laws of their country, and seize those assets because of sanctions.
> I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are…it's just a website.
An upvote alone is not enough to echo this comment. After all this is Hacker News. Not really a great place for insight in due process, but a good one for things OSINT visualization projects
> I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are. That is not the same thing as denying them due process. In other words, it's just a website.
So much whattaboutism in this thread. We are at war. Seizing property of the other belligerents is a very normal thing to do in a war. Russia is currently seizing assets from American companies who leave the country.
Russia is currently bombing Ukrainian hospitals. This is a somewhat tame escalation in that light.
You complain about whattaboutism then point out that Russia is doing the same thing three sentences later. "We are at war" has been used to justify the worst atrocities in human history.
It’s not whattaboutism if they’re linked. The two actions are by belligerents in the same conflict.
EDIT: I’m also calling it whattaboutism because I don’t think folks are actually arguing that other nations should have entered the Iraq war on the side of Iraq or ISIS. If they’re legit arguing that, it’s valid (though I disagree).
A lot of whataboutism. Many people downvoting the ones reminding those who are sitting safe in their unthreatened homes talking about "both sides" and "due process" that this isn't a fair and honorable fight, this is a dictator expanding into Europe by killing civilians and using his wealth and power to bully politicians and other states.
If there are digital archives left over after all this, these are the conversations people in the future will be reading to understand why the fuck Russia was able to get so much implicit support.
Ever wonder "how germans let Hitler get away with it"? Future generations will look back at these to understand how Putin got away with so much.
Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propaganda?
> Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it
Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks.
Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.
Show me which western country and laws grants the government the right to seize property without due process. If that's really the case there's going to be a massive shift in capital allocation over the next decade.
This is a good thing to keep in mind; I originally figured this was outlandishly unfair, but lined up against other sanctions it makes sense. If sovereign nations can prevent profitable trade (aka ownership & exercising of business relations) it makes sense to prevent ownership & exercising of business property.
The communist nationalisation process after WW2 was also 100% legal in the countries where it was applied.
Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand.
I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant).
[1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
Because it helps get rid of Putin and its something we are able to do. Getting rid of Putin is our objective right now.
Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument.
This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.
So wait... if we europeans wanted to get rid of eg. clinton for bombing in yugoslavia, and then bush of the middle eastern crap (well, technically both bushes), we can just take away property of random rich americans?
A lot of these "oligarchs" have citizenships of European countries. (Which, in my opinion, they shouldn't have been given in the first place, but that's an entirely different conversation.) So in many cases people are effectively cheering for extra-judicial property seizure of European citizens. The consequences of setting such precedent will go way beyond the scope of the current conflict.
It'd make more sense if you said sized the assets of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the presidents of companies like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, Kuwaiti and Afghani logistics companies...
The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.
Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
> Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.
>Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
well, offtop by Russophilis is getting out of hand. Russia was aggresor, in 1994 in Chechnya IIRC 1999 Chechnya, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, Ukraine 2022. Russian FSB do terrorists attack on their own citizen [1]. Case is simple, goverment is a war crime and was for 28 years. There is a whole generation of young people brainwashed by their parents with roots back to 1800s tsarist propaganda. Russians need to step up and deal with their horrible country past. I, as a polish, kinda has a natural degree in sovietology and Moscow war crimes throughout the ages.
I'm sorry that you're dealing with some incovenciencse. But there are people dying right now.
Look, we all agree war is bad... I live in the balkans, and I had american planes flying above my roof, bombing a country 300km away not that long ago... not to forget all of our "local" wars before that. But saying that americans are any better than russians or vice-versa is a huge lie. Russians atleast had a "weak" period in the 90s, where they didn't do this shit, until they got their economy fixed a bit, americans didn't stop even then.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Just in case there's misunderstanding about what "seize" means...
Are governments actually taking ownership possession (nationalizing) of Russian yachts or are they removing the assets from the owner's control?
