Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Macanudo · October 26, 2022

26 minutes ago, RPM said:

Was I the only one waiting for those to explode shortly after liftoff?

The Dog · October 26, 2022

texastough · October 26, 2022

SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!!!

statsman · October 26, 2022

Quote

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-ca ... _lead_pos6

Russian Cash Can Keep Ukraine Alive This Winter
There’s precedent for transferring the more than $300 billion in frozen reserves as compensation.
By Robert B. Zoellick
Oct. 26, 2022 12:17 pm ET

Countries win wars through economic resilience, not by force of arms alone. Ukraine’s army is winning battles, but its economy faces a bitter winter. Vladimir Putin knows this, which is why he is bombarding the country’s energy infrastructure. To strengthen Kyiv’s economic hand, the U.S. and the Group of Seven partners need to change Mr. Putin’s calculus. They must force him to recognize that he can’t break Ukraine and that the economic costs of his war will be turned against him.

This week the German government and European Commission hosted a conference in Berlin on Ukraine’s economic plight. Like a similar event in July, the meeting was long on good intentions and short on practical results. Despite references to a Marshall Plan for Kyiv, attendees forgot what the former secretary of state said in his 1947 speech announcing his plan for a war-ravaged Europe: “The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate.”

Kyiv is fighting a war while coping with losses similar to those of the Great Depression. The country’s economy will shrink by about one-third this year, as inflation has wreaked havoc and tax revenues have collapsed. Kyiv needs about $5 billion a month to cover nonmilitary spending. Out of 43 million Ukrainians, some seven million have become refugees and another seven million have fled within the country.

Mr. Putin has bet that the initial surge of Ukrainian adrenaline would give way to fatigue. The U.S. needs to help turn that gamble against him, which it can do without any direct military intervention.

The U.S. should deploy its best asymmetrical weapon: financial power. In cooperation with its G-7 allies, the U.S. should begin the process under the international law of transferring the more than $300 billion in frozen Russian reserves to Ukraine and other afflicted countries as compensation for Mr. Putin’s aggression.

Various scholars, such as University of Virginia professor Philip Zelikow and Anton Moiseienko of Australian National University, have mapped out how this may work in practice. As Messrs. Zelikow and Moiseienko identify, the United Nations General Assembly recognized in 2002 the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

In combination with several U.N. resolutions and a ruling from the International Court of Justice that have found that Russia has waged a war of aggression, those articles establish the international legal basis for transferring Russia’s reserves to Ukraine. In doing so, the U.S. and allied countries wouldn’t be taking Russian reserves for themselves; they would transfer them to an international fund for compensation.

The U.S. should also propose to the U.N. that frozen Russian reserves could finance a U.N. claims commission to compensate low-income countries victimized by Russia’s shock to food supplies. There’s precedent for such a decision. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, a U.N. commission awarded more than $50 billion to more than a million claimants, including funds to Kuwait, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia for environmental claims.

Sen. James Risch (R., Idaho), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been working with colleagues of both parties on legislation to authorize the transfer. After granting almost $60 billion for Ukraine, Congress and the public can reasonably ask why the U.S. shouldn’t transfer Russian money to Ukraine.

Mr. Putin has violated fundamental international rules and endangered the security of all nations. He’s sought not only to overrun a neighbor but to annex its occupied lands. He has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, not as a deterrent, but as an offensive weapon in a war of conquest. His war has cost poor countries the ability to feed the hungry by disrupting the grain trade.

A U.S.-led financial assault could effectively turn the tables on Mr. Putin and give Ukraine a lifeline to survive and rebuild.

Some Western policy makers are likely to have reservations about the approach. Some may worry, for example, that Russia will retaliate by seizing foreign assets. But it has already done so. If Russia turns to sabotage, it should be forced to pay.

Others may argue that a transfer of Russian reserves risks confidence in the U.S. dollar. But countries hold dollar reserves for reasons of macroeconomic stability, not so they can invade neighbors. China may worry about holding dollar reserves, but Beijing would already substitute other reserves if it could. Its turn toward self-sufficiency and market controls won’t help it create an alternative reserve currency. China and other countries hold dollars because they sell more to the U.S. than they buy. If they dump dollars, they will shrink their sales and economies.

A transfer of Russian reserves respects international law. It also represents a potential item in negotiations to end the war. If Mr. Putin reaches a settlement, Moscow may be able to recover some of its reserves.

The U.S. needs to reset the strategic chessboard. Washington can change the terms of battle by using its strongest economic weapon. By relying on international law, the U.S. would also reinforce the rules-based order that Russia wants to destroy. That would achieve justice as well as peace.

Mr. Zoellick served as U.S. trade representative (2001-05), deputy U.S. secretary of state (2005-06) and World Bank president (2007-12). He is the author of “America in the World

Good idea from the WSJ

MissingInAction · October 26, 2022

18 minutes ago, statsman said:

Good idea from the WSJ

Yoink!

The Dog · October 26, 2022

(sound on)

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt · October 26, 2022

5 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

This seems bad.

You're worried about the dudes that folded after like 24 hours of fighting on their own?

Bevo · October 26, 2022

58 minutes ago, statsman said:

In combination with several U.N. resolutions and a ruling from the International Court of Justice that have found that Russia has waged a war of aggression, those articles establish the international legal basis for transferring Russia’s reserves to Ukraine. In doing so, the U.S. and allied countries wouldn’t be taking Russian reserves for themselves; they would transfer them to an international fund for compensation.

