Revenge on the list

The "Magnitsky Law" was adopted by the vast majority of votes in both wards of Congress. It seems that his initiator Ben Ben Cardin did not expect such success. Apparently, Moscow also had the calculation that the “lame” session of important decisions, as a rule, did not make, and in the congress of the new convocation this wet will begin to wind first.

But the lower house controlled by the Republicans pushed events. The Senate had a choice: to accept his own version of the law and then bring both versions to the common denominator in the conciliation commission (this is precisely the usual procedure) or to vote for the option of the lower house. In the first case, the process would drag on. The Senate version was global: officials could be included in the Magnitsky list not only in Russia, but also of any country where human rights and power are maliciously violated above the law. But the lobbyists, representing the interests primarily of China, launched frenzied activity, trying to prevent such a development of events. In the end, senators chose the second path.

Of the four senators who voted against, three democrats and one independent. Only one of them explained his motives - Democrat Karl Levin. It was not suitable that the principle of universality was not observed in the project. In his statement, he indicated that the relevant committees of the Senate - on international affairs and finances - approved the global version. Congress, from his point of view, missed the opportunity to establish a single standard for the whole world.

He answered, speaking at the plenary meeting, the consumer of the bill Republican John Kail. “I will not allow the best to become a good enemy,” he said. On that and decided.

The administration of Barack Obama, until the last opportunity, resisted the adoption of the law in any editorial office. And only when it became completely clear that the law would be adopted, the White House made it clear that the president would sign it. Even if Obama took advantage of his right Veto, Congress would easily overcome it: this requires two -thirds of the votes in each of the chambers, and the "Law of Magnitsky" gathered much more. “The Magnitsky Law,” said Orrin Hatch, rescuer, republican, “we need us to catch the holes of President Obama.”

As a result, the presidentsaid that “with impatience” is waiting for the opportunity to sign a law on the normalization of trade relations with Russia and Moldova, in the text of which the “Magnitsky Law” is incorporated. He praised Congress for fruitful work on an inter -party basis and made the main emphasis on the economic benefits of this decision for the United States. Only in the last phrase of the application, the president is somewhat bashfully assures that his administration "will continue to work with Congress and our partners in order to support the desire for the free and democratic future of Russia and the leading of the rule of law and respect for human rights in the whole world."

If the administration will continue to work on these issues in the same way as it has been working until now, fighters for freedom around the world will have to wait for the promised four years - until the next elections.

Of course, the news of the adoption of the law caused an irritated reaction of Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry published on this occasion a statement , designed in a familiar racaby style of not even Brezhnevsky, but the Khrushchev-Vyshinsky Shit. The debate and voting in the Senate are called in it "a performance in the theater of absurdity." American lawmakers, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, demonstrated "only an vengeful desire to count for the fundamental, consistent line of Russia in world affairs," but "their efforts look sorry."

If "look sorry", then what is such a hysterical tone? As always in such situations, the authors of this text involuntarily speak. “Each country,” they write, “and can close the entrance to its territory, to whom he considers necessary, for which no special legislative acts are required.”

That's the point. American consulates completely refuse to enter the United States to ordinary citizens of Russia, not complicating themselves with an explanation of the reasons for the refusal, and the Russian Foreign Ministry has nothing against, does not protest and does not threaten its "symmetrical and asymmetric reaction." But in this case, the interests of the ruling class of Russia are affected, and very sensitively, and its representatives, as you know, are “equally more equal to other citizens.

The chairman of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Alexei Pushkov is already holding two reaction options ready . One is a list of "US citizens related to violation of the rights of Russian citizens abroad." Another is to make Americans unawy in Russia who participated in human rights violations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and generally everywhere in the world. This second option, apparently, is an asymmetric answer. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov confirmed that Moscow would close the entrance to the Americans guilty of violation of human rights.

In September, Vladimir Putin warned Washington that in the case of the adoption of the Magnitsky Law, Moscow would have to ”announce the list of officials of the other side that took such measures against Russia.” Does this mean that in the "Magnitsky Anti -Spokes" should now be introduced by all members of the Congress who voted for the law, plus President Obama, who recently subscribes him? I'm afraid even Pushkov and Lavrov will seem too asymmetric such an answer.

The list of persons who are closed to the entrance to the United States will be sent to Congress by the president, and apparently to draw up the State Department. Not all names in it will be publicized - part will be classified for reasons of national security.

Some American lawyers are already rubbing their hands - they believe that the inclusion on the list can be challenged in court. Of course, a visa refusal cannot be protested - there is no law that would oblige the US government to give visas to foreigners. However, the "law of Magnitsky" also provides for the freezing of property, and this is a violation of the fifth amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "No one should lose life, freedom or property without a legal trial." But, as the former legal adviser of the State Department is expressed , it is extremely difficult to climb this “cool slide”: you can sue the federal department, and in this case it is not.

However, the president can exclude a person from the list by a number of grounds with his power. This can happen, in particular, if he receives “reliable information” that the person was mistaken by mistake, or if it turns out that he is properly punished. But in this second case, he still will not receive an American visa: to persons who have a criminal record for serious crimes, entry into the United States is closed, and in practice they will not even give a visa to the convicted person for store theft.