In other words, does "seize" mean:
(1) civil forfeiture like USA police confiscating cash without due process ?
or
(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
The various reports I've read makes it seem like UK is treating Russian yachts as (2).
In contrast... with the fleets of airplanes leased from Europe sitting in Russian territory, it looks like Russia does literally want to take ownership of them in retaliation to sanctions.
> (2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Yes. And if America invaded Mexico and started shelling their cities, I'd like the world to do exactly the same. Tank the dollar into the ground and seize all assets of American companies and individuals who own over a 100mln dollars and stop all trade. You are benefiting for your government, you are materialy responsible for its actions. In the modern world there's no other way to keep the world sane.
If something is going bit too far is excluding Russian sport and culture. But even that it only mild overstepping since large number of Russians support their government and large part of Russian export of culture and sport is government subsidized.
How strongly the world reacts now is the only thing that can curb future teritorial ambitions of other countries like China. The message should be clear. Starting a war will cost you, your economy and the wealth of your wealthiest. And the world will really shrink for you because you won't be able to enjoy its freedoms.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Who said there's no due process? That's why it's getting seized. Forfeiture happens later if it's proven laws have been broken.
Besides, seizing property is better than more violence. Maybe if the Taliban seized the assets of rich american elites America would have left Afghanistan a lot sooner.
>Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary.
I'm watching people lose all their private property or worse while the aggressor responsible for the situation threatens “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” to any nation who wishes to step in and stop this. Pretty scary huh?
>We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
So no military intervention and sanctions. How is this supposed to end? I don't think apathy will do it.
> Besides, seizing property is better than more violence.
Also, governments can un-seize property back after a while. It's not like this stuff gets immediately liquidated and funneled into defense spending or disaster relief or whatever.
What do you expect? The Russians are a pretty comfy enemy. From Call of Duty over Mission Impossible, we are familiar to the evil Russian, hence, those reactions are so satisfying to too many people, unfortunately.
I have Ukranian/Russian roots. My girl, born in Germany, was just pushed by classmates and called nasty words just last week in school.
This reminds me of the racism against Asian people when Covid appeared.
This war only has losers, the Ukranians, the Russian people, the Europeans, the Americans.
Edit: Somehow some posts were deleted from this thread, also my experience with Racism I have faced a few days ago. That is strange.
Pretty much. San Francisco fired the SF Symphony Director because... he's from Russia.
Amazing how quickly our base, tribal instincts kick in when an "enemy" appears. All pretense to "peace" and "restraint" and "avoid foreign wars" goes out the window really damn quick.
If you're the kind of person who looks back and thinks "man, how could America be so stupid to get involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq"? Well, you're living in those times right now.
Hell, that's exactly why we put the Japanese in internment camps. Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Kids are very eager to single out some other kids for the dumbest of reasons and attack them. Any difference might be a pretense for attack under the right conditions. I'm afraid that's how our species works naturally and there's a huge role of upbringing and education to silence those innate impulses in young people.
the worst part about this is, most Russians in the west are basically asylum seekers now. their state went full totalitarian in the last couple weeks. i'm trying hard to make delimit the difference between Russians and Putin, but it's hard to get ordinary people to listen. MSM does not like nuance at all.
I am sorry but the world has always been this way. Countries with actual power used to take away far more than what is being done right now. The US (and the West) has been trying to do what is right which is doing it without devastations of wars. People forget the US military is good enough to wipe out 1/2 of the world within weeks. Would you rather have that? Or some bank accounts getting frozen? Your take is extremely naive.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
it is a war, and the one started by them. They should be grateful of losing only property while people in Ukraine are losing their lives. They didn't afford due process to those Ukrainians. Actually they don't afford due process to any Ukrainian. What expectations of due process they may reasonably expect for themselves after that? After the war these Putin's top supporters should get punished for the war crimes together with Putin. This is the due process they should get.