The U.S. should also propose to the U.N. that frozen Russian reserves could finance a U.N. claims commission to compensate low-income countries victimized by Russia’s shock to food supplies. There’s precedent for such a decision. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, a U.N. commission awarded more than $50 billion to more than a million claimants, including funds to Kuwait, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia for environmental claims.

With Russia a permanent member of the UN, I don't get how this would work. Also, Russia is going to tell its citizens that Ukraine and the West are stealing from them. As the people inside Russia suffer, they will be more willing to mobilize against Ukraine and it would become easier for Russia to use unconventional weapons of mass destruction. So, I think if the West is going to go this route that it needs to wait until the war is over to redistribute the money. This too is a problem as Russia will probably end up in ruins and need rebuilding as well (mainly to protect the nukes) if there is anarchy.

Nivek · October 26, 2022

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-ca ... _lead_pos6

Russian Cash Can Keep Ukraine Alive This Winter
There’s precedent for transferring the more than $300 billion in frozen reserves as compensation.
By Robert B. Zoellick
Oct. 26, 2022 12:17 pm ET

Countries win wars through economic resilience, not by force of arms alone. Ukraine’s army is winning battles, but its economy faces a bitter winter. Vladimir Putin knows this, which is why he is bombarding the country’s energy infrastructure. To strengthen Kyiv’s economic hand, the U.S. and the Group of Seven partners need to change Mr. Putin’s calculus. They must force him to recognize that he can’t break Ukraine and that the economic costs of his war will be turned against him.

This week the German government and European Commission hosted a conference in Berlin on Ukraine’s economic plight. Like a similar event in July, the meeting was long on good intentions and short on practical results. Despite references to a Marshall Plan for Kyiv, attendees forgot what the former secretary of state said in his 1947 speech announcing his plan for a war-ravaged Europe: “The patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate.”

Kyiv is fighting a war while coping with losses similar to those of the Great Depression. The country’s economy will shrink by about one-third this year, as inflation has wreaked havoc and tax revenues have collapsed. Kyiv needs about $5 billion a month to cover nonmilitary spending. Out of 43 million Ukrainians, some seven million have become refugees and another seven million have fled within the country.

Mr. Putin has bet that the initial surge of Ukrainian adrenaline would give way to fatigue. The U.S. needs to help turn that gamble against him, which it can do without any direct military intervention.

The U.S. should deploy its best asymmetrical weapon: financial power. In cooperation with its G-7 allies, the U.S. should begin the process under the international law of transferring the more than $300 billion in frozen Russian reserves to Ukraine and other afflicted countries as compensation for Mr. Putin’s aggression.

Various scholars, such as University of Virginia professor Philip Zelikow and Anton Moiseienko of Australian National University, have mapped out how this may work in practice. As Messrs. Zelikow and Moiseienko identify, the United Nations General Assembly recognized in 2002 the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

In combination with several U.N. resolutions and a ruling from the International Court of Justice that have found that Russia has waged a war of aggression, those articles establish the international legal basis for transferring Russia’s reserves to Ukraine. In doing so, the U.S. and allied countries wouldn’t be taking Russian reserves for themselves; they would transfer them to an international fund for compensation.

The U.S. should also propose to the U.N. that frozen Russian reserves could finance a U.N. claims commission to compensate low-income countries victimized by Russia’s shock to food supplies. There’s precedent for such a decision. After Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, a U.N. commission awarded more than $50 billion to more than a million claimants, including funds to Kuwait, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia for environmental claims.

Sen. James Risch (R., Idaho), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, has been working with colleagues of both parties on legislation to authorize the transfer. After granting almost $60 billion for Ukraine, Congress and the public can reasonably ask why the U.S. shouldn’t transfer Russian money to Ukraine.

Mr. Putin has violated fundamental international rules and endangered the security of all nations. He’s sought not only to overrun a neighbor but to annex its occupied lands. He has threatened the use of nuclear weapons, not as a deterrent, but as an offensive weapon in a war of conquest. His war has cost poor countries the ability to feed the hungry by disrupting the grain trade.

A U.S.-led financial assault could effectively turn the tables on Mr. Putin and give Ukraine a lifeline to survive and rebuild.

Some Western policy makers are likely to have reservations about the approach. Some may worry, for example, that Russia will retaliate by seizing foreign assets. But it has already done so. If Russia turns to sabotage, it should be forced to pay.

Others may argue that a transfer of Russian reserves risks confidence in the U.S. dollar. But countries hold dollar reserves for reasons of macroeconomic stability, not so they can invade neighbors. China may worry about holding dollar reserves, but Beijing would already substitute other reserves if it could. Its turn toward self-sufficiency and market controls won’t help it create an alternative reserve currency. China and other countries hold dollars because they sell more to the U.S. than they buy. If they dump dollars, they will shrink their sales and economies.

A transfer of Russian reserves respects international law. It also represents a potential item in negotiations to end the war. If Mr. Putin reaches a settlement, Moscow may be able to recover some of its reserves.

The U.S. needs to reset the strategic chessboard. Washington can change the terms of battle by using its strongest economic weapon. By relying on international law, the U.S. would also reinforce the rules-based order that Russia wants to destroy. That would achieve justice as well as peace.

