Article

2004-09-18 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russian ex-colonel -Chechnya murderer pardoned

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-09-18 7:32:00 PM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Observers say the recommendation that Budanov be freed will send shockwaves through the Chechen community. The Budanov case has been widely seen as a test of Moscowâs determination to crack down on human rights abuses by Russian troops in Chechnya. Human rights groups have documented thousands of cases of alleged abuses in Chechnya, but convictions are rare.

Beware of newspeak by leftist news sources.

Whenever a writer writes of observers, the writer means other writers. It is a backdoor way of retailing what the writer has heard from other writers, probably in a bar.

The 'has beenn widely seen' is another means of blowing passed the reading public the writer's personal opinion. You will notice, there is NO, as in ZERO attribution for the phrase 'has been widely seen.'

The term 'alleged abuses' is not a legal phrase here because a lot of information about Chechnya has been twisted and distorted, primarily of 'human rights' and 'peace' organizations.

And finally, the 'meat' of this sh*t sandwich the writer is serving is the deference to 'human rights' groups which is another way is saying pro terrorist organizations or individuials.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 12:30:09 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-18 12:30:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 You gotta love al Beeb. Opinion disguised as news, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-09-18 12:41:29 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-09-18 12:41:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are pro-terrorist organizations according to badanov, mainly because they consistently oppose torture and rape regardless of whether it's muslims or christians that are committing it.

A young girl was murdered. Feel free to be angry about BBC instead (it *gasp* dared to call a convicted murderer "convicted murderer" -- how dare it), you bunch of murder apologists.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 9:45:00 AM|| 2004-09-18 9:45:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 A young girl was murdered. Feel free to be angry about BBC instead (it *gasp* dared to call a convicted murderer "convicted murderer" -- how dare it), you bunch of murder apologists.

Col. Budanov said she was a suspected female sniper, not a young girl. This armor officer was one of the best the Russian Army had, the kind that would 'carry buckets of gasoline through hell' for his troops. It was a mistake on his part, but that does not absolve the young woman and her family if she was potting Russian soldiers.

Budanov admitted to the murder, but this is his fourth trial. He was acquitted a couple of years ago.

The Russian Army had good reason to suspect she was a Chechen terrorist. So, if Amensty International makes excuses for her behavior, what does that make Amnesty? Pro terrorist.

The woman was killed during interrogation conducted by Col. Budanov, not as a result of any military operation, and she was not killed as a matter of Russian Army policy. But Amnesty won't even hold out for that tidbit of fact, preferring to use this incident and others in their false reporting repetiore to condemn a civil war, a defense action, as it were against Muslim terrorists. What does that make Amnesty? A pro terror group.

We had a poster here two weeks ago trying to give us statistics supporting Amnesty's contention that 240,000 Chechen civilians have died in the Chechen war. As it turns out, the most they can claim is 3,000 dead, a high number to be sure, but not a holocaust that Amnesty prefers to paint it. And this absurdly high number is supported by pro-Chechen terror groups. What does that make Amnesty, when it lies in support of terror organizations? Pro terrorist.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 10:21:47 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 10:21:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Col. Budanov said she was a suspected female sniper, not a young girl.

More to the point she was a Muslim and therefore a subhuman that could be strangled by the big Russian Christian goon with his bare hands on the basis of mere "suspicion". Right?

Then she can be slandered by you, based on no evidence whatsoever, in order to excuse her murder.

She was an young girl that was murdered. Her murderer admitted to the murder. Then he was acquitted of it. Then he was convicted of it. Then he was acquitted of it again.

Because she was after all non-Russian, and therefore sub-human. When a Russian kills a non-Russian it's always the non-Russian who is to blame. Right, badanov?

Is there *any* scenario that you would ever condemn a Russian's murder of a Chechen, assuming that the Russian had wits enough to claim "I believed she was a terrorist" afterwards?

"We had a poster here two weeks ago trying to give us statistics supporting Amnesty's contention that 240,000 Chechen civilians have died in the Chechen war. As it turns out, the most they can claim is 3,000 dead, "

LOL!! 3000 civilians dead for the whole of Chechenya? Yeah, right. I see you hold the same kind of revisionist approach to massacres that holocaust deniers use.

