DOCSLIB.ORG

Introduction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Introduction Introduction This book, titled Situation of Prisoners in Contemporary Russia, is the second publication in a series of thematic human rights monitoring studies carried out by the Moscow Helsinki Group (MHG) and a network of regional human rights organizations all across the Russian Federation.(1) The summer of 2001 saw the appearance of the first report in the given series, Nationalism, Xenophobia and Intolerance in Contemporary Russia, which has been extensively covered in Russian and international media and broadly welcomed by a number of domestic and international organizations and experts. In the fall of 2002, MHG and the regional human rights organizations launched a new thematic monitoring effort aimed to look at the conditions of prisoners. Notably, the human rights situation at Russia’s closed establishments has been defined from the very beginning as a key monitoring issue under the project Human Rights Monitoring Network in the Russian Federation. It is precisely in those facilities, devoid of civilian oversight mechanisms, that the human rights situation has become particularly worrying. The conditions of detention and the observance of the rights of prisoners have been closely watched by local human rights activists from the very first days of the human rights movement in the former Soviet Union. Given the rather large numbers of political prisoners in the former Soviet Union, the flow of information from “prisoners of conscience” to the outside world had been put on a solid footing. After the massive release of political prisoners at the end of the 1980s, reports on the confinement conditions at Russian penitentiary facilities ceased to be delivered on a systemic basis. In the years that followed, human rights activists carried targeted surveys of institutions of the Criminal Implementation System (UIS), and staged actions aimed to provide humanitarian and other kinds of assistance to prisoners. Nowadays, the living conditions of prisoners have become even more dire than in Soviet times, according to evidence received from penitentiary facilities. Apparently, this trend has primarily been related to the growing numbers of prisoners. Throughout the 1990s and until recently, Russia had steadily held the first place in numbers of prisoners in relation to the population, with this infamous championship yielded to the United States only quite recently. Clearly, the compelling need for a large-scale effort to look at the current conditions of prisoners was long recognized by the human rights community. Now, a whole range of Russian non- governmental organizations (NGOs), with the Center for Assistance to the Criminal Justice Reform first and foremost, have focused their efforts on the problems encountered at penitentiary facilities. Furthermore, they are actively seeking to change the conditions at those institutions, including through the application of alternative punishments and the radical reduction in the number of prisoners. At the same time, it is evident that in Russia, with its 89 regions, any country-wide monitoring initiative can be carried out only under the proviso of an accessible and smoothly run monitoring network with organizations-members in all Russian provinces. MHG has created and is now coordinating the activities of the only such network in Russia today, and thus became the facilitator of this monitoring effort. The completed monitoring survey has been multidimensional in character. In addition, the effort undertaken with our regional partners in the area of prisoners’ human rights, appears to be without precedent, since this is the first time such an effort has been accomplished on an All- Russian scale, using a single set of thoroughly developed and detailed methodological guidelines. Regional NGOs have been involved in gathering statistics and other valuable information, approaching relevant authorities (local penalty execution departments, prosecutor’s offices, and other), and conducting interviews across the social spectrum. Something of great relevance and without precedent was the inspection (with the filling out of detailed site survey maps) of 117 penitentiary facilities (41 pretrial detention facilities (SIZO), 74 colonies, two prisons).(2) The fact that in the months of October-November 2002 human rights activists managed to penetrate such a large part of penitentiary institutions in the Russian Federation has become a high-profile public campaign in itself. This action revealed the great concern of civil society over the plight of this special category of people, whose rights have been seriously restrained and who are in urgent need of protection against the widespread practices of cruel and degrading treatment. It also represents a very big step on the way to the establishment of a permanent system of public oversight with regard to penitentiary facilities. The basic international standards for the treatment of prisoners are proscribed in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR) adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1955. SMR are one of the oldest baseline documents adopted by the United Nations. In 1957, SMR were endorsed by the UN Economic and Social Council, and in 1977, SMR were updated to cover those prisoners who were not yet formally charged. Although SMR were not adopted as a legally binding treaty, their provisions have been broadly regarded as basic rules that “have tremendous significance and huge implications for the progressive development of criminal justice policies and practices.”