Mr. Zoellick served as U.S. trade representative (2001-05), deputy U.S. secretary of state (2005-06) and World Bank president (2007-12). He is the author of “America in the World

Good idea from the WSJ

We have said this from the outset. It only took wsj 8 months to catch up.

atomheartbevo · October 26, 2022

32 minutes ago, Bevo said:

As the people inside Russia suffer, they will be more willing to mobilize against Ukraine and it would become easier for Russia to use unconventional weapons of mass destruction.

No they won’t. They’ve had 8 months of Putin’s bullshit and nutty talking points from Russian state TV. If they were not willing to enlist before now, they aren’t going to voluntarily, and it’ll be back to cops pulling people at random off of subway trains, regardless of whether they served or were medically fit. Yes, the 700,000+ who are most opposed have fled the country already, but it’s pretty clear hundreds of thousands more would have fled if they had the financial means.

And Russia has yet shown they are capable of even supplying proper gear to the masses they mobilized, so mobilizing even more people doesn’t seem feasible.

SydneyCarton · October 26, 2022

1 hour ago, Bevo said:

With Russia a permanent member of the UN, I don't get how this would work. Also, Russia is going to tell its citizens that Ukraine and the West are stealing from them. As the people inside Russia suffer, they will be more willing to mobilize against Ukraine and it would become easier for Russia to use unconventional weapons of mass destruction. So, I think if the West is going to go this route that it needs to wait until the war is over to redistribute the money. This too is a problem as Russia will probably end up in ruins and need rebuilding as well (mainly to protect the nukes) if there is anarchy.

So basically we shouldn't do this because you're worried that Russian media is going to lie to Russians about something the "west" is doing to them? Well that makes perfect sense...if you've been exclusively huffing paint fumes for a few straight months. And you think us doing this, as opposed to literally any other thing, might push Russia to use unconventional weapons? That is the situation as it sits currently. Fucking pull yourself together.

LOL at a bunch of poor fucking russians sprinting to a recruitment office (as if there are any left) because RT tells them that the west stole a bunch of Oligarch money.

Edited October 26, 2022 by SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton · October 26, 2022

2 hours ago, texastough said:

SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING!!!

The large flaw in this dude's thinking is his assumption that everyone receives inhumane treatment when captured. Uh, no, buddy, just when you're captured by Russians. Being a Ukrainian POW is probably better than the life that dude had in some rural fucking village in Siberia. HOT WATER, OH SHIT

Bevo · October 26, 2022

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

So basically we shouldn't do this because you're worried that Russian media is going to lie to Russians about something the "west" is doing to them? Well that makes perfect sense...if you've been exclusively huffing paint fumes for a few straight months. And you think us doing this, as opposed to literally any other thing, might push Russia to use unconventional weapons? That is the situation as it sits currently. Fucking pull yourself together.

Nah, just pontificating. I would say the pros outweigh the cons. But, getting the UN to do anything is wasted breath. So if it is the West unilaterally doing it, I am sure there will be consequences. For example, what happens when we get into an unpopular war? Articles, for the most part, skip some of the most important questions to drive home their point.

SydneyCarton · October 26, 2022

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Nah, just pontificating. I would say the pros outweigh the cons. But, getting the UN to do anything is wasted breath. So if it is the West unilaterally doing it, I am sure there will be consequences. For example, what happens when we get into an unpopular war? Articles, for the most part, skip some of the most important questions to drive home their point.

What are you talking about her? "What happens when we get into an unpopular war?" Well, what made it unpopular? Did we side with a nation of violent, Ryan Day-style Pederasts? What articles or what point are you talking about? I legit have no idea what you're talking about her. But I do know "We shouldn't try to do something good for Ukraine because Russia might keep doing what they've been doing for months" doesn't seem like a great idea.

Whether the UN gets it done is an entirely different scenario. But again, that isn't a reason to not try. I'd love for us to find ways to kick Russia off the Security Council too.

Bevo · October 26, 2022

29 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What are you talking about her? "What happens when we get into an unpopular war?" Well, what made it unpopular? Did we side with a nation of violent, Ryan Day-style Pederasts? What articles or what point are you talking about? I legit have no idea what you're talking about her. But I do know "We shouldn't try to do something good for Ukraine because Russia might keep doing what they've been doing for months" doesn't seem like a great idea.

Whether the UN gets it done is an entirely different scenario. But again, that isn't a reason to not try. I'd love for us to find ways to kick Russia off the Security Council too.

Maybe this article helps with some of the negatives to redistributing seized assets:

https://ktla.com/news/no-biden-cant-just-sell-off-seized-russian-yachts-and-central-bank-assets-to-help-aid-ukraine-international-law-and-the-us-constitution-forbid-it/

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it

by: Paul B. Stephan John C. Jeffries Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law and David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia, The Conversation, Nexstar Media Wire

Posted: May 7, 2022 / 04:49 PM PDT

Updated: May 7, 2022 / 04:50 PM PDT

The Biden administration wants to sell off the yachts, homes and other luxury assets it has seized from Russian oligarchs and use those proceeds to support reparations for Ukraine.

As part of his proposal for the latest aid package to Ukraine, President Joe Biden is asking lawmakers for the authority to formally confiscate the assets of sanctioned oligarchs to pay to “remedy the harm Russia caused … and help build Ukraine.” The House has already passed a bill urging Biden to sell the assets, but it didn’t specifically give him the authority to do so.