Limiting blame only to Putin just doesn't make sense. Putin doesn't press the button launching missiles. All Russians in Russia are responsible for what is happening. Just looks at bacchanalia of "Z" symbol celebration these days across all Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/russia-lette... - The "Z" is the marking on the Russian armor of the western invasion group in Ukraine, the one which is attacking Kiev for example, and that symbol became the symbol of that war in Russia). You wanna get beaten as a dirty traitor by a bunch of Russian passer-by-s - just make some offensive comment on the "Z".
>And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
It is applicable only to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It would be strange that one can shoot such a soldier, yet wouldn't be able to call for a death of the soldier on FB.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Seizing the assets of a de facto government agent of a sanctioned country is following due process. Governments decided by their own internal deliberation mechanisms to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The world didn't magically decide to seize assets of some random Russian speakers because they said mean words.
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Nope, they relaxed rules specifically with regard to Russian armed forces[0]. It would be pretty ridiculous to ban a Facebook user in Ukraine that call for the defense of their country by attacking the invading soldiers.
How? The country doing the seizing is not at war with the government in question.
Even during the war you would expect the overseas property to be quarantined to use it as a lever during potential peace talks. As opposed to the unreversible confiscation such as giving it to somebody else to own. I'm not sure if that's what happening here.
So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Yes, I think most of us would agree it is reasonably acceptable to freeze the assets of people who have close ties with a government currently engaged in an invasion that is being condemned by the people doing the seizing.
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
I'm sure there are – and I hope that if, say, the US decides to invade Mexico and start levelling cities, then other countries seize the property of rich Americans who are backing that invasion.
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
No we don't – you chose to deliberately misrepresent this.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Nah, false equivalence. I think "we are going to seize the international assets of supporters of a regime engaged in a war we consider illegal" is a pretty fine tool, and really not anywhere close to "we are going to launch an all-out invasion of a relatively functional sovereign democracy".
Not quite sure which part of punk idealogies you are aligned with, but imo seizing assets of bloated billionaires that support and profit from war is definitely a punk move that I would support.
they are not individuals. they are the Russian state.
i agree it's a fine line, but then, these people are undermining western democracies and at the same time seek safety in them. they assumed their assets would be safe and tried to max their payouts.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Yes and it always has been. None of these people are actual citizens of these countries in any meaningful way, and Russia is a mafia state where the sanctioned individuals have more or less committed crime in order to gain these assets in the first place, and they are helping someone that the countries seizing assets believe is committing a war crime.
This is more like having a king and princes and princesses and seizing assets of the princes and princesses conducting the war. These aren’t like “oh shucks” rags to riches wealthy everyday Russians.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Sure you can. And Iran or Venezuela or Russia or North Korea can seize their assets in those countries for committing “crimes” as they see fit. Wonder why nobody has assets in those countries?
But this whataboutism also fails because (insert cartoon CEO villain scapegoat) isn’t giving money to Joe Biden to go personally invade Canada. It’s incomparable.
> “Something something Iraq”
First who cares? We’re talking about Russia and Ukraine.
Second yes countries can decide that they don’t like Americans and seize their assets abroad.
> Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re 100% going to war with Russia or will be engaging them directly unless Putin is deposed and I don’t think that’s going to happen. He wants a war so it’s just a matter of time until he decides to attack resupply missions in Poland directly on Polish soil.
Like, you're trying to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the people who rage against russia on reddit and the crowds who go to Bush fundraisers don't overlap much.
I hadn't been on reddit for a really long time (way before all this started) and I logged in yesterday and was pretty surprised by how much war glorification was dominating the popular page and the simplistic narrative being pushed.
It's almost as if the context differs between upvoting on a forum and threatening a leader to their face in their own country, in a room full of their supporters. I'm certain that if a Russian did the same in front of Putin, the results would be similar if not worse.
Mind your tongue. It's not seizing, it is just a special legal operation. Absolutely nothing to do with seizing.
I'd also want to remind what Karl Popper said about Paradox of Tolerance.
" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
It warms my heart this is the biggest worry on your mind at the moment. It's not beign seized though for now just frozen. Many of the so called "Olygarchs" are nominal holders of Putin's personal wealth btw.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
You're absolutely right in both regards but please do not conflate those two.
I'll weep zero tears over Putin's rich friends not being able to play with their yacht anymore, but common Russians having to leave their home country and suffering from heinous mob mentality outside have my dearest sympathy.
Yep, this is something that Hitler did, when he seized the property of the Jews, but people are currently acting like nazis did, just against the russians now.
This also sets another dangerous precendent, that you can just sieze property of someone you don't like... people protesting against covid measures? Seize their property. Protesting against a pipeline.. sieze their property! BLM, pro-trump, anti-trump, eco-protests, sieze everything!
1. This is not private property in any meaningful sense of the word. Russia is not governed by the rule of the law. Those people are more like semiofficial branches of the government than private billionaires working within the system. They made their fortunes by taking advantage of corruption rather than in legitimate business.
2. Wars of this scale are not fought between governments but between societies. Anyone who contributes to the economy of Russia (or Ukraine) is participating in the war. Third countries that favor one side of the war may seize the property of those who are contributing to the other side. Legally and legitimately.
3. Property rights are only as strong as the governments guaranteeing them. If no government is able and willing to guarantee them, they cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Once the war is over and the dust has settled, the victors and their friends will sort out who owns what.
The simple fact that the term oligarch has come to be assumed to be preceded by the term Russian, as in the title, speaks volumes.
Honest question: Are Russian oligarchs more tied to the Russian gov't than in the USA, like how the RBN is more tied to gov't than American counterparts such as Pegasus/etc.
Readit News
On the other hand, the actual due process part happen when the actual authorities of those countries, follow the laws of their country, and seize those assets because of sanctions.
An upvote alone is not enough to echo this comment. After all this is Hacker News. Not really a great place for insight in due process, but a good one for things OSINT visualization projects
Dead Comment
So it's not doxxing because they're Russians?
Russia is currently bombing Ukrainian hospitals. This is a somewhat tame escalation in that light.
EDIT: I’m also calling it whattaboutism because I don’t think folks are actually arguing that other nations should have entered the Iraq war on the side of Iraq or ISIS. If they’re legit arguing that, it’s valid (though I disagree).
If there are digital archives left over after all this, these are the conversations people in the future will be reading to understand why the fuck Russia was able to get so much implicit support. Ever wonder "how germans let Hitler get away with it"? Future generations will look back at these to understand how Putin got away with so much.
Say hi, you're on a book. What year is this?
Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks.
Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.
In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand.
I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant).
[1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
Dead Comment
Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument.
This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.
Probably.
The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.
Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.
>Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
"Do what I say, or we'll invade you!"
.... "It's ok, when americans do it!"
I'm sorry that you're dealing with some incovenciencse. But there are people dying right now.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
But when america does it, it's a "war for peace!" - https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/11...
Look, we all agree war is bad... I live in the balkans, and I had american planes flying above my roof, bombing a country 300km away not that long ago... not to forget all of our "local" wars before that. But saying that americans are any better than russians or vice-versa is a huge lie. Russians atleast had a "weak" period in the 90s, where they didn't do this shit, until they got their economy fixed a bit, americans didn't stop even then.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukrain...
Please. Stop. Amplifying. Putin's. Message.
Dead Comment
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Just in case there's misunderstanding about what "seize" means...
Are governments actually taking ownership possession (nationalizing) of Russian yachts or are they removing the assets from the owner's control?
In other words, does "seize" mean:
(1) civil forfeiture like USA police confiscating cash without due process ?
or
(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
The various reports I've read makes it seem like UK is treating Russian yachts as (2).
In contrast... with the fleets of airplanes leased from Europe sitting in Russian territory, it looks like Russia does literally want to take ownership of them in retaliation to sanctions.
At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.
