Litvinenko Poisoning Death Now Carries Stain of Blame-the-Victim Allegations
 Printer-friendly
|
 Email article |
Related subjects: Denver Lessing, Diplomacy & Politics, Europe, In the Loop, Security & Surveillance, The Global Intercept, The Russian Federation, United Kingdom Comments Off
PRESS CREDULITY, WEB OF CONNECTIONS BREEDING ‘BLAME VICTIM’ SPECULATION
In the wake of the poisoning of former KGB spy Alexandr Litvinenko, by exposure to intensely radioactive polonium-210, allegations have turned from state terrorism to corrupt oligarchs, to questions of a blackmailing scheme. What now looks to be a major issue is whether there is an effort to discern the credibility of hearsay allegations being spread by powerful figures involved in the case.
In the days leading up to and immediately following Litvinenko’s death, apparently by a rare radiation homicide, it became almost conventional wisdom that the Kremlin under the autocratic rule of Vladimir Putin was responsible for the killing. It would have had access to the materials necessary to effect the crime and to the logistical expertise to deliver them, even across borders.
But so far, no clear evidence of such involvement has been made available to the press by investigators, and no press source has published such proof. While facing those allegations, however, Pres. Putin suggested that the murder was likely linked to Mr. Litvinenko’s investigative work and his connections to or conflicts with powerful expatriate Russian oligarchs. Eventually, Mr. Putin vowed his security services would investigate, but only after proclaiming that the circumstances were “unremarkable”.
[ad#cafsen-intext]
Now, it just so happens that “information” has come to light, suggesting that, in fact, Mr. Litvinenko was investigating not only the corrupt practices involved in the takeover of the Yukos oil company by Putin’s government and business associates, as well as abuses in violent conflicts like the Chechnya war, but that he had devised a scheme to use information gathered to systematically and chronically blackmail the targets of his research.
The problem is that this new brushfire of reportage has sprung up in unscrupulous winds, fanned by an intensity of doubt and intrigue, and the press have spread the new allegations wilfully, as if they now systematically alter the story and give the press new material. But the allegations must be taken with an extremely critical gaze.
We must remember that, as a defector, and as a known government critic, Mr. Litvinenko’s enemies were not merely powerful oligarchs or even warlords, they were part of a complex web of espionage, whose business is the discovery, the covering up and the dissemination of or protection of information. We must also remember that if there is to be substance to these allegations, there must be evidence.
So far, there has been no evidence presented in the public domain that the material used to poison Mr. Litvinenko, his wife and at least one associate of his, was obtained through business-related or non-state channels.
We read in the Los Angeles Times that “police are exploring a growing number of leads, some relating to Litvinenko’s own investigative work into the shadowy world of Russian and Chechen organized crime, wealthy Russian oligarchs and international politics”. There is no information here, no attempt to inform the public as to the source of this information. The word “leads” is presented as if it were evidence, when in fact it simply means that someone has claimed that something might be true.
This particular report adds a number of increasingly commonplace reports including that “a Russian academic researching a book on Chechnya said she had met Litvinenko several times over the past year and learned he had accumulated secret and damaging dossiers from the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB known as the FSB, on a number of influential figures that he planned to use for blackmailing purposes”.
A thorough analysis should ask what reason a former KGB spy and allegedly crouching blackmailer would have for informing a woman conducting research that he was planning to commit such crimes. The report does go on to suggest that some of Litvinenko’s research had been passed to a former executive of Yukos, and that according to that executive, “he had information on crimes committed with the Russian government’s direct participation. He only recently gave me and my attorneys documents that shed light on the most significant aspects of the Yukos affair”.
There are also the “raison d’état” theories: an Italy-based investigative commission on international political crimes has reportedly “found evidence that the former Soviet Union had ordered the attempted assassination of former Pope John Paul II and the 1978 murder of former prime minister Aldo Moro by the Italian militant Red Brigades”.
But there are very serious questions of the dynamic of political abuse and cover-up, the possible costs and the extent to which these complicate the investigative and judicial processes and undermine civil society. These are the primary thrust of this investigation, one which very really veers into the field of nuclear proliferation, black-market arms dealing, and state-sponsored assassinations.
It is essential that these themes be explored exhaustively, in the interests of free societies and the rule of law in general, and it is of utmost importance that neither propaganda nor hearsay become the popular press chorus. The UK Home Secretary John Reid has been quoted as saying “The worst thing we can do is speculate. We will end up with egg on our face. This isn’t a game of Cluedo”.
Real lives are still at risk, the issue is one of the most serious crimes of recent times, and the legitimacy of governments and the integrity of sovereign states are clearly in question. The journalist’s imperative is to look for the coherent story, even where it may seem that the facts are a morass of nonsense and disparate connections. But there is no imperative to invent or to confabulate, and there is no imperative to trust official voices. It is the journalist’s skepticism that best serves civil society and the rule of law. [s]
UK AUTHORITIES FIND SIGNIFICANT QUANTITY OF POLONIUM-210 IN CLOSE CONTACT OF MURDERED SPY, LITVINENKO
THREE PASSENGER JETS ARE GROUNDED FOR RADIATION EXPOSURE, EVIDENCE SAID TO POINT TO SOURCE IN MOSCOW
2 December 2006
Investigators in the UK have said they found a “significant quantity” of Polonium-210, the intensely radioactive isotope that killed former Russian spy Alexandr Litvinenko, in the body of a close associate of the victim. The discovery raises fears about wider contamination and the possibility that others may have been targetted. [Full Story]
SCIENTISTS SAY LITVINENKO POLONIUM POISONING BEARS HALLMARKS OF SOPHISTICATED STATE OPERATION
28 November 2006
When former Soviet spy, Alexandr Litvinenko accused the Russian state, under Vladimir Putin, of organizing his murder, the diplomatic community was faced with a possibly explosive situation. Now scientists in the United Kingdom are saying the polonium-210 isotope found in Litvinenko’s system suggests a level of sophistication that would require not only state sponsorship, but likely military cooperation. [Full Story]
FMR RUSSIAN SPY LITVINENKO DIES IN LONDON, AFTER APPARENT RADIATION POISONING
DEFECTOR ACCUSES PUTIN DIRECTLY FOR HIS KILLING
24 November 2006
Alexandr Litvinenko, a former Russian spy, who defected after working witht the Soviet KGB, and who appears to have been poisoned, died yesterday in a London hospital. Litvinenko was reportedly investigating the contract killing of investigative journalist and fellow Kremlin critic, Anna Politkovskaya. [Full Story]
| Printer-friendly
|
Email article |
CafeSentido Partner Sites: