nohero said:

Just a reminder - the U.S. FARA law is not the same as, and not as extensive as, the laws in other countries being discussed. 

and apparently it's spelled differently. 

PVW said:

I agree with the article that restricting the scope of the U.S. FARA would be a good idea -- though I'll note that the existence of the First Amendment likely provides solid ground for challenging overreach, even absent changes to the law.

I’d be interested to hear if nan shares your misgivings about FARA and, if she does, how they dovetail with the Duran video, which favors Georgia’s version of the law (one that appears to be even stronger).

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

nan said:

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

As I thought it was clear from my remarks, I think the type of law you are supporting here is troubling in the absence of robust free speech protections -- doubly so when it seems to hew so closely to the playbook the country occupying large parts of Georgia uses to suppress speech within its own borders.

PVW said:

nan said:

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

As I thought it was clear from my remarks, I think the type of law you are supporting here is troubling in the absence of robust free speech protections -- doubly so when it seems to hew so closely to the playbook the country occupying large parts of Georgia uses to suppress speech within its own borders.

I'm talking in general - Georgia is just an example - Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Evidently, the answer is YES.  Which just floors me.  

nan said:

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

I don't think Russia should have surreptitiously acted so as to influence the election in the U.S.

That being said, I disagree with accusing people of being "foreign agents" just because they're advocating for democracy in their home countries.

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

As I thought it was clear from my remarks, I think the type of law you are supporting here is troubling in the absence of robust free speech protections -- doubly so when it seems to hew so closely to the playbook the country occupying large parts of Georgia uses to suppress speech within its own borders.

I'm talking in general - Georgia is just an example - Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Evidently, the answer is YES.  Which just floors me.  

Every four years we have a chance to enact regime change in this country. Sometimes -- particularly in the most recent election cycles -- we've seen foreign countries with a strong interests in the outcome make concerted efforts to effect it. It's not unusual to find many voters who echo the same policies and talking points of these foreign actors.

Do I think there should be laws that attempt divine the intent of these voters, to figure out if they are acting out of their own beliefs or whether they are secretly foreign agents? No, I do not.

If that floors you, then I don't think you've really gotten the gist of the political philosophy I try to expound on these pages.

tl;dr -- No, I do not think Nan should face fines and arrest because her views align with Kremlin talking points. And being consistent, I think it's a bad thing that Russia is pushing Georgia to suppress speech that may align with Washington talking points.

nohero said:

nan said:

OK, lots of comments but NO ONE ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  Let's try again:

Do you think it's OK for one country to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin? 

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  

I don't think Russia should have surreptitiously acted so as to influence the election in the U.S.

That being said, I disagree with accusing people of being "foreign agents" just because they're advocating for democracy in their home countries.

We are talking about the NGOs which go into other countries for the purpose of fostering color revolutions that lead to regime change.  This would not apply to the people who are brainwashed by them.  

SO I'll try again:

Do you think it's OK for a country to be in ANOTHER country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin?

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

There's also of course the question of defining "propaganda." This comes down to a point raised earlier, when you accused every Ukrainian who opposes Russia of either being a Nazi or having been led to their views via manufactured consent. How can one detect "manufactured consent" -- is it simply any view you disagree with?

PVW said:

tl;dr -- No, I do not think Nan should face fines and arrest because her views align with Kremlin talking points. And being consistent, I think it's a bad thing that Russia is pushing Georgia to suppress speech that may align with Washington talking points.

Another ignorant personal attack but no answer.  FYI: Nan is a US citizen living in the US.  This does not apply to her.  Also, this is about transparency, not repression.

Try answering the question asked, not the one you prefer to answer:

Do you think it's OK for one country's NGOs to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin?

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  Seems there is reluctance to answer this question.  

nan said:

PVW said:

tl;dr -- No, I do not think Nan should face fines and arrest because her views align with Kremlin talking points. And being consistent, I think it's a bad thing that Russia is pushing Georgia to suppress speech that may align with Washington talking points.

Another ignorant personal attack but no answer.  FYI: Nan is a US citizen living in the US.  This does not apply to her.  

Try answering the question asked, not the one you prefer to answer:

Do you think it's OK for one country's NGOs to be in another country for the purpose of propaganda leading to regime change without revealing their funding/country of origin?

Just looking for a YES or NO with an explanation.  Seems there is reluctance to answer this question.  

It's the opposite of a personal attack -- I'm saying no, I don't think you should receive the same treatment you believe people in Russia and Georgia do. I don't think anyone should.

I think that, in general, any laws that target political speech that do not have a legal and cultural context of strong free speech protections are dangerous. Seems there's a reluctance to accept my answer.

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Exactly. Ms. Nan’s questions are based on a faulty conception of who in those countries are being targeted by these laws backed by Russia. 

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Yes, that's the playbook.  They pay well and form groups that form other groups, etc.  They also do a lot of media. It's a scheme.  The goal is dishonest because they are secretly getting the people to go against their government and demand regime change to a new leader more friendly to the plotter's country.  They don't really care about the people they convince--they are getting them to do their bidding. It's very dishonest.  Again, these laws don't ban that but make it transparent.  When people are aware of the funding, they may change their views. 

