Maldives Denies Russian Claims That Secret Service Kidnapped a Politician's Son 100
Rei (128717) writes As was previously reported here, the Russian government has accused the U.S. Secret Service of kidnapping the son of ultranationalist LDPR MP Valery Seleznev in the Maldives. The son, Roman Seleznev, stands accused of running one of the world's largest carding operations, with others charged in the affair having already been convicted; however, Roman had until recently been considered out of reach in Russia. Now the Maldives has struck back against these claims, insisting that they arrested him on an Interpol Red Notice and transferred him to the US, as they are legally required as an Interpol member state to do. "No outsider came here to conduct an operation," president Abdulla Yameen stated. "No officials from another country can come here to arrest anyone. The government has the necessary documentation to prove it." Note: the Slashdot post linked didn't include the accusations of kidnapping, but the Krebs On Security link above mentions these claims.
Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:5, Insightful)
Objection: relevance.
These other things are not the topic of discussion. They are just red herrings to distract from the fact that the US appears to have acted in a civilized manner this time.
Civilized behavior should not be swept under the rug because you have a hate-on for some particular country. Your nonsense undermines the positive reinforcement that encourages good behavior and discourages bad behavior.
Doesn't matter if it's the US or Hezbollah.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's give the OP some credit. He predicted that they would not admit they were wrong and they would claim the Maldives are covering up. The first response to him matched the former but failed to accurately predict the latter. However i consider that a great success.
Re: (Score:1)
Not just heroic, but actually answering a calling...
"I'm just a banker doing God’s work." -- Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:4, Funny)
Far less so than Russia. Instead of detaining the accused and bringing him in, they would've simply poisoned the man [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the only question I have is why the US didn't just say that Maldives law enforcement was responsible for the arrest in the first place. It could've been spun as good PR for both countries - "Cooperation Between US, Maldives Law Enforcement Leads to Arrest of Card Hacker" or somesuch. That would've quelled any questions about who was responsible for the arrest in the first place as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe because it wasn't the place of the US law enforcement organizations to discuss or even know what happened before the prisoner was handed over. I doubt they were completely unaware, but the earlier article mentions him being officially arrested at a court hearing in Guam, and makes no mention of the events leading up to that point.
It is possible that the US law enforcement agencies did not want to say who captured him or how just on the off chance that the Maldives would've preferred to remain as clos
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the only question I have is why the US didn't just say that Maldives law enforcement was responsible for the arrest in the first place. It could've been spun as good PR for both countries - "Cooperation Between US, Maldives Law Enforcement Leads to Arrest of Card Hacker" or somesuch. That would've quelled any questions about who was responsible for the arrest in the first place as well.
How do you know that they didn't? The only thing we saw in Slashdot a few days ago was some article without any sources that seemed to claim that US agents were going buck wild in Maldives and made the arrest themselves. I, and others, pointed out in that thread that the article was likely a very badly written summary and I was sure that the Maldives made any arrest and only after a valid arrest warrant came through. Yes, I told (some of) you so.
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile Russia has actually kidnapped a Ukrainian doing nothing illegal beyond defending her country against Russian state sponsored terrorists:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... [bbc.co.uk]
I have zero sympathy for Russia in this case given that they're crying wolf whilst doing exactly what they're crying about to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because those journalists decided to embed themselves with the rebels to act as propagandists for Putins regime.
She's still done nothing wrong, there's no onus on soldiers to be psychic in guessing what stupid thing journalists may or may not have decided to do, the onus is entirely on journalists to stay safe, it's part and package of the job.
Thus there's no merit to the charges because whilst it's illegal under international law to specifically target journalists, it's most definitely not anyone el
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with any sanity is a Russophobe right now given the new levels of retardedness the nation has reached.
Calling someone a Russophobe now is a bit like calling someone a Naziphobe in the late 1930s. I don't really see that as a bad thing, it seems like an extremely positive thing to call someone, so thank you for recognise my ability to spot countries that are fucking nasty. I'm actually quite proud of it, as would be any decent human being.
Re: (Score:1)
That kind of illogical mind indeed. If you could even use it to string a sentence together it would be slightly less illogical.
Keep trying though, you may be able to string together an actual sentence one day.
Re: (Score:2)
Alright Mr Putin. That's your 3rd AC post now.