Others have encouraged the administration to sell off the tens of billions of dollars in Russian central bank assets it has frozen. It’s not clear from the White House statement whether Biden plans to go after state-owned assets too.

That he has gone to Congress to get permission indicates that his lawyers believe, as do I, that current law permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis.

I’ve studied and practiced international law for several decades and advised the departments of State and Defense on issues like this one. The idea of forcing Russia to pay reparations for the harm to Ukraine has obvious appeal. But the U.S. needs to comply with constitutional and international law when it does so.

Freezing vs. confiscating

You might ask what the difference is between seizing or freezing property – forbidding anyone to dispose of or use an asset or take income from it – and confiscating it.

Freezing destroys the economic benefits of ownership. But the owner at least retains the hope that, when the conflict is over and the freeze order ends, the property – or its equivalent in money – will return. Confiscation means selling off the property and giving the proceeds, along with any cash seized, to a designated beneficiary – in this case, people acting on behalf of Ukraine.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis. Congress adopted this law to replace the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, which gave the president much broader power to take action against U.S. adversaries in and out of war.

Since then, the U.S. has frequently used the power to seize assets belonging to foreign individuals or nations as an economic sanction to punish what it considers bad behavior. For example, after Iran stormed and seized the American embassy in Tehran, the U.S. government seized billions of dollars in Iranian assets in the U.S, including cash and property. The U.S. has also frozen assets of Venezuela and the Taliban over ties to terrorism and Russian individuals considered responsible for human rights violations, thanks to the Magnitsky Act.

In all these cases, the United States held on to the foreign property rather than sell it off. In some cases, it used the seized property as a bargaining chip toward a future settlement. In 2016, the Obama administration famously returned US$400 million to Iran that the U.S. had seized after the embassy siege in 1979 – delivering stacks of Swiss francs stuffed inside a Boeing 737. In other cases, the assets remain under government control, administered by an office of the U.S. Treasury, in hope that eventually some compromise can be reached.

The Patriot Act, adopted in the wake of 9/11, created a limited exception to the confiscation ban in instances in which the United States is at war. The U.S. never has used this authority. And despite the increasingly heated rhetoric, stepped-up sanctions and growing aid for Ukraine, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.

Redressing gross violations

A fundamental principle of justice says those who cause harm while breaking the law should pay.

Related Content

In international law, we call this “reparations.” As the United Nations puts it, “Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

In recent history, victors have often forced reparations on the losers of war – as was the case following both World War I and World War II – especially when they are deemed responsible for massive death and ruin.

Russia has wrought terrible destruction in Ukraine. Several cities, including Mariupol, are all but destroyed, and evidence of war crimes in places like Bucha is mounting.

So it makes sense that so many scholars, lawmakers and others would argue that the regime of Vladimir Putin and those who benefit from his rule should help pay for it.

Some, such as Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe, argue U.S. law already allows the president to use any seized or frozen asset as reparations. But, as other experts have pointed out, doing so has serious problems. The legal issues noted above are one major hurdle and open this up to being challenged in court.

Another is political. Confiscating assets takes away important bargaining chips in any future negotiations, as they have been with Iran and other countries.

Specialists in sanctions law – including me – agree with Biden that Congress needs to pass a new law.

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law

The question then becomes what that legislation should look like to avoid running afoul of international law and the U.S. Constitution. There still seem to be several limitations on what Congress can do.

For example, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before the government can confiscate a private citizen’s property. But does this apply to property in the U.S. that belongs to a foreign citizen? The answer seems to be yes, at least according to two Supreme Court cases.

Selling off Russian state property such as central bank assets, creates other problems. International law provides a certain degree of immunity from confiscation to foreign nations and their assets overseas. Outside of wartime, confiscation of state property, including U.S. deposits of Russia’s central bank, runs up against these challenges.

A case currently before the International Court of Justice will decide whether the United States violated this rule when it used funds from frozen Iranian central bank deposits to compensate people who had won a default judgment from Iran for supporting terrorists.

[More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters. Join the list today.]

So, yes, I believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is outrageous and demands a response. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. and other countries should ride roughshod over international law and the U.S. Constitution to do so. Congress should be able to craft a law that allows some assets to be confiscated without violating due process or international law.

I predict that disregarding these issues will likely produce embarrassing judicial setbacks that will make it harder to help Ukraine down the road.

Below is an article on seizing oligarch aassets: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-does-the-u-s-take-ownership-of-russian-oligarchs-assets

SydneyCarton · October 26, 2022

3 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Maybe this article helps with some of the negatives to redistributing seized assets:

https://ktla.com/news/no-biden-cant-just-sell-off-seized-russian-yachts-and-central-bank-assets-to-help-aid-ukraine-international-law-and-the-us-constitution-forbid-it/

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it

by: Paul B. Stephan John C. Jeffries Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law and David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia, The Conversation, Nexstar Media Wire

Posted: May 7, 2022 / 04:49 PM PDT

Updated: May 7, 2022 / 04:50 PM PDT

The Biden administration wants to sell off the yachts, homes and other luxury assets it has seized from Russian oligarchs and use those proceeds to support reparations for Ukraine.