(3) Hence, following the principles of human rights monitoring, it was logical for us to structure the monitoring methodology and design an outline for the prospective report on the basis of this fundamental comprehensive standard for the protection of human rights of prisoners. To be more specific, our methodology was built exclusively on the first part of SMR, particularly since this part of SMR carries rules applicable to any and all categories of prisoners. In view of the grand scale and tremendous complexity of this monitoring effort, we chose not to cover some specialized penitentiary institutions (educational colonies, special psychiatric establishments, disciplinary battalions, medical correctional facilities, etc.). Following the completion of the field research, we found ourselves with a huge body of qualitative and quantitative information about the condition of prisoners held at numerous penitentiary facilities. Given the very impressive diversity of data, we had been able to paint a rather comprehensive picture of the situation in this sphere. Significantly, different types of data complemented and cross-checked one another. All survey maps, questionnaires, transcribed in- depth interviews and statistical data have been thoroughly verified and subjected to comparative analysis. We believe that under the current conditions, a fully credible and wholesome monitoring project cannot be completed without interviewing, because neither statistical reports nor one single inspection a number of penitentiary facilities would provide sufficient grounds to draw general conclusions. In the course of the monitoring effort, we conducted interviews with the following three groups of respondents: heads of penitentiary facilities, recently released convicts, and relatives of prisoners. The motivation behind this strategy was to cross-check the information accumulated from these different sources in order to be able to create as objective a picture as possible. Whilst site-visits to places of confinement enabled us to acquire first-hand knowledge of living conditions of prisoners today, interviews with former prisoners and relatives of those currently held in penitentiaries made it possible to collect data about the whole array of problems relevant to the past three years. In this way, we succeeded in fulfilling our principal goal: to investigate the situation, to provide descriptions of the more widespread abuses, and to reveal established trends. It is too early to speak about the exact extent of each identified phenomenon or problem attributable to penitentiary practices, or about one single major trend in this area. What we had done is only the first systemic undertaking along this challenging path. The overriding human rights monitoring goal is to continue tracking the problem on a systematic basis to change things for the better. As we proceeded with the monitoring work, we sought not only to build up a comprehensive picture of prisoner conditions across penitentiary facilities, but also to make an assessment of the changes generated by the ongoing multi-tiered penitentiary system reform launched after the Chief Department of Penalty Execution (GUIN) was transferred from the jurisdiction of Ministry of Internal Affairs to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice. The obvious, positive consequence from that structural change had been a dramatic fall in the numbers of prisoners (over 100 000) in the course of the year 2000. The willingness to carry on with the reform and achieve progress at the GUIN-run penitentiary facilities appears to be sustained. Importantly, our monitoring survey could not have been a success without a good measure of cooperation on the part of GUIN, which instructed its regional units to provide access for human rights monitors into penitentiary institutions. While understanding that much of the problems at penitentiary establishments are rooted in the Soviet system of penal camps and that no major change in this area can be achieved in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Stability in Russia's Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments
    Order Code RL34613 Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments August 12, 2008 Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments Summary In recent years, there have not been major terrorist attacks in Russia’s North Caucasus — a border area between the Black and Caspian Seas that includes the formerly breakaway Chechnya and other ethnic-based regions — on the scale of the June 2004 raid on security offices in the town of Nazran (in Ingushetia), where nearly 100 security personnel and civilians were killed, or the September 2004 attack at the Beslan grade school (in North Ossetia), where 300 or more civilians were killed. This record, in part, might be attributed to government tactics. For instance, the Russian Interior (police) Ministry reported that its troops had conducted over 850 sweep operations (“zachistki”) in 2007 in the North Caucasus, in which they surround a village and search every house, ostensibly in a bid to apprehend terrorists. Critics of the operations allege that the troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnapings for ransom and “disappearances” of civilians. Although it appears that major terrorist attacks have abated, there reportedly have been increasingly frequent small-scale attacks against government targets. Additionally, many ethnic Russian and other non-native civilians have been murdered or have disappeared, which has spurred the migration of most of the non- native population from the North Caucasus.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethnic War
