U.S. long concerned by Khodorkovsky trial, cables on WikiLeaks show

[Joanne98]

Source: CNN

(CNN) -- Russia has hit back at criticism by western governments of the guilty verdict against former oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky on embezzlement charges. But diplomatic cables obtained by the website WikiLeaks suggest the United States has long regarded Khodorkovsky's trial as part of a broader assault on the rule of law in Russia.

Following the verdict Monday, the White House criticized what it called the application of "selective justice" in Russia, prompting the Foreign Ministry in Moscow to fire back: "Attempts to exert pressure on the court are unacceptable."

A cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow from December last year published by WikiLeaks noted that prosecutors were going to great lengths "to place a 'rule of law' gloss on a politically motivated trial." But the same cable added: "Despite the case's wide implications, it continues to be a cause celebre only for foreigners and a minority of Russians."

Khodorkovsky has been in jail since 2003, and was first convicted in 2005 on charges of tax evasion and fraud.



Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/28/russia.wikileaks.khodorkovsky/?hpt=T2

---

Rule of law? You got to be kidding!

[Dover]

1. Ditto...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4675093

[Octafish]

2. Who's next? Neil Bush?

Doubt it. And I doubt it will be Gospodin Boris Berezhovsky.

Know your BFEE: Neil Bush hangs out with Russian Mafiya Godfather

"Selective justice" is right.

In Russia and the USA, it's like pepper -- Truth is sprinkled about in the tiniest portions.

PS: Thanks for a most important post, Joanne98. Not trying to hijack -- just piling on.

[Fool Count]

3. What exactly is the nature of the US' complaint?

They don't claim that an innocent one is being jailed, do they? They seem to be saying that
there are other thieves in Russia, who are not being prosecuted. That's the only way to interpret
that "selective justice" accusation. Isn't justice applications always "selective" to some extent?
Don't US prosecutors have discretion on which cases to bring to court or not? Just because it is
impossible to put all thieves in jail, it doesn't mean that all of them (or any particular one) should
go free, does it? Are they demanding that any thieve should be granted automatic immunity just by
virtue of being "in opposition" to Russian government? Does then anyone claiming to be "in opposition"
gets a carte blanch on all his illegal deeds? Do they pretend that shielding friendly/useful criminals
from prosecution is a uniquely Russian custom? Help me out, I am confused here.

[bemildred]

4. The implication is that there is bias in the application of the law,

and that therefore it is unfair, as with blacks in the USA, for example. In this particular Russian case, it is a fatuous claim, this is a dispute among the Russian ruling elites, a political fight. Certainly a dirty fight, but that is usual.

[go west young man]

5. Your totally correct.

The U.S. is just pissed because he was their man. He sold all the Russian oil off after the fall
and his dealings were with the West. Putin restored the oil industry back to Russian hands to
keep the money in the country and rebuild their economy (which is working very well by the way.)
He was just the biggest greediest oligarch who had profited the most so they made an example of him.
Remember when Cheney went to the Baltic States and the media started focusing on Putin for kissing
a boy on the belly? It was right after Putin had restored the oil profits into Russian hands. Just look
at Dirty Dick and you can see where this all really came from. Now Russia is on the upswing and our
"oil oligarch's" are pissed. Fuck em I say. Russia lost roughly 27 million people in WW2 and have
been treated poorly by the West for ages. They deserve their day.