As part of his proposal for the latest aid package to Ukraine, President Joe Biden is asking lawmakers for the authority to formally confiscate the assets of sanctioned oligarchs to pay to “remedy the harm Russia caused … and help build Ukraine.” The House has already passed a bill urging Biden to sell the assets, but it didn’t specifically give him the authority to do so.

Others have encouraged the administration to sell off the tens of billions of dollars in Russian central bank assets it has frozen. It’s not clear from the White House statement whether Biden plans to go after state-owned assets too.

That he has gone to Congress to get permission indicates that his lawyers believe, as do I, that current law permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis.

I’ve studied and practiced international law for several decades and advised the departments of State and Defense on issues like this one. The idea of forcing Russia to pay reparations for the harm to Ukraine has obvious appeal. But the U.S. needs to comply with constitutional and international law when it does so.

Freezing vs. confiscating

You might ask what the difference is between seizing or freezing property – forbidding anyone to dispose of or use an asset or take income from it – and confiscating it.

Freezing destroys the economic benefits of ownership. But the owner at least retains the hope that, when the conflict is over and the freeze order ends, the property – or its equivalent in money – will return. Confiscation means selling off the property and giving the proceeds, along with any cash seized, to a designated beneficiary – in this case, people acting on behalf of Ukraine.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis. Congress adopted this law to replace the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, which gave the president much broader power to take action against U.S. adversaries in and out of war.

Since then, the U.S. has frequently used the power to seize assets belonging to foreign individuals or nations as an economic sanction to punish what it considers bad behavior. For example, after Iran stormed and seized the American embassy in Tehran, the U.S. government seized billions of dollars in Iranian assets in the U.S, including cash and property. The U.S. has also frozen assets of Venezuela and the Taliban over ties to terrorism and Russian individuals considered responsible for human rights violations, thanks to the Magnitsky Act.

In all these cases, the United States held on to the foreign property rather than sell it off. In some cases, it used the seized property as a bargaining chip toward a future settlement. In 2016, the Obama administration famously returned US$400 million to Iran that the U.S. had seized after the embassy siege in 1979 – delivering stacks of Swiss francs stuffed inside a Boeing 737. In other cases, the assets remain under government control, administered by an office of the U.S. Treasury, in hope that eventually some compromise can be reached.

The Patriot Act, adopted in the wake of 9/11, created a limited exception to the confiscation ban in instances in which the United States is at war. The U.S. never has used this authority. And despite the increasingly heated rhetoric, stepped-up sanctions and growing aid for Ukraine, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.

Redressing gross violations

A fundamental principle of justice says those who cause harm while breaking the law should pay.

Related Content

Fiji says U.S. can seize Russian superyacht worth …

U.S. seizes yacht owned by oligarch closely tied …

Russia-aligned oligarchs fleeing sanctions seek safe …

In international law, we call this “reparations.” As the United Nations puts it, “Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

In recent history, victors have often forced reparations on the losers of war – as was the case following both World War I and World War II – especially when they are deemed responsible for massive death and ruin.

Russia has wrought terrible destruction in Ukraine. Several cities, including Mariupol, are all but destroyed, and evidence of war crimes in places like Bucha is mounting.

So it makes sense that so many scholars, lawmakers and others would argue that the regime of Vladimir Putin and those who benefit from his rule should help pay for it.

Some, such as Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe, argue U.S. law already allows the president to use any seized or frozen asset as reparations. But, as other experts have pointed out, doing so has serious problems. The legal issues noted above are one major hurdle and open this up to being challenged in court.

Another is political. Confiscating assets takes away important bargaining chips in any future negotiations, as they have been with Iran and other countries.

Specialists in sanctions law – including me – agree with Biden that Congress needs to pass a new law.

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law

The question then becomes what that legislation should look like to avoid running afoul of international law and the U.S. Constitution. There still seem to be several limitations on what Congress can do.

For example, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before the government can confiscate a private citizen’s property. But does this apply to property in the U.S. that belongs to a foreign citizen? The answer seems to be yes, at least according to two Supreme Court cases.

Selling off Russian state property such as central bank assets, creates other problems. International law provides a certain degree of immunity from confiscation to foreign nations and their assets overseas. Outside of wartime, confiscation of state property, including U.S. deposits of Russia’s central bank, runs up against these challenges.

A case currently before the International Court of Justice will decide whether the United States violated this rule when it used funds from frozen Iranian central bank deposits to compensate people who had won a default judgment from Iran for supporting terrorists.

[More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters. Join the list today.]

So, yes, I believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is outrageous and demands a response. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. and other countries should ride roughshod over international law and the U.S. Constitution to do so. Congress should be able to craft a law that allows some assets to be confiscated without violating due process or international law.

I predict that disregarding these issues will likely produce embarrassing judicial setbacks that will make it harder to help Ukraine down the road.

Below is an article on seizing oligarch aassets: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-does-the-u-s-take-ownership-of-russian-oligarchs-assets

Oh, KTLA.com said it.

I mean, this guy says it's illegal. The other article literally says there's existing precedent.

Bevo · October 26, 2022

Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Oh, KTLA.com said it.

I mean, this guy says it's illegal. The other article literally says there's existing precedent.

I'm not taking either article at face value. But, I guarantee there are a lot of reasons (or one very big reason) why it hasn't already been done.

cactusflinthead · October 26, 2022

7 hours ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

This seems bad.

Unless they are bringing all their own gear and air defense and don't pay any attention to what they are told by Russian generals they can sit in squalor and die like the rest of them.

