Hacker News Reader

Comment by osipov | Hacker News Reader

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. 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.

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

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.

View on HN

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.

>>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?

What does that have to do with anything? He was in fact guilty of tax evasion, which was in fact against the law.

He was clearly guilty of much more than tax evasion. The rule of law failed in regard to most of his misdeeds.

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?

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.

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

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.

So are you condoning what happened?

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.

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?

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).

Aren't you confusing messenger and message? The fact the messenger is partially responsible (and that is debatable) for some misery has no influence on the legality of the acts described in the article.

I would also add the corruption of the 90's benefited some of the same government officials that ate being accused here.

Why not? Do you suggest we assume everyone corrupt just because there is "plenty of corruption everywhere in Russia"? Everyone is guilty by association?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com