Yes they're state sponsored terrorists. By definition terrorism is trying to force political change against the majority with violence.
These guys are a minority trying to force change, therefore, they are by definition terrorists. As they have also acquired Russian arms that only could be acquired with Russian support (T-64s, Iglas etc.) then they are also state sponsored.
Re: (Score:2)
The US only said they couldn't confirm or deny who made the arrest, which in this case was flak for the Maldives not to take responsibility if they so choose.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The richest and most powerful Russian oligarchs are currently having some difficulties managing and funding their foreign enterprises due to targeted sanctions. I think the Maldives will get along just fine in the future. All they did was honor and fulfill their responsibilities and treaty obligations with Interpol. The guy arrested is the son of a top level and powerful Russian nationalist and a long standing party member. If this guy really wants his son back they could always exchange him for someone the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My original post was in response to someone claiming the Maldives should fear the Russian Oligarchs. The very few individuals targeted are considered Oligarchs and close to Putin and extremely wealthy. Your average Russian citizen is not being effected by the sanctions. Those sanctioned have to be wary of having their foreign assets and bank accounts fall victim to the sanctions.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You have an amazing ability to ignore simple reasons and declare huge conspiracies as "the only conceivable" explanations for things.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it the fault of the US Government when news agencies are going at each other neck-and-neck, to have the latest, sensationalist story (to drive up ad revenue)?
By having such laws that allow these unscrupulous news agenices to do what they do?
See: everything can always be blamed on the government.
But I'd sure like to know how someone arrived from "arrested in the Maledives" to "arrested by US Secret Service". One heck of an interpolation.
Re: (Score:2)
The US government stated "On July 5, 2014 the U.S. Secret Service arrested Roman Valerevich Seleznev." They didn't go into any details like where which seems like exactly what you would expect since that's irrelevant and you don't want to give out operational details in some cases (and thus don't want to give them out in general - so that the cases you have a reason not to don't obviously stand out).
There's no interpolation to "arrested by the US Secret Service", it's just reordering the statement without c
Re: (Score:2)
The Secret Service HQ is in DC, Maldives are in the Pacific
The Maldives are south west of the southern tip of India.
Re: (Score:1)
America only recognizes 2 oceans. The Left and the Right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what the DOJ actually said. [dhs.gov] The rest was just the media going wild trying to mix together the statements of the DOJ with the claims of the Russians. The DOJ statement says nothing about him being "arrested overseas", just that he was arrested. This, and always was, a question for the Maldives government to respond to. And now they have.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The first sentence of the press release reads thusly:
On July 5, 2014 the U.S. Secret Service arrested Roman Valerevich Seleznev.
This turns out to be a lie since it is now claimed that the Maldives arrested Seleznev and then turned him over to the Secret Service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should learn what arrested means.
Do you think if he had said the the US Secret Service, "I'd like to leave now, thanks. Am I free to go". They would have said "yes" and let him go?
No they wouldn't have. Because he was under arrest. In other words he had been arrested and the US Secret Service was now depriving him of liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly your usage and the government's usage of the term is different. And since they get to define it...
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't arrested twice.
Yes, he was. That's the point; the Maldives arrested him, then released him to the US, which then arrested him again. That's how it's done.
Re:Consipricy nuts, go! (Score:4, Insightful)
You have the sequence out of order. The US issued warrants for this guy back in 2012.
If you're going to throw around ad hominem attacks coupled with suppositions, you should attack the the Russian leader for hating the Ukraine for its perceived turn towards the power that has warrants out for his son.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to throw around ad hominem attacks coupled with suppositions, you should attack the the Russian leader for hating the Ukraine for its perceived turn towards the power that has warrants out for his son.
Goebbels is proud.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me guess. All of you who claimed the US overstepped it's bounds in the previous Slashdot article will now claim that the Maldives is lying to cover for the US. Rather than simply just admit your knee jerk reaction was wrong.
I don't remember anyone spinning any conspiracies and this doesn't counter what everyone was complaining about. The US took the son of a Russian politician into custody during a military crisis without talking to Russia about it first. What would your reaction have been if, while on vacation to England (or any other country for that matter) John McCains kid was arrested and flown to Russia overnight? The uproar would be insane. The double standard we hold for other countries is a bit of a joke.