They are giving the mobiks Nagants and rusted out AKs. Ain't got food unless they steal it. No shelter unless they squat in a pig sty. And meds are non-existent if they bother to drag your ass out of the fire.

Come on down! You too can experience the wonders of Ukraine!

Viper · October 26, 2022

5 hours ago, RPM said:

That last drop is just Top Gun: Maverick level miracle Number 2.

Is it just me or is their aim getting better with these drone drops?

NorthLoop · October 26, 2022

6 minutes ago, Viper said:

Is it just me or is their aim getting better with these drone drops?

I bet those guys are good at beer pong

Jameslaw121 · October 26, 2022

3 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

You're worried about the dudes that folded after like 24 hours of fighting on their own?

But back then, they had American Equipment. Now they'll have Russian Equipment --- Advantage aggy

Edited October 26, 2022 by Jameslaw121

Scheiss Meister · October 26, 2022

16 minutes ago, Viper said:

Is it just me or is their aim getting better with these drone drops?

Or are we only seeing the best footage out of hundreds, if not thousands, of drops? These are great, but keep some perspective.

MissingInAction · October 26, 2022

1 minute ago, Scheiss Meister said:

Or are we only seeing the best footage out of hundreds, if not thousands, of drops? These are great, but keep some perspective.

Like a Quin Ewers highlight reel.

Orale · October 26, 2022

53 minutes ago, Bevo said:

I'm not taking either article at face value. But, I guarantee there are a lot of reasons (or one very big reason) why it hasn't already been done.

Nukes?

Eskimohorn · October 26, 2022

Maybe this article helps with some of the negatives to redistributing seized assets:
https://ktla.com/news/no-biden-cant-just-sell-off-seized-russian-yachts-and-central-bank-assets-to-help-aid-ukraine-international-law-and-the-us-constitution-forbid-it/

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it
by: Paul B. Stephan John C. Jeffries Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law and David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia, The Conversation, Nexstar Media Wire
Posted: May 7, 2022 / 04:49 PM PDT
Updated: May 7, 2022 / 04:50 PM PDT
The Biden administration wants to sell off the yachts, homes and other luxury assets it has seized from Russian oligarchs and use those proceeds to support reparations for Ukraine.
As part of his proposal for the latest aid package to Ukraine, President Joe Biden is asking lawmakers for the authority to formally confiscate the assets of sanctioned oligarchs to pay to “remedy the harm Russia caused … and help build Ukraine.” The House has already passed a bill urging Biden to sell the assets, but it didn’t specifically give him the authority to do so.
Others have encouraged the administration to sell off the tens of billions of dollars in Russian central bank assets it has frozen. It’s not clear from the White House statement whether Biden plans to go after state-owned assets too.
That he has gone to Congress to get permission indicates that his lawyers believe, as do I, that current law permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis.
I’ve studied and practiced international law for several decades and advised the departments of State and Defense on issues like this one. The idea of forcing Russia to pay reparations for the harm to Ukraine has obvious appeal. But the U.S. needs to comply with constitutional and international law when it does so.

Freezing vs. confiscating
You might ask what the difference is between seizing or freezing property – forbidding anyone to dispose of or use an asset or take income from it – and confiscating it.
Freezing destroys the economic benefits of ownership. But the owner at least retains the hope that, when the conflict is over and the freeze order ends, the property – or its equivalent in money – will return. Confiscation means selling off the property and giving the proceeds, along with any cash seized, to a designated beneficiary – in this case, people acting on behalf of Ukraine.
The International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis. Congress adopted this law to replace the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, which gave the president much broader power to take action against U.S. adversaries in and out of war.
Since then, the U.S. has frequently used the power to seize assets belonging to foreign individuals or nations as an economic sanction to punish what it considers bad behavior. For example, after Iran stormed and seized the American embassy in Tehran, the U.S. government seized billions of dollars in Iranian assets in the U.S, including cash and property. The U.S. has also frozen assets of Venezuela and the Taliban over ties to terrorism and Russian individuals considered responsible for human rights violations, thanks to the Magnitsky Act.
In all these cases, the United States held on to the foreign property rather than sell it off. In some cases, it used the seized property as a bargaining chip toward a future settlement. In 2016, the Obama administration famously returned US$400 million to Iran that the U.S. had seized after the embassy siege in 1979 – delivering stacks of Swiss francs stuffed inside a Boeing 737. In other cases, the assets remain under government control, administered by an office of the U.S. Treasury, in hope that eventually some compromise can be reached.
The Patriot Act, adopted in the wake of 9/11, created a limited exception to the confiscation ban in instances in which the United States is at war. The U.S. never has used this authority. And despite the increasingly heated rhetoric, stepped-up sanctions and growing aid for Ukraine, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.

Redressing gross violations
A fundamental principle of justice says those who cause harm while breaking the law should pay.