Yes. And if America invaded Mexico and started shelling their cities, I'd like the world to do exactly the same. Tank the dollar into the ground and seize all assets of American companies and individuals who own over a 100mln dollars and stop all trade. You are benefiting for your government, you are materialy responsible for its actions. In the modern world there's no other way to keep the world sane.
If something is going bit too far is excluding Russian sport and culture. But even that it only mild overstepping since large number of Russians support their government and large part of Russian export of culture and sport is government subsidized.
How strongly the world reacts now is the only thing that can curb future teritorial ambitions of other countries like China. The message should be clear. Starting a war will cost you, your economy and the wealth of your wealthiest. And the world will really shrink for you because you won't be able to enjoy its freedoms.
Dead Comment
Who said there's no due process? That's why it's getting seized. Forfeiture happens later if it's proven laws have been broken.
Besides, seizing property is better than more violence. Maybe if the Taliban seized the assets of rich american elites America would have left Afghanistan a lot sooner.
>Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary.
I'm watching people lose all their private property or worse while the aggressor responsible for the situation threatens “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” to any nation who wishes to step in and stop this. Pretty scary huh?
>We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
So no military intervention and sanctions. How is this supposed to end? I don't think apathy will do it.
Also, governments can un-seize property back after a while. It's not like this stuff gets immediately liquidated and funneled into defense spending or disaster relief or whatever.
I have Ukranian/Russian roots. My girl, born in Germany, was just pushed by classmates and called nasty words just last week in school.
This reminds me of the racism against Asian people when Covid appeared.
This war only has losers, the Ukranians, the Russian people, the Europeans, the Americans.
Edit: Somehow some posts were deleted from this thread, also my experience with Racism I have faced a few days ago. That is strange.
Amazing how quickly our base, tribal instincts kick in when an "enemy" appears. All pretense to "peace" and "restraint" and "avoid foreign wars" goes out the window really damn quick.
If you're the kind of person who looks back and thinks "man, how could America be so stupid to get involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq"? Well, you're living in those times right now.
Hell, that's exactly why we put the Japanese in internment camps. Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
it is a war, and the one started by them. They should be grateful of losing only property while people in Ukraine are losing their lives. They didn't afford due process to those Ukrainians. Actually they don't afford due process to any Ukrainian. What expectations of due process they may reasonably expect for themselves after that? After the war these Putin's top supporters should get punished for the war crimes together with Putin. This is the due process they should get.
Limiting blame only to Putin just doesn't make sense. Putin doesn't press the button launching missiles. All Russians in Russia are responsible for what is happening. Just looks at bacchanalia of "Z" symbol celebration these days across all Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/russia-lette... - The "Z" is the marking on the Russian armor of the western invasion group in Ukraine, the one which is attacking Kiev for example, and that symbol became the symbol of that war in Russia). You wanna get beaten as a dirty traitor by a bunch of Russian passer-by-s - just make some offensive comment on the "Z".
>And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
It is applicable only to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It would be strange that one can shoot such a soldier, yet wouldn't be able to call for a death of the soldier on FB.
Seizing the assets of a de facto government agent of a sanctioned country is following due process. Governments decided by their own internal deliberation mechanisms to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The world didn't magically decide to seize assets of some random Russian speakers because they said mean words.
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Nope, they relaxed rules specifically with regard to Russian armed forces[0]. It would be pretty ridiculous to ban a Facebook user in Ukraine that call for the defense of their country by attacking the invading soldiers.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...
Frankly, what kind of communication do you expect from civilians in a kill or get killed situation.
Deleted Comment
Even during the war you would expect the overseas property to be quarantined to use it as a lever during potential peace talks. As opposed to the unreversible confiscation such as giving it to somebody else to own. I'm not sure if that's what happening here.
Yes, I think most of us would agree it is reasonably acceptable to freeze the assets of people who have close ties with a government currently engaged in an invasion that is being condemned by the people doing the seizing.
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
I'm sure there are – and I hope that if, say, the US decides to invade Mexico and start levelling cities, then other countries seize the property of rich Americans who are backing that invasion.
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
No we don't – you chose to deliberately misrepresent this.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Nah, false equivalence. I think "we are going to seize the international assets of supporters of a regime engaged in a war we consider illegal" is a pretty fine tool, and really not anywhere close to "we are going to launch an all-out invasion of a relatively functional sovereign democracy".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_ideologies
Not quite sure which part of punk idealogies you are aligned with, but imo seizing assets of bloated billionaires that support and profit from war is definitely a punk move that I would support.
i agree it's a fine line, but then, these people are undermining western democracies and at the same time seek safety in them. they assumed their assets would be safe and tried to max their payouts.
Yes and it always has been. None of these people are actual citizens of these countries in any meaningful way, and Russia is a mafia state where the sanctioned individuals have more or less committed crime in order to gain these assets in the first place, and they are helping someone that the countries seizing assets believe is committing a war crime.
This is more like having a king and princes and princesses and seizing assets of the princes and princesses conducting the war. These aren’t like “oh shucks” rags to riches wealthy everyday Russians.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Sure you can. And Iran or Venezuela or Russia or North Korea can seize their assets in those countries for committing “crimes” as they see fit. Wonder why nobody has assets in those countries?
But this whataboutism also fails because (insert cartoon CEO villain scapegoat) isn’t giving money to Joe Biden to go personally invade Canada. It’s incomparable.
> “Something something Iraq”
First who cares? We’re talking about Russia and Ukraine.
Second yes countries can decide that they don’t like Americans and seize their assets abroad.
> Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re 100% going to war with Russia or will be engaging them directly unless Putin is deposed and I don’t think that’s going to happen. He wants a war so it’s just a matter of time until he decides to attack resupply missions in Poland directly on Polish soil.
but when a veteran soldier confronts a former US president for pulling pretty much the same shit, he gets dragged and thrown out:
https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/td5wgj/ir...
Like, you're trying to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the people who rage against russia on reddit and the crowds who go to Bush fundraisers don't overlap much.
Mind your tongue. It's not seizing, it is just a special legal operation. Absolutely nothing to do with seizing.
I'd also want to remind what Karl Popper said about Paradox of Tolerance.
" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Yes, it's a war. Deal with it
If they have a problem they can take it up with their boss.
> to this is getting pretty fucking scary
I believe there are kids in Ukraine who are legitimately scared. Getting your megayacht confiscated is just a first world problem.
The countries doing the seizing aren't at war with Russia and seem adamant about currently not being at war.
German clinic refuses to treat Russian Patients [0] Canada bans Russian pianist from performing [1]
0: https://www.rtl.de/cms/muenchen-iatros-privatklinik-will-kei...
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/arts/music/russian-artist...
Do you think that is OK? Because of a lunatic in their home country?
The same things were said about the Jews in the 1920's. We should try to be carful, and keep our empathy.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
You're absolutely right in both regards but please do not conflate those two.
I'll weep zero tears over Putin's rich friends not being able to play with their yacht anymore, but common Russians having to leave their home country and suffering from heinous mob mentality outside have my dearest sympathy.
Dead Comment
This also sets another dangerous precendent, that you can just sieze property of someone you don't like... people protesting against covid measures? Seize their property. Protesting against a pipeline.. sieze their property! BLM, pro-trump, anti-trump, eco-protests, sieze everything!
2. Wars of this scale are not fought between governments but between societies. Anyone who contributes to the economy of Russia (or Ukraine) is participating in the war. Third countries that favor one side of the war may seize the property of those who are contributing to the other side. Legally and legitimately.
3. Property rights are only as strong as the governments guaranteeing them. If no government is able and willing to guarantee them, they cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Once the war is over and the dust has settled, the victors and their friends will sort out who owns what.
Honest question: Are Russian oligarchs more tied to the Russian gov't than in the USA, like how the RBN is more tied to gov't than American counterparts such as Pegasus/etc.