Re: (Score:3)
What would your reaction have been if, while on vacation to England (or any other country for that matter) John McCains kid was arrested and flown to Russia overnight?.
Forget his kid can they taken him?
Re: (Score:2)
The Vietnamese did this once. They gave him back.
Re: (Score:2)
Forget his kid can they taken him?
^take
(stupid tablet keyboard auto-corrected)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone is famous for 15 minutes. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Since they states the exact opposite of that, you don't have to believe it.
Re: (Score:1)
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Red notice (Score:5, Informative)
They're not always effective; governments seem to be free to ignore these things if it appears to be politically motivated.
INTERPOL itself has no teeth. It's left to the nations themselves to decide if they care what it has to say on a case-by-case basis. It permits information sharing (etc) but does not require it. Their goal is "To ensure and promote the widest possible mutual assistance between all criminal police authorities within the limits of the laws existing in the different countries and in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and not to enforce laws themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
I should hope that if somebody in (say) the UK ripped off a few thousand Russian pensioners over the internet, that the Russians could have him handed over (and thrown in Russian PMITA prison) quickly.
I would support this 100%. You go to Russia and commit a crime then Russia has every right to prosecute you for it.
What will be the tit for tat response from Russia? (Score:2)
If I were the son of a high ranking US government official or businessman I would not travel to Russia or any nation friendly with Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think "I would not travel to Russia or any nation friendly with Putin" is enough without any other qualifications.
Re: (Score:3)
... or any nation friendly with Putin.
So they can't go to Syria or Belarus. That doesn't seem like a big limitation.
Carding (Score:1)
accused of running one of the world's largest carding operations
What's carding? Like hacked SIM cards or something?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carding
To be honest, I'm surprised that's considered illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
You're suprised it's illegal to steal someone's credit card information and charge things to it without permission?
Re: (Score:3)
Carding [wikipedia.org]
It's basically verifying the validity of stolen or generated card numbers.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Criminal acts (Score:1)
I have a sideline job doing computer servicing/repair. Since the issues between Russia/Ukraine have ramped up, there's also been a noticeable uptick in online/banking fraud coming from Russia.
Thankfully the banks seem to be on the watch for this - the notify customers of unusual transactions, e.g. western union, to Russian accounts - so most of my work is just ensuring that machines are clean after the fact.
I won't say that this is state-sponsored, but likely more to issues alluded to with this guy: mainly
Re: (Score:2)
Agree. The US even has the FCPA - it is outright illegal to bribe foreign officials. That law isn't enforced as well as it probably could be, but it is enforced and you do hear about a scandal from time to time. I know that my employer trains on the act and makes compliance a clear policy (though I have no idea how much they follow-through in practice - I wouldn't be privy to enforcement actions).
I'm not sure to what degree this is the case in other countries.
I'm surprised the Russians would complain too much (Score:5, Insightful)
Since it would seem to only lead to more focus on the mafia-like nature of the Russian government and the shadowy links between Russian government, intelligence and organized crime.
I'm sure the US-haters and the Russian propagandists will begin their usual moral equivocation, NSA, CIA, banking, etc.
NO, NO, NO (Score:2)
We can't waste an opportunity to blame America for overreach...stop, just stop.
Blurring lines between criminality and politics. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russians have been protecting a suspected criminal fraudster who happens to be the son of a government official. These suspicions aren't thin. Seleznev has even admitted to his crimes. If its state sponsored thuggery, then the state is Russia, not US. Roman Seleznev is just another cyber criminal who was dumb enough to step outside of Mother Russia long enough to get caught.
If this had been Snowden, then I think the argument for political motivation is real. But Snowden, his existence in Russian exile, gives Russia some leverage to make claim of political arrest and state overreach. The US government has put itself in a position where it looks bad even when it is doing something good.
Re: (Score:1)
Blurring lines between criminality and politics.?
The two are synonymous. What's this line?
Re: (Score:1)
Blurring lines between criminality and politics.?
The two are synonymous. What's this line?
Since politics has historically existed in all recorded human cultures, is humanity corrupt and criminal by nature? What is the alternative?
If one were to bring a political "system based on corrupt practice" down, how would it be replaced? And what about those who the inevitably see a new political system as criminal?
Khmer Rouge, Blanc, and Bleu anyone?