Tens of thousands of dead are a certainty. Hundreds of thousands are a high possibility. Ofcourse if you take Russian statistics, they never accept *any* civilian casualties at all as collateral damage from their attacks.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 11:03:12 AM|| 2004-09-18 11:03:12 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 And just as a matter of fact, even the early acquittals were only on "grounds of insanity", not because they could pretend that the guy was innocent or the girl guilty, or that her murder wasn't murder.

That kind of murder-justification, not even the Russians can do -- that belongs to badanov alone.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 11:09:49 AM|| 2004-09-18 11:09:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 As a further sidenote let us that she was also raped at the time of her interrogation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3095003.stm

When somebody kidnaps, rapes and murders your daughter, badanov, I hope you do accept the idea of the court acquitting the kidnapper, rapist, and murderer because he thought she was a sniper that needed to be punished as he was "interrogating" her.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 11:27:40 AM|| 2004-09-18 11:27:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 More to the point she was a Muslim and therefore a subhuman that could be strangled by the big Russian Christian goon with his bare hands on the basis of mere "suspicion". Right?

I didn't know her skin color or her religion. I simply stated she was suspected of being a sniper; she was taken to an inttorgation where she was killed. That is all I said. All the other stuff you are adding.

Then she can be slandered by you, based on no evidence whatsoever, in order to excuse her murder. She was an young girl that was murdered. Her murderer admitted to the murder. Then he was acquitted of it. Then he was convicted of it. Then he was acquitted of it again. Because she was after all non-Russian, and therefore sub-human. When a Russian kills a non-Russian it's always the non-Russian who is to blame. Right, badanov? Is there *any* scenario that you would ever condemn a Russian's murder of a Chechen, assuming that the Russian had wits enough to claim "I believed she was a terrorist" afterwards?

Where to start. The fact is is that if she was in fact a sniper her murder would not be justified, but there was some reason why the Russian Army suspected it and some reason why she was taken to interrogation. None of this gets mentioned by leftists like BBC or you. You prefer to gloss over these mitigating facts.

I will restate what I said:

1) A suspected Chechen sniper was killed during interrogation by a Russian Army offers, who was subsequently tried and acquitted, then tried again and convicted.

2) There is zero evidence by 'human rights' or 'peace' groups that this murder was in any way Russian Army policy. In fact the officer was absolutely correct to take this women to be interrogated. He was by every legal definition within his rights to do so. This officer has a sacred duty as do all officers in nearly all modern armies to protect their commands. This is what the officer was doing and his action was above reproach. The murder, I will state again, albeit I know Aris will write as though I haven't, was a murder, but it was also not Russian Army policy, and that ultimately, since 'human rights' or 'peace' groups' made it an issue, the only consideration. The murder was a mistake but Col. Budanov must pay for his mistakes.

3) None of the above absolves the deceased or her family from the fact they were suspected terrorists, after all she was a suspected sniper for the Chechens.

LOL!! 3000 civilians dead for the whole of Chechenya? Yeah, right. I see you hold the same kind of revisionist approach to massacres that holocaust deniers use. Tens of thousands of dead are a certainty. Hundreds of thousands are a high possibility. Ofcourse if you take Russian statistics, they never accept *any* civilian casualties at all as collateral damage from their attacks.

Where are the graves? For such a tiny area, there would be graves. Where are the graves?

I will answer for you, there are none because simply put the numbers are grossly exaggerated. Even statistics kept by relief groups indicate there can be no more than 3,000 dead for the whole country over ten years.

If anyone can show me definitive statistics, including graves, etc, I will modify my view. But I suspect the numbers above 3,000 are wildly inflated. I can prove many of them are.

Prove me wrong, Aris.

Where are the graves, Aris?

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 11:29:16 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 11:29:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 "Where to start. The fact is is that if she was in fact a sniper her murder would not be justified, but there was some reason why the Russian Army suspected it and some reason why she was taken to interrogation. None of this gets mentioned by leftists like BBC or you",

Which reason was there? Please do let us know about the reason, which hopefully is a different one than simply looking pretty enough to rape.

