RUSS 471

RUSS 471

SessionNo. 3


AlexanderNazaryan. “Punk, Skirts, Balaclavas: A Russian Revolution: MashaGessen’s Words Will Break Cement.”The New York Times, January 9, 2014.


MariaAlyokhina, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Yekaterina Samutsevich. “PussyRiot Closing Statements.” Trans. Maria Corrigan, ElenaGlasov-Corrigan, and others. n+1 16 (13 August 2012).



Thebig question that comes to mind upon reading the piece from the PussyRiotis, why is the church and all its leaders being enticed intopolitical game plans without the prior consent of its members but bythe friendly relationship between its leader, KillicI,and that of the politically disfigured president VladimirPutin?In addition, why is it so hard to grant the PussyRiottheir fundamental Rights as it is enshrined in the Constitution ofRussia? Instead, they are being harshly hushed. Why?


Argument: Tolokonnikova

Herstatement is against the entire Kremlin government and itsleadership. She states that the system places all the criticaldecisions at the helm of the presidency which unethical anddictatorial. Further, in her commentary, she sympathizes with theyouth who are not allowed to air their voices freely for fear ofbeing pushed by the ineffective administration. The public comesunder her strong attack for being silent on important nationalissues. She also mentions the OrthodoxChurchfor its liaison with the government and preaching what it does notpractice.


MariaAlyokhina puts the government under a scorching attack and refers tothe trials as shameful and an embarrassment to the government. Shedescribes their performance as a “small and somewhat absurd act”turning out to be an “enormous catastrophe.” She likens hercountry as an organism full of a hidden sickness that explodes toexpose all the dirt concealed beneath it. In her scorching remarks,she refers to the ongoing trials as the “dialogue” that thegovernment is capable of, referring to the Kremlin’s way ofundermining activism. She also, attacks the power vertical that isbeing enjoyed by the current regime to govern the country.Additionally, she is against the current system of education thatdeprives student off their will of studying their preferred artcourses. In addition, she makes a plea on the vulnerability of thechildren contained in the orphanages are never educated as well asbeing prescribed with high doses of strong medicine to control their“unbecoming behavior”.


Inher argument, YekaterinaSamutsevichexpresses bitterness and anger at the Kremlin regime. She honestly isasking several questions to justify her as well her band mates’actions at not only the OrthodoxChurchin Russia but also at all other performances they have heldcountrywide. She observes that the Christthe Savior Cathedral Orthodox Churchhas been transformed into a political organ of the government sincethe rise to leadership of former KGBmember, KirillGunyayev.She thinks that the uses of religion to mask the dirty linen of thegovernment are hypocritical since Russia is still a secular statewith no preferred central religion.


Ona personal level, I agree with all these arguments and believe intheir are validity in that they tend to expose the rot in the currentRussian government majorly controlled by a single person. It is theright of any citizen to raise their dissatisfaction with theirrespective leadership and they should be allowed the space to do indignity. All this is nothing new but it is a fundamental Rightpermanently enshrined in the National Constitution of the country.The public should be the one to judge of the relevance of the claimsnot the government.



Telephonetapping (or wire tapping) is the close monitoring of phone andinternet exchanges by a third party. This is usually done in highsecrecy. Tapping by this means came into being since, traditionally,the connection for monitoring was in real sense electrical tap on thephone wires. There are two types of tapping:

  1. Legal tapping

Thisis usually conducted by the government as security measure or toretrieve crucial information that is important to them. This methodis also known as lawfulinterception.It is keenly monitored in many countries to protect privacy manydeveloped nations have this legal framework in place. Most of phonetapping cases get a go ahead warrant from the court after appropriateevidence has been produced to prove of its importance in a case.However, legal interceptions are mainly undertaken if a case is ofextreme severity or of great interest to the government. It is amethod that has been effective in unearthing subversive or criminalactivity.

  1. Illegal tapping

Thisinvolves tapping of phone exchanges unofficially by a third partywithout the prior knowledge of the parties taking part in theconversations. However, lawmakers argue that this may be consideredlegal or illegal depending with the jurisdiction or circumstances.Telephone conversations may be monitored in a number of ways. Aparticipating party may record the conversations using a recordingdevice (such as a phone), a tape, or through a computer installedwith a call recording software. The recording whether concealed orunconcealed may be began automatically, manually by detecting VOX(sound on the line).

Recently,the United States came under heavy criticism after its phone tappingrevelations were unearthed and made public. The country’sIntelligence Service had been tapping phone calls involving prominentinternational leaders. One of the victims was Germany’s PrimeMinister,Angela Merkel.She was infuriated and so were other affected parties that she openedan inquiry to investigate the claims. On their part, the UnitedStates claimed it was a normal security measure for them to unearthglobal suspicious activities. The incident was on of the majortalking points of the year 2014.


Gellman,Barton, and Laura Poitras. &quotUS, British intelligence mining datafrom nine US Internet companies in broad secret program.&quot&nbspTheWashington Post&nbsp6(2013).

Gilreath,Shannon. &quotThe Internet and Inequality: A Comment On The NSASpying Scandal.&quot&nbspWakeForest L. Rev.&nbsp49(2014): 525-633.

Johnson,Loch K., et al. &quotAn INS Special Forum: Implications of theSnowden Leaks.&quot&nbspIntelligenceand National Security&nbsp29.6(2014): 793-810.

Related Posts

© All Right Reserved