Related Content

Fiji says U.S. can seize Russian superyacht worth …

U.S. seizes yacht owned by oligarch closely tied …

Russia-aligned oligarchs fleeing sanctions seek safe …

In international law, we call this “reparations.” As the United Nations puts it, “Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
In recent history, victors have often forced reparations on the losers of war – as was the case following both World War I and World War II – especially when they are deemed responsible for massive death and ruin.
Russia has wrought terrible destruction in Ukraine. Several cities, including Mariupol, are all but destroyed, and evidence of war crimes in places like Bucha is mounting.
So it makes sense that so many scholars, lawmakers and others would argue that the regime of Vladimir Putin and those who benefit from his rule should help pay for it.
Some, such as Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe, argue U.S. law already allows the president to use any seized or frozen asset as reparations. But, as other experts have pointed out, doing so has serious problems. The legal issues noted above are one major hurdle and open this up to being challenged in court.
Another is political. Confiscating assets takes away important bargaining chips in any future negotiations, as they have been with Iran and other countries.
Specialists in sanctions law – including me – agree with Biden that Congress needs to pass a new law.

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law
The question then becomes what that legislation should look like to avoid running afoul of international law and the U.S. Constitution. There still seem to be several limitations on what Congress can do.
For example, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before the government can confiscate a private citizen’s property. But does this apply to property in the U.S. that belongs to a foreign citizen? The answer seems to be yes, at least according to two Supreme Court cases.
Selling off Russian state property such as central bank assets, creates other problems. International law provides a certain degree of immunity from confiscation to foreign nations and their assets overseas. Outside of wartime, confiscation of state property, including U.S. deposits of Russia’s central bank, runs up against these challenges.
A case currently before the International Court of Justice will decide whether the United States violated this rule when it used funds from frozen Iranian central bank deposits to compensate people who had won a default judgment from Iran for supporting terrorists.
[More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters. Join the list today.]
So, yes, I believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is outrageous and demands a response. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. and other countries should ride roughshod over international law and the U.S. Constitution to do so. Congress should be able to craft a law that allows some assets to be confiscated without violating due process or international law.
I predict that disregarding these issues will likely produce embarrassing judicial setbacks that will make it harder to help Ukraine down the road.

Below is an article on seizing oligarch aassets: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-does-the-u-s-take-ownership-of-russian-oligarchs-assets

Sadly, it could literally be a nuclear option

MissingInAction · October 26, 2022

8 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Sadly, it could literally be a nuclear option

Long cat that bullshit!

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt · October 26, 2022

29 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Like a Quin Ewers highlight reel.

Too soon.

Pescado_Rojo · October 26, 2022

59 minutes ago, Viper said:

Is it just me or is their aim getting better with these drone drops?

They have a little dot of tape on their screen to help their aim, like my son playing COD.

Bevo · October 26, 2022

50 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:

Sadly, it could literally be a nuclear option

Funny - not funny. I was about to type that no one is crazy enough to shoot off nukes due to losing money. Then, I was like hitting the backspace and thinking maybe there is someone that fucking dumb.

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

^This is actually pretty amazing.

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

Deej · October 26, 2022

2 hours ago, Bevo said:

Maybe this article helps with some of the negatives to redistributing seized assets:

https://ktla.com/news/no-biden-cant-just-sell-off-seized-russian-yachts-and-central-bank-assets-to-help-aid-ukraine-international-law-and-the-us-constitution-forbid-it/

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it

by: Paul B. Stephan John C. Jeffries Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law and David H. Ibbeken '71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia, The Conversation, Nexstar Media Wire

Posted: May 7, 2022 / 04:49 PM PDT

Updated: May 7, 2022 / 04:50 PM PDT

The Biden administration wants to sell off the yachts, homes and other luxury assets it has seized from Russian oligarchs and use those proceeds to support reparations for Ukraine.

As part of his proposal for the latest aid package to Ukraine, President Joe Biden is asking lawmakers for the authority to formally confiscate the assets of sanctioned oligarchs to pay to “remedy the harm Russia caused … and help build Ukraine.” The House has already passed a bill urging Biden to sell the assets, but it didn’t specifically give him the authority to do so.

Others have encouraged the administration to sell off the tens of billions of dollars in Russian central bank assets it has frozen. It’s not clear from the White House statement whether Biden plans to go after state-owned assets too.

That he has gone to Congress to get permission indicates that his lawyers believe, as do I, that current law permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis.

I’ve studied and practiced international law for several decades and advised the departments of State and Defense on issues like this one. The idea of forcing Russia to pay reparations for the harm to Ukraine has obvious appeal. But the U.S. needs to comply with constitutional and international law when it does so.

Freezing vs. confiscating

You might ask what the difference is between seizing or freezing property – forbidding anyone to dispose of or use an asset or take income from it – and confiscating it.

Freezing destroys the economic benefits of ownership. But the owner at least retains the hope that, when the conflict is over and the freeze order ends, the property – or its equivalent in money – will return. Confiscation means selling off the property and giving the proceeds, along with any cash seized, to a designated beneficiary – in this case, people acting on behalf of Ukraine.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act of 1977 permits only freezing, and not selling, foreign property in the course of an international crisis. Congress adopted this law to replace the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, which gave the president much broader power to take action against U.S. adversaries in and out of war.

Since then, the U.S. has frequently used the power to seize assets belonging to foreign individuals or nations as an economic sanction to punish what it considers bad behavior. For example, after Iran stormed and seized the American embassy in Tehran, the U.S. government seized billions of dollars in Iranian assets in the U.S, including cash and property. The U.S. has also frozen assets of Venezuela and the Taliban over ties to terrorism and Russian individuals considered responsible for human rights violations, thanks to the Magnitsky Act.