And for all your claim that her murder wouldn't be justified even if she was a sniper, you were quite angry with BBC for not putting extra emphasis on the allegation of sniperhood.

"1) A suspected Chechen sniper was killed during interrogation by a Russian Army offers, who was subsequently tried and acquitted, then tried again and convicted."

She was raped and killed during interrogation by an officer that was acquitted on reasons of claimed temporary insanity.

"1) There is zero evidence by 'human rights' or 'peace' groups that this murder was in any way Russian Army policy"

It's the acquittals that make it Russian policy. You can rape and kill, then claim you were temporarily insane, and everything's fine for Russia's courts.

"In fact the officer was absolutely correct to take this woman to be interrogated."

And raped and killed. Because he afterwards *claimed* he suspected her of being a sniper.

"3) None of the above absolves the deceased or her family from the fact they were suspected terrorists, after all she was a suspected sniper for the Chechens. LOL"

Somehow I didn't know it was a crime to be merely "suspected". None of this absolves the family from the fact they were "suspected"?? Are you utterly insane? Don't you understand the words that spew out of your mouth?

"Where are the graves"?? Are you frigging insane? Mass graves are discovered *after* the government that put them is disposed of power. The mass graves in Iraq were discovered after Saddam was deposed.

So, if Russia is first kicked out of Chechenya, *then* we might discover all the mass graves there exist.

But already there are three thousand bodies alone in the mass graves that have already been discovered (search google) -- those bodies count for the "disappearances" alone, not the people that are killed and buried normally by their families.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 11:52:54 AM|| 2004-09-18 11:52:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Somehow I didn't know it was a crime to be merely "suspected". None of this absolves the family from the fact they were "suspected"?? Are you utterly insane? Don't you understand the words that spew out of your mouth?

Of course he does, but can't you see the "suspect" is translation for "We know they did it". OBL is just a "suspect" of 9/11 to the Arab world. Nazi's are just "Suspects" in hate crimes against Blacks and Jews. When the MSM uses the word "Suspect", especially the BBC, it means one thing: That person is guilty, but they don't want to say anything that might 'offend' their readers.

I thought you would have realized this by now Aris.

Posted by Charles 2004-09-18 12:07:13 PM|| 2004-09-18 12:07:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Which reason was there? Please do let us know about the reason, which hopefully is a different one than simply looking pretty enough to rape. And for all your claim that her murder wouldn't be justified even if she was a sniper, you were quite angry with BBC for not putting extra emphasis on the allegation of sniperhood.

Huh?

It's the acquittals that make it Russian policy.

A trial is policy and it was determined the first time he was no guilty. That is not policy. It is a verdict. Two different things.

You can rape and kill, then claim you were temporarily insane, and everything's fine for Russia's courts.

This is how matters played out the first time. You got a verdict more to your liking the second trial. Be happy. In the US under criminal law once you go to trial and you are acquitted, it is game over for the defendant and it should have been like that here, but it wasn't.

And raped and killed. Because he afterwards *claimed* he suspected her of being a sniper

The first verdict supports that claim.

LOL Somehow I didn't know it was a crime to be merely "suspected".

They took the woman to be interrogated for a crime. It's what civilized countries do.

Are you frigging insane? Mass graves are discovered *after* the government that put them is disposed of power. The mass graves in Iraq were discovered after Saddam was deposed. So, if Russia is first kicked out of Chechenya, *then* we might discover all the mass graves there exist. But already there are three thousand bodies alone in the mass graves that have already been discovered (search google) -- those bodies count for the "disappearances" alone, not the people that are killed and buried normally by their families.

If you think I am going to accept a 'human rights' group version of events, you are insane. And I did Google it. 2,800 total in graves all over the country. That puts to lie the contention of 240,000 dead. There are mass graves, but they add up to 2,800. And the country is owned by the Chechens. Show me the graves, Aris.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 12:18:22 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 12:18:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Of course he does, but can't you see the "suspect" is translation for "We know they did it". OBL is just a "suspect" of 9/11 to the Arab world. Nazi's are just "Suspects" in hate crimes against Blacks and Jews. When the MSM uses the word "Suspect", especially the BBC, it means one thing: That person is guilty, but they don't want to say anything that might 'offend' their readers. I thought you would have realized this by now Aris.