Are you really fine with groups doing this in secret?  

nan said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Yes, that's the playbook.  They pay well and form groups that form other groups, etc.  They also do a lot of media. It's a scheme.  The goal is dishonest because they are secretly getting the people to go against their government and demand regime change to a new leader more friendly to the plotter's country.  They don't really care about the people they convince--they are getting them to do their bidding. It's very dishonest.  Again, these laws don't ban that but make it transparent.  When people are aware of the funding, they may change their views. 

Are you really fine with groups doing this in secret?  

Let's say Party A is in power, and some citizens who support Party B belong to a civic organization of some sort. What is to stop Party A from claiming that this civic organization is secretly a foreign NGO, and all citizens who have had any dealings with it are secretly foreign agents?

If the answer is "nothing," that's a problem, right?

nohero said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Exactly. Ms. Nan’s questions are based on a faulty conception of who in those countries are being targeted by these laws backed by Russia. 

No my question is based on NGO practices which are to secretly foster color revolutions by brainwashing ordinary people without revealing who is behind the operation.  I'm saying they should reveal their funding source.  If Russia was doing this in the US without declaring they were Russian funded you would have a fit.  When it's Ukraine or Georgia suddenly you want to protect the crooks.  

BTW, did you read the link DS provided? It's worth reading - gives a good overview of the issues.

nan said:

nohero said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Exactly. Ms. Nan’s questions are based on a faulty conception of who in those countries are being targeted by these laws backed by Russia. 

 If Russia was doing this in the US without declaring they were Russian funded you would have a fit. 

It makes it easy to dismiss replies that show you don't read mine.

nan said:

Yes, that's the playbook.  They pay well and form groups that form other groups, etc.  They also do a lot of media. It's a scheme.  The goal is dishonest because they are secretly getting the people to go against their government and demand regime change to a new leader more friendly to the plotter's country.  They don't really care about the people they convince--they are getting them to do their bidding. It's very dishonest.  Again, these laws don't ban that but make it transparent.  When people are aware of the funding, they may change their views. 

Are you really fine with groups doing this in secret?  

Irony alert.

Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf

nan said:

nohero said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Exactly. Ms. Nan’s questions are based on a faulty conception of who in those countries are being targeted by these laws backed by Russia. 

No my question is based on NGO practices which are to secretly foster color revolutions by brainwashing ordinary people without revealing who is behind the operation.  I'm saying they should reveal their funding source.  If Russia was doing this in the US without declaring they were Russian funded you would have a fit.  When it's Ukraine or Georgia suddenly you want to protect the crooks.  

No, your question is a straw man, adopting the misleading claims of the authoritarian governments and their supporters, who use "color revolutions" as a disparaging epithet.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Exactly. Ms. Nan’s questions are based on a faulty conception of who in those countries are being targeted by these laws backed by Russia. 

No my question is based on NGO practices which are to secretly foster color revolutions by brainwashing ordinary people without revealing who is behind the operation.  I'm saying they should reveal their funding source.  If Russia was doing this in the US without declaring they were Russian funded you would have a fit.  When it's Ukraine or Georgia suddenly you want to protect the crooks.  

No, your question is a straw man, adopting the misleading claims of the authoritarian governments and their supporters, who use "color revolutions" as a disparaging epithet.

NO, it is not a straw man.  It's a direct question. These NGOs have a specific purpose of regime change and they follow a playbook.  This is fundamentally dishonest.  It does not matter if you agree with what they are selling -- the fact that they don't disclose their funding (and motive) is wrong. 

nohero said:

nan said:

This video discusses that and also NGOs in general and how they are able to create color revolutions and get west-friendly governments installed and sometimes provoke Russia into war. 

For anyone unclear, that's an example of Russian propaganda. Details on the law now being reproposed, which had been proposed and withdrawn last year -

"Last night in Tbilisi, Georgia, police used massive amounts of teargas and water cannons to disperse thousands of peaceful demonstrators who spontaneously gathered to protest a draft “foreign agents” bill, which the ruling majority rammed through parliament in first reading.

"Police detained dozens of people, who now face various administrative and criminal charges. I observed the protest myself and see no legitimate reason for the government’s use of such force to curtail this peaceful gathering.

"If adopted, the bill will require nongovernmental organizations and media outlets to register as 'agents of foreign influence' if they receive 20 percent of their funding from abroad. These groups would be subject to additional scrutiny, investigations, and fines, and their leaders could be sent to prison if found in violation of the law. A second bill to be voted on tomorrow would impose similar requirements on individuals.

"The bill will need to go through two more readings to become law.

"Both bills are out of line with Georgia’s human rights obligations to protect the rights to freedom of expression and association, and there is no doubt the intent is to have a chilling effect on the country’s critical voices.