In all these cases, the United States held on to the foreign property rather than sell it off. In some cases, it used the seized property as a bargaining chip toward a future settlement. In 2016, the Obama administration famously returned US$400 million to Iran that the U.S. had seized after the embassy siege in 1979 – delivering stacks of Swiss francs stuffed inside a Boeing 737. In other cases, the assets remain under government control, administered by an office of the U.S. Treasury, in hope that eventually some compromise can be reached.

The Patriot Act, adopted in the wake of 9/11, created a limited exception to the confiscation ban in instances in which the United States is at war. The U.S. never has used this authority. And despite the increasingly heated rhetoric, stepped-up sanctions and growing aid for Ukraine, the U.S. is not at war with Russia.

Redressing gross violations

A fundamental principle of justice says those who cause harm while breaking the law should pay.

Related Content

Fiji says U.S. can seize Russian superyacht worth …

U.S. seizes yacht owned by oligarch closely tied …

Russia-aligned oligarchs fleeing sanctions seek safe …

In international law, we call this “reparations.” As the United Nations puts it, “Adequate, effective and prompt reparation is intended to promote justice by redressing gross violations of international human rights law or serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

In recent history, victors have often forced reparations on the losers of war – as was the case following both World War I and World War II – especially when they are deemed responsible for massive death and ruin.

Russia has wrought terrible destruction in Ukraine. Several cities, including Mariupol, are all but destroyed, and evidence of war crimes in places like Bucha is mounting.

So it makes sense that so many scholars, lawmakers and others would argue that the regime of Vladimir Putin and those who benefit from his rule should help pay for it.

Some, such as Harvard legal scholar Laurence Tribe, argue U.S. law already allows the president to use any seized or frozen asset as reparations. But, as other experts have pointed out, doing so has serious problems. The legal issues noted above are one major hurdle and open this up to being challenged in court.

Another is political. Confiscating assets takes away important bargaining chips in any future negotiations, as they have been with Iran and other countries.

Specialists in sanctions law – including me – agree with Biden that Congress needs to pass a new law.

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law

The question then becomes what that legislation should look like to avoid running afoul of international law and the U.S. Constitution. There still seem to be several limitations on what Congress can do.

For example, the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees due process before the government can confiscate a private citizen’s property. But does this apply to property in the U.S. that belongs to a foreign citizen? The answer seems to be yes, at least according to two Supreme Court cases.

Selling off Russian state property such as central bank assets, creates other problems. International law provides a certain degree of immunity from confiscation to foreign nations and their assets overseas. Outside of wartime, confiscation of state property, including U.S. deposits of Russia’s central bank, runs up against these challenges.

A case currently before the International Court of Justice will decide whether the United States violated this rule when it used funds from frozen Iranian central bank deposits to compensate people who had won a default judgment from Iran for supporting terrorists.

[More than 150,000 readers get one of The Conversation’s informative newsletters. Join the list today.]

So, yes, I believe that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is outrageous and demands a response. But that doesn’t mean the U.S. and other countries should ride roughshod over international law and the U.S. Constitution to do so. Congress should be able to craft a law that allows some assets to be confiscated without violating due process or international law.

I predict that disregarding these issues will likely produce embarrassing judicial setbacks that will make it harder to help Ukraine down the road.

Below is an article on seizing oligarch aassets: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-does-the-u-s-take-ownership-of-russian-oligarchs-assets

Yet it legal here for cops to seize your assets and sell them even if it is proven you committed no crime.

Edited October 26, 2022 by Deej

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

cactusflinthead · October 26, 2022

6 minutes ago, Deej said:

Yet it legal here for cops to seize your assets and sell them even if it is proven you committed no crime.

Just sprinkle a little crack on those books.

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

^These guys have been doing great work, even despite having some warehouses and vehicles blown up by the Ruzzians

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

Rimbo · October 26, 2022

39 minutes ago, MillerEP said:

Edited October 26, 2022 by Rimbo

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

MillerEP · October 26, 2022

Bevo · October 26, 2022

Quote

Russian nationalist trying to explain why russian soldiers were caught having gay sex in Ukraine pic.twitter.com/thQ4UhDNuN
— Dylan Burns 🇺🇦🇲🇲🏳️‍🌈 (@DylanBurns1776) October 25, 2022

Didn't click. But the coverup is always worse than the crime. Just own it, motherfuckers. They sound more aggie every day.

Sign In

Русский корабль - иди нахуй

Recommended Posts

Macanudo 12976

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AUS-97HORN

closetohumping

InkaUtexas

Posted Images

The Dog 44020

Link to comment

Share on other sites

texastough 1129

Link to comment

Share on other sites

statsman 5457

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MissingInAction 25035

Link to comment

Share on other sites

The Dog 44020

Link to comment

Share on other sites

DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bevo 13576

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Nivek 16923

Link to comment

Share on other sites

atomheartbevo 89648

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SydneyCarton 48075

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SydneyCarton 48075

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bevo 13576

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SydneyCarton 48075

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bevo 13576

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it

Freezing vs. confiscating

Redressing gross violations

Related Content

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SydneyCarton 48075

No, Biden can’t just sell off seized Russian yachts and central bank assets to help aid Ukraine – international law and the U.S. Constitution forbid it

Freezing vs. confiscating

Redressing gross violations

Related Content

Punishing Russia while preserving the rule of law

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bevo 13576

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cactusflinthead 27598

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Viper 12108

Link to comment

Share on other sites

NorthLoop 14190