This thread is out of control. In your weorld, no one in a combat capacity can take anyone for anything they are suspected of. They must be tried, in absentia, before we can find the truth.

My entire contention in this mess is that the Chechen woman who was killed was a suspected sniper, not just a 'young girl' taken into the night.

My contention is also the Russian army officer had the right to protect his command and he did so, but he wound up murdering someone in the process. And he was tried twice until the Russian ogovernment got the verdict folks like Aris and Chuck wanted.

The fact is that legally, under the law the Russian officer can take reprisals from a local population for attacks on his troops. It is black letter international law. Look it up yourself.

You want to pile corpses and say it is Russian Army that did this? Prove it. I seriously doubt you can.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 12:25:13 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 12:25:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Of course he does, but can't you see the "suspect" is translation for "We know they did it".

No, in this case it's NOT just translation for "We know they did it". Suspect in this case is translation for "they are Chechens that haven't been proven to be pro-Moscow yet". Even the pro-Moscow fellow in the article called her an innocent girl.

"In the US under criminal law once you go to trial and you are acquitted, it is game over for the defendant and it should have been like that here, but it wasn't. "

In the USA, this colonel wouldn't have been acquitted. And in fact in the USA the system of "civil trials" on a federal level was created in order to punish white murderers of black people that would have been acquitted on 1950s era racist white South (we're not convicting you of the murder, we're convicting of violating the civil rights of the murdered victim).

So, yeah, people can be tried twice for the same crime even in America, and I know your system a bit better than you do yourself.

In this case, the second trial and the conviction was done in order to partially excuse Russia in the face of the civilised world. Just recently badanov used the argument that Russia does convict the Russian troops that so very rarely end up committing crimes.

But Russia no longer needs such an excuse -- what Russia needs is the free flow of willing murderers now that she's passing over the threshold of "partially free" and over to completely "non-free" (to use the Freedomhouse terms): Chechens are automatically guilty. Chechens deserve to be tortured, raped, murdered regardless of whether they committed crimes or not. Now, what Russia needs is the full go-ahead of the Nazi genocidal ideology.

Afterall, what would Nazi Germany be if any German could be convicted of killing any Jew? What would 1800s American South be if any white could be convicted of killing any black? What would Putin's Russia be if any Russian could be convicted of killing any Chechen?

"You got a verdict more to your liking the second trial. Be happy."

I will be happy when the kidnapping rapist murderer is dead, not praised as a hero by badanov and his fellow murder-apologists for raping and murdering an INNOCENT GIRL who is then treated as the criminal in the case because a raping murderer decided to label her a "suspect".

"They took the woman to be interrogated for a crime. It's what civilized countries do. "

Where they didn't interrogate but rather raped and murdered her. It's what Saddam's Iraq and Putin's Russia and many other murderous regimes do.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 12:43:16 PM|| 2004-09-18 12:43:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The main thing is that a lot of statistics are bandied about about the true nature of what is going on in Chechnya. Many of them which use terms such as "as many as" or "up to" are clearly rhetorical lies used to bolster a political position, not expose the truth.

The Russian government is not being forthcoming and they are not admitting they have a problem in Chechnya. But then neither are the Chechens as well. It is difficult for me to believe that ALL the mass graves are filled by official Russian guns, let alone Russian Army, and that the Chechens have had nothing to do with atrocities. To ignore that is completely insane.

If the Russian Army has in fact been committing summary executions, they have a severe command problem. Whether it runs to the top is only speculation. I doubt short of even more summary executions the Russian military can win the war in Chechnya the way things are being handled there now.

Now that said, we still do not know what element of the Russian military is committing summary executions (the most serious charge in my view ), and how many of the mass graves were filled by official actions, whether by Russian regulars or by MVD troops (And like it or not, this is a critical distinction for me) This is an important element to me for if Russian regulars are being ordered to sumamrily execute civilians, then there is no way in my estimate short of a real holocaust they can win the war.

