In the Kremlin

An example of lawlessness

April 8, 2010 Alexander Podrabinek

In our Criminal Code there is a strange conflict: Art. 105 provides for a serious punishment for "murder, that is, intentional infliction of death to another person." Different parts of this article describe various options for this crime and, accordingly, different sentences. Nowhere in the article it is said that the murder may be legal. Therefore, the death penalty by the court sentence, until it was suspended by the Constitutional Court, formally also fell under the effect of Art. 105 of the Criminal Code. This, of course, is just legal casuistry, although it indicates negligence when writing a criminal code.

It's funny to think - how can the murder be legal? Of course, it cannot! Can a person endowed with high state power to call for murders without trial and investigation? Of course, no. So any normal person in any normal country will say. What will we say?

And we will say that Russia has a special path, and our next president covers our way to the future. In recent days, he held several meetings on the fight against terrorism. Among the forever relevant topics of improving the work of special services and the protection of the civilian population from terrorism, Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev invariably started a conversation about the need to destroy terrorists. Do not catch them, do not arrest, do not judge, namely, destroy.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, a fan of wetting, cut and pick out with the initiative. After the attacks on March 29, he, while still in Krasnoyarsk, said that "terrorists will be destroyed." President Medvedev, deciding not to concede him in stiffness, picked up this idea: “We destroyed the terrorists and destroy,” he said.

The first persons of the state seemed to have forgotten that justice in the country is carried out only by the court, and the “destruction” without trial in peacetime is just a criminal murder. One could write off the statements of the president and the prime minister to emotional incontinence as the first reaction to the tragedy in the subway. Which, although unacceptable for officials, is humanly explainable.

However, the speeches of President Medvedev over the next few days clearly showed that it was not an emotional reaction, but a verified position.

On March 31, at a meeting with permanent members of the Security Council, Medvedev states: “As I already talked about this, as for the bandits, all of them will be found and all will be destroyed.”

On April 1, at a meeting in Makhachkala with the heads of the republics of the North Caucasus Federal District, the territorial divisions of the FSB and the internal affairs bodies, Medvedev says: “We must continue to apply acute diesel blows to terrorists, destroy them and their refuge.” And already completely forgetting that he is not only a lawyer, but also a guarantor of the constitution and that he speaks of Russian citizens who are entitled to a fair and impartial court, he reports: “He managed to unscrew their heads to the most odious bandits.” (Who proved that the “unscrewed heads” belong to the bandits, Medvedev did not specify.)

On April 2, at a meeting in the Kremlin with the heads of parties presented in the State Duma, Dmitry Medvedev is already expressed more definitely: “You said that you need to return the death penalty and those who performed this kind of actions must answer for this. You know, the question of the death penalty is a separate topic on which we have our obligations. I can tell you directly: if I worked here in the 90s, the decisions would be different. What can we tell about this now? But the one who committed these monstrous atrocities will answer for this his life, even despite the lack of death. ”

Thus, the appearance of a politician who is not only incontinent to the language is formed, but believes:

- that criminal problems can be solved in an extrajudicial way;

- that it is possible to violate the international obligations accepted by Russia to abandon the death penalty;

- What can be ignored by the decision of the Constitutional Court.

In fact, the President of Russia launched a lawless campaign. He will be applauded by those who, for their unsettled life and personal failures, are ready to account with Caucasians, Asians, Negro, Jews, Democrats, journalists, gays, foreigners, intellectuals and generally with everyone who is at least something different from themselves. If the president of the country calls not to judge, but to destroy, then why not, albeit at his own level, do not do a person from the street?

At first glance, it seems that this position of the president is dictated by a simple desire to please the public. It is believed that the Russian people welcome tough solutions and love the harsh style of leadership. Perhaps this is just a myth that the authorities creates using controlled sociological services and controlled press. But even if it is only a myth, many people believe in it, which is why it becomes a real factor in socio-political life. Predictive brutality, supposedly, so dear to the people - this is the simplest explanation of the current behavior of the president. But there is another. We turn to historical analogies.