"This threat is real. Georgian authorities claim the bill is about boosting funding transparency. But their statements indicate that if the bills are adopted, they will weaponize them for a witch hunt to stigmatize and penalize independent groups, media, and critical voices."

Link: ‘Dark Day’ for Georgia’s Democracy | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org)

I read this article and it's total BS. The west wants to protect their NGOs for regime change operations.  It's much harder to get a color revolution going when the people know you are from another country.  They are not throwing them out--they are just asking for transparency.  I don't buy the claims of compromised free speech.  You should not have the right to deceive people for the purposes of overthrowing their government. People should have full disclosure about anyone who is trying to get them to do what might endanger the lives of themselves and their families and move their country in a direction they don't intend.  If what they are selling is so great than people will go along knowing where it came from.  

To me, full disclosure is a no brainier.  

nan said:

To me, full disclosure is a no brainier.  

Please share the full financials for The Duran. If we can't prove they're not a Russian front, should the U.S. government fine them -- maybe even arrest them? Why not?

PVW said:

nan said:

To me, full disclosure is a no brainier.  

Please share the full financials for The Duran. If we can't prove they're not a Russian front, should the U.S. government fine them -- maybe even arrest them? Why not?

The Duran is out of the UK and Cyprus. They are not American citizens. I assume they follow their countries' laws regarding disclosure.  They discuss geopolitics all over the world, so it's not just about Russia/Ukraine. They are not an NGO.  They are not involved with regime change -- they provide no instructions or plans or "next steps" except for suggesting people buy a Duran tee shirts or coffee mugs. Expressing minority views on politics is not the same as running a big organization with outreach for the direct goal of regime change.  

You should be able to tell the difference.  Why are you defending what might be criminal in international law? 

PVW said:

BTW, did you read the link DS provided? It's worth reading - gives a good overview of the issues.

I did not see that.  I read nohero's link and it was not worth reading. 

nan said:

The Duran is out of the UK and Cyprus. They are not American citizens. I assume they follow their countries' laws regarding disclosure.  They discuss geopolitics all over the world, so it's not just about Russia/Ukraine. They are not an NGO.  They are not involved with regime change -- they provide no instructions or plans or "next steps" except for suggesting people buy a Duran tee shirts or coffee mugs. Expressing minority views on politics is not the same as running a big organization with outreach for the direct goal of regime change.  

You should be able to tell the difference.  Why are you defending what might be criminal in international law? 

But it's not what  a question of what you think -- itt's what the government decides. That's what you're arguing for -- that the government should be allowed to declare a group to be an NGO dedicated to regime change. Is the government correct? Are they lying? It doesn't matter with the laws you support -- they have the power to declare what they like. Remember -- there's no First Amendment in Russia or Georgia.

nan said:

PVW said:

BTW, did you read the link DS provided? It's worth reading - gives a good overview of the issues.

I did not see that.  I read nohero's link and it was not worth reading. 

Here you go: https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Fara_in_Focus_2.pdf

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Presumably those NGOs are staffed to a large degree by citizens of the country they are operating in.

Yes, that's the playbook.  They pay well and form groups that form other groups, etc.  They also do a lot of media. It's a scheme.  The goal is dishonest because they are secretly getting the people to go against their government and demand regime change to a new leader more friendly to the plotter's country.  They don't really care about the people they convince--they are getting them to do their bidding. It's very dishonest.  Again, these laws don't ban that but make it transparent.  When people are aware of the funding, they may change their views. 

Are you really fine with groups doing this in secret?  

Let's say Party A is in power, and some citizens who support Party B belong to a civic organization of some sort. What is to stop Party A from claiming that this civic organization is secretly a foreign NGO, and all citizens who have had any dealings with it are secretly foreign agents?

If the answer is "nothing," that's a problem, right?

I did not see this earlier. 

OK, as someone who gets accused of being a secret foreign agent on the very MOL thread, I think I can answer this question!  This is an irrelevant comparison.  The law makes the funding transparent and then if they receive 20% or more from a foreign country they have to register.  We do this here.  Individuals from foreign countries engaging in business also have to register.  People from foreign countries should not be supporting Party A or Party B.  They should let the citizens of that country decide.  If someone is making accusations than it should be easy to prove by showing funding sources.  

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

BTW, did you read the link DS provided? It's worth reading - gives a good overview of the issues.

I did not see that.  I read nohero's link and it was not worth reading. 

Here you go: https://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Fara_in_Focus_2.pdf

I will read this but not tonight - I have to go do something.  In the meantime here is some Robert Parry reporting from 2015 when Russia threw NED out and the Washington Post had a hissy fit.  Read about NED and then decide if it morally right to let this NGO work in foreign countries undercover for the purpose of regime change. 

ROBERT PARRY: Why Russia Shut Down NED Fronts

The Washington Post blasted Vladimir Putin for shutting down the National Endowment for Democracy in Russia, but left out NED’s U.S. government funding, its quasi-C.I.A. role, and its regime change aim in Moscow, wrote Bob Parry on July 30, 2015.

https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/20/robert-parry/