But we do not know this but I will not accept Amnesty's version of events, nor can I accept Aris and his craven willingness to parrot their line. I consider them partisan and biased. I consider, given their total lack of responsibility, a pro terrorist organization.

Despite all the accusations Aris makes against me personally, ( holocaust denier, murder apologist, etc ) I just wanna know the truth and when someone, as in anyone, puts forth an assertion regarding the Chechnya war they had better be prepared to defend that assertion with all they can muster. And if the attempt to defend uses race ( as Aris did ), gender ( as Aris did ), or holocaust (again as Aris did ) then I know something is up; someone is trying to blow something passed readers, and I wanna know what that is.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 1:25:55 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 1:25:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 The Russian (sorry Soviets) had "good reasons" too, to "interrogate" me because I was a suspected "Werewolf" (what a cruel irony) and a "spy for America".

I don't think they have changed much. In the 90s the verdict was squashed. I received a dry Russian letter. "Your conviction is no longer valid". Great. No apology for 9 years of slave labor in Workuta, let alone some compensation. Ten thousands of slave workers died in Workuta alone (99% hadn't committed any "crime") and they couldn't even say sorry.

I have no sympathy for Chechen terrorists. But what the Russians did to Chechnya way before the Chechens churned out terrorists is not excusable either. In Workuta I first learned of the horrors the Chechens had to endure under Stalin.

The Chechens have been occupied in Czarist times, were deported to Siberia by Stalin, brutally repressed ever since, and when after Gorbachev's fall they tried to become independent (just like the Baltic States which are now EU members), the Russians killed ten thousands of them, reduced Grosny to rubble. The Russians killed ten times or more innocent children in Chechnya before Chechen terrorists committed the unspeakable crime of Beslan.

After the 1st Chechen War the Russians withdrew temporarily but the country was absolutely destroyed, received no help, people scratched together everything to survive the next day. That's when drug money and Saudi "subsidies" started flowing in.

Putin's War finished off what was left. Beslan has no excuses. But what the Russians have done to Chechnya for 200 years has little excuses neither.

Russia has a long way to go before it becomes a "civilized nation". After Beslan, the way has just become longer.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-09-18 1:32:32 PM|| 2004-09-18 1:32:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 My understanding of the current conflict is that when Chechen rebels began operating in Dagetstan in 1999, Putin decided to go after then in Dagestan and Chechnya.

From what I remember, it apeared Russia was going to use just air power and artillery, but then ground forces were introduced in August, 1999.

I guess Putin hasn't dropped his KGB habits, because a number of actions in Chechnya from 1999 on were by MVD troops against civilians. I am not certain to what extent the Russian Army has been involved, and this is a current matter of curiousity for me.. A lot of news stories tend to lump forces together as if they are all under the same command with the same mission. It is impossible to deal with that lack in information and even harder when NGOs like Amnesty makes assertions they won't back up.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 1:56:29 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-09-18 1:56:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 "And he was tried twice until the Russian government got the verdict folks like Aris and Chuck wanted."

Oh, no, badanov, it was the verdict that Russia itself wanted, and that people like you wanted. After all I wasn't fooled when Russia had convicted this *one* fellow. It's other people that used him as an excuse: "See, Russia does convict people that committed crimes against Chechen innocents."

In the period where the nature of Putin's Russia was still partially obscure, the conviction benefitted it in order to keep on hiding that nature. But now that Putin is going ahead with consolidating his dictatorship and abolishing democracy at the local level even as it was thoroughly undermined at the federal.. the conviction no longer is needed, and the good colonel is acquitted again. How will they motivate their troops without rape as one of the bonuses offered for crushing the rebels?

"In your world, no one in a combat capacity can take anyone for anything they are suspected of. They must be tried, in absentia, before we can find the truth"

In my world they can be interrogated and even imprisoned before their trial. But they cannot be raped or murdered as this girl was.