The revolutionary Jacobin dictatorship established in France, established in France, justified the terror with the machinations of the "enemies of the revolution and the republic, sympathized with tyranny." A law was adopted that ordered to take all the “suspicious”. These, first of all, were relatives of emigrants, as well as all those who were suspected by the commissars of the Convention. The prisons were filled with "suspicious." Loud political processes followed one after another. The judicial procedure in its traditional sense has practically disappeared. The executions have become a mass phenomenon. For a year and a half, the Jacobin dictatorship for the sake of the "public good" and the protection of the country from internal and external enemies drowned France in the blood. Years later, society came to the understanding that the majority of accusations of treason and sympathy of the monarchy were far -fetched, fictitious, falsified. They were just a pretext for political reprisals and a means of struggle for power.

The Stalinist terror of the 30s-50s in the USSR was also motivated by the need to protect the country from internal (“fifth column”) and external (imperialist environment) enemies. Patriotic hysteria was artificially brought to incredible proportions, when the most ordinary people, intimidated by a fictional threat, demanded to shoot, “like frantic dogs” of those who were declared an “enemy of the people”. The preliminary investigation in political matters was reduced to torture, and in many cases the court was replaced by a formal and even correspondence procedure. This was explained by the need for effective measures in an emergency. Years later, society came to the understanding that millions of people were doomed to death completely innocently, only in order to preserve the communist dictatorship and personal power of Stalin.

Today, President Medvedev advocates the effectiveness of anti -terrorism measures, accompanied by a simplified approach to laws and court. Will it be amazing if years later it turns out that most of the “destroyed terrorists” were civilians who are not related to terror? What is the rejection of the judicial procedure regarding the “most dangerous” are just an excuse for the implementation of personal political plans? Do we not see today that many of the “militants” killed in the place of “militants” are ordinary peaceful people who were easily killed and then laid their weapons next to their corpses?

Terrorists and power, mutually complementing each other, create an atmosphere of fear in our society, which paralyzes the will, compassion and the desire for legality. It is in such an atmosphere that it is easiest to deal with political opponents and strengthen personal or clan power.

We will not say that the destruction of terrorists without a trial allows you to cover traces and hide signs of falsification or even provocation of a crime. We will not say that the call for mass killings of citizens is a criminal offense. Let's see how representatives of the authorities use a tense social situation.

The State Duma immediately raised the issue of introducing the death penalty into an article on terrorism. This is despite the fact that De Facto is not applied in court in the country. MP Schlegel instantly faded, who proposed to ban the media to quote the words of terrorists. Aggressive xenophobia becomes a real factor in our life. In the Moscow metro, it is called to identify "suspicious citizens of mainly the Caucasian nationality." The prosecutor’s office, so active in all other cases of inciting national growth, this time carefully keeps silent.

Against the backdrop of such events, all kinds of talk about the reform of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were somehow drunk. After all, how surprisingly Medvedev’s intentions coincided to reduce the number of police by 20% and the attacks that occurred. On March 24, the Minister of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev vowed vowed by April 1 to post a new concept of police on the website of his ministry on the website of his ministry. And March 29 - terrorist attacks. On the website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, they did not hang anything. Where is that concept now? Who remembers her? Nobody is already stuttering about the reform of other power and law enforcement agencies. What reforms - the Fatherland in danger!

Okay, with reforms, in general, it was clear from the very beginning. Bad different. Enthlastic reprisals practiced by the authorities of different levels are a fairly common phenomenon. Sometimes it is the initiative of loners, especially zealous police officers or maniacs who decided to replace the law. Sometimes it is the squadrons of death, the murder of opposition, reprisals by the hands of the criminal world organized by state power. In different countries, even legal and democratic, it was different. However, it was infrequently possible to see that the president of the country publicly proclaimed terrorist in essence. Thus, he sets an example of lawlessness to the whole country. And bad examples, alas, are contagious.

Photo by RIA Novosti