And it's not just "my" world, it's what the whole civilised world does -- "Thou Shalt Not Rape and Murder Suspects Brought In For Interrogation" is pretty high on the Civilisation Rulebook.

"And if the attempt to defend uses race ( as Aris did ), gender ( as Aris did ), or holocaust (again as Aris did ) then I know something is up;"

Yeah the Chechen-Russian war clearly has nothing to do with ethnicity, and rape doesn't have anything to do with gender. And this acquittal of a Russian murderer by a Russian court has nothing whatsoever to do with the way Russia or you view the worth of Chechen lives.

It was just "a mistake" according to you, when his hands squeezed the life out of her, and it was just "a mistake" when she was raped.

In the so-called civilised world these wouldn't be seen as "mistakes", these would be seen as horrible crimes. By calling what he did "a mistake", you have clearly made your own choice about whether you belong to the civilised world or not.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 3:42:07 PM|| 2004-09-18 3:42:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 ... it was the verdict that Russia itself wanted, and that people like you wanted. After all I wasn't fooled when Russia had convicted this *one* fellow. It's other people that used him as an excuse: "See, Russia does convict people that committed crimes against Chechen innocents."

I didn't care personally. I tend to take people at their word. I accept that the woman was killed in the course of this officer discharging his duties, protecting his command as he is obligated to do. You seem not to think so, and that is fine. But don't smear me with her blood. Besides, the officer was found guilty. What is your problem?

In the period where the nature of Putin's Russia was still partially obscure, the conviction benefitted it in order to keep on hiding that nature. But now that Putin is going ahead with consolidating his dictatorship and abolishing democracy at the local level even as it was thoroughly undermined at the federal.. the conviction no longer is needed, and the good colonel is acquitted again.

The Colonel was pardoned, not acquitted. I thought you said you know about law. Guess not.

How will they motivate their troops without rape as one of the bonuses offered for crushing the rebels?

The colonel was not charged with rape. There was no evidence supporting a prosecution for rape. Jeez Aris, kindly know something about this subject before you start hauling your agenda in for a visit.

In my world they can be interrogated and even imprisoned before their trial. But they cannot be raped or murdered as this girl was. And it's not just "my" world, it's what the whole civilised world does -- "Thou Shalt Not Rape and Murder Suspects Brought In For Interrogation" is pretty high on the Civilisation Rulebook.

It's high on my list as well. And the killing was a mistake. The colonel even admitted it. He went out of control and he was tried and eventually found guilty for it.

Yeah the Chechen-Russian war clearly has nothing to do with ethnicity, and rape doesn't have anything to do with gender. And this acquittal of a Russian murderer by a Russian court has nothing whatsoever to do with the way Russia or you view the worth of Chechen lives. It was just "a mistake" according to you, when his hands squeezed the life out of her, and it was just "a mistake" when she was raped.

Get over the charge of rape. This officer did not rape the woman. Drop it from your repetoire, s'il vous plait.

I sense you are trying to frame this as something else. Unfortunately, it is what it is. A killing in an interrogation of a suspected Chechen sniper. The interrorgation got out of hand. The woman died. The officer tried to hide the murder, was caught, first found not guilty, then later found guilty, then pardoned. Where is the problem, outside of the pardon?

In the so-called civilised world these wouldn't be seen as "mistakes", these would be seen as horrible crimes. By calling what he did "a mistake", you have clearly made your own choice about whether you belong to the civilised world or not.

The officer was charged, tried twice until a verdict of guilty was made. What is your problem? The officer admitted the murder, and said it was done in a rage, i.e. a mistake. He tried to hide the murder, but it did him little good.

And in the sense of fairness let us leave this one officer's actions aside for a moment and concentrate on what you're saying. The Russians did not go into Chechnya because they want to kill more Chechens. They went there becayse the place was out of control, and because they were a part of Russian, inasmuch as some Chechens wanted independance. The Russian Army and the MVD both took heavy losses and they destroyed a lot in Chechnya, but don't paint the Russian military with this bloody brush if you are not willing the slime the Islamists as well. You just sound like a snake oil salesman when you do that.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 4:06:09 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-18 4:06:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I'm quite willing to "slime the Islamists" it's simply that I've not noticed anyone in this thread trying to excuse *muslim* murderers.

"I tend to take people at their word. I accept that the woman was killed in the course of this officer discharging his duties, "

You take even convicted murderers at their word. *Right*. Does that apply to Muslim convicted murderers as well? Or does it apply only to Russian convicted murderers?

And as for the rape: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3184161.stm

"Sexual assault is also notoriously unprovable, because of the lack of witnesses - but in Elsa's case, her dead body bore clear evidence of rape."

So was it Budanov or some of his soldiers that raped the girl? Did your precious colonel Budanov, whose word you trust, explain about that?

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 5:03:56 PM|| 2004-09-18 5:03:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 And as for the rape: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3184161.stm "Sexual assault is also notoriously unprovable, because of the lack of witnesses - but in Elsa's case, her dead body bore clear evidence of rape." So was it Budanov or some of his soldiers that raped the girl? Did your precious colonel Budanov, whose word you trust, explain about that?

There was no evidence that Colonel Budanov raped the woman, thus he was never prosecuted. The woman was raped but not by Colonel Budanov.

This whole thread has been about BBC 'journalists' getting their opinions published as fact. As we saw in the story this thread is about, the BBC is a very poor source for unbiased information. You shouldn't use it and expect me to regard it as reliable and unbiased.

Posted by badanov 2004-09-18 5:30:41 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif] 2004-09-18 5:30:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 You've rejected BBC as source of info, you've rejected Human rights organizations as source of info -- and the only source in this entire thread you've named as trustworthy to you (you accept people's word!), were the words of a convicted murdered whose only defense was insanity, and who either himself or one of his subordinated raped the murdered girl, either before or after her murder.

Did you read that the first *prosecutors* (not defense lawyers) of the case asked for Budanov's amnesty? That shows you the Russian system, when the public prosecutors seek an even more lenient treatment for murderers of Chechen girl than even the defense attorneys dare to ask.

We don't know if it was Budanov or his subordinate or both of them that raped the girl. The one certain fact is that she was raped. And you've had the *nerve* to call this the kind of "interrogation" that all the civilised world do, and pretty much claim that I don't want suspects to be interrogated at all if I'm opposed to it.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 6:41:00 PM|| 2004-09-18 6:41:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Aris... with all due respect you are sounding like my worthy opponent H. Burger right after the evidence comes in.

Posted by Paul Drake 2004-09-18 7:47:01 PM|| 2004-09-18 7:47:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Sorry, Paul, I don't get your reference.

And the problem of there not existing *any* source that badanov finds acceptable (other than Colonel Budanov's claims, whose word he accepts, possibly because there's only one letter difference between the two of them) is still an issue.

What possible source could I ever name that talks about Chechnya but doesn't fall according to badanov, either to "human-rights organization" or to "International leftist news agency"? The only two remaining ones are probably the Russian government itself, or the Chechen separatists. Since *those* ones are probably not very unbiased either, then we're back to believing merely the word of convicted murderer Colonel Budanov.

Colonel Budanov says he was merely temporarily insane when he killed the girl. Or perhaps he just liked to asphyxiate his victims as he raped them. In Putin's Russia where prosecutors are even more lenient about crimes against Chechens than the defense attorneys are, we're unlikely to ever find out -- only known fact is that the victim is both murdered and raped.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-09-18 9:48:00 PM|| 2004-09-18 9:48:00 PM|| Front Page Top

17:32 Anonymous6537
17:32 Anonymous6537
17:13 Anonymous6535
17:13 Anonymous6535
15:08 Anonymous6532
15:08 Anonymous6532
01:11 Anonymous6530
01:11 Anonymous6530
07:59 .com
06:46 trailing wife
06:35 trailing wife
02:50 Sock Puppet of Doom
01:49 Phil Fraering
01:41 Phil Fraering
00:24 RWV
00:16 RWV
23:07 Frank G
22:59 tipper
22:49 PBMcL
22:42 RWV
22:41 Madprof
22:36 3dc
22:20 whitecollar redneck
22:19 Frank G