    The Ethnic War Persecution of Chechens in the Russian Federation Report III/ 2002 The Norwegian Helsinki Committee 1 Table of Contents I BACKGROUND 3 II FINDINGS 5 Moscow 5 Persecution of Chechens and People with Caucasian Background 5 Persecution of Chechens Repatriated/Extradited from Europe 7 Ingushetiya 8 Persecution of Human Rights Defenders 9 Pressure on IDPs 10 Military Operations 12 Chechnya 14 Killings 15 Disappearances/Kidnappings 15 Torture 17 The Reign of Impunity 19 Justice in Chechnya 19 Threats to Plaintiffs and Witnesses 20 The European Court of Human Rights and Chechnya 21 III CONCLUSIONS 22 IV RECOMMENDATIONS 24 2 I Background The Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC) has monitored and reported on the human rights situation in the Chechnya since 1995, when the first Chechen war was taking place in the Russian Federation. In 1996, NHC gave its human rights prize, the Sakharov Freedom Award, to Sergey Kovalyov, the Russian human rights defender who was instrumental in documenting the abuses and crimes perpetrated on Chechen territory in the first war. In 1997, the NHC took part in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) election observation mission to the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of the Republic of Chechnya, which sprang from the Khasav-Yurt peace agreement between the Russian Federation and representatives of the Republic of Chechnya of September 1996. Since the start of the second Chechen war, the so-called “anti-terrorist operation”, in the fall of 1999, the NHC has stepped up its activities in regard to Chechnya. The NHC has concentrated on 1) informing Norwegian authorities and the public about human rights abuses in Chechnya, 2) cooperating with Russian and international human rights NGOs in international bodies like the United Nations, the Council of Europe and OSCE in order to raise awareness of human rights abuses in Chechnya and the need for accountability, and 3) assisting Chechen refugees in Norway and Western Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes of War Pr O J E Ct
    CRIMES OF WAR PR O J E CT c h ec h nya : the world loo ks away photo © thomas dworzak/magnum, 2002 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/38af49/ about the crimes of war project The Crimes of War Project is a collaboration of journalists, l a w yers and scholars dedicated to raising public aware n e s s of the laws of war and their application to situations of conflict. Our goal is to promote understanding of international humanitarian law among journalists, policymakers, and the g e n e ral public, in the belief that a wider knowledge of the legal f ramework governing armed conflict will lead to gre a t e r p re s s u re to pre vent breaches of the law, and to punish those who commit them. T h rough our book Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know, t h rough our website (www. c r i m e s o f w a r. o rg), and thro u g h educational pro g rams and seminars, we hope to: ¥ Raise the level of understanding about the law among those re p o rting on war and war crimes. ¥ Provide information for journalists, scholars, and the policy community about critical issues in modern armed conflict. ¥ E n c o u rage wider appreciation of international law as a f ramework for understanding and responding to conflicts around the world. ¥ Promote consultation among journalists, legal expert s and humanitarian agencies about how to incre a s e compliance with international humanitarian law.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2005
    chechnya justice project ANNUAL REPORT 2005 Stichting Russian Justice Initiative Правовая Инициатива MOSCOW NAZRAN UTRECHT Chechnya Justice Project Annual Report 2005 Stichting Russian Justice Initiative Правовая Инициатива Moscow Nazran Utrecht ANNUAL REPORT 2005 CHecHNYA JUSTIce Project The Chechnya Justice Project (the Project) is a groundbreaking initiative that utilizes domestic and international legal mechanisms to seek redress for human rights abuses committed in Chechnya. Through its implementing partners the Stichting Russian Justice Initiative (the Netherlands) and Pravovaia Initsiativa (Ingushetia), the Project provides free legal counsel to victims of arbitrary detention, enforced disap- pearances and extrajudicial executions and bring these cases to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France (the European Court, the Court or ECHR). From its earliest days, the second armed conflict in Chechnya (1999-present) has been marked by large-scale grave abuses of human rights, including torture, disappearances, and extrajudicial execution. The Russian government’s per- sistent lack of will to guarantee the rule of law and investigate human rights abuses, regardless of the suspected perpetrator’s affiliation, has perpetuated a cycle of violence in the region. The Chechnya Justice Project emerged from a series of small litigation activities begun in 2000 as a response to the problem of impunity in Chech- nya. Initially, members and volunteers of the Moscow office of Human Rights Watch put victims in contact with experienced European lawyers, who, in turn, prepared applications to the European Court on the victims’ behalf. By mid- 2001, as a growing number of victims requested representation, these ad-hoc efforts were no longer sufficient to meet demand.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Situation of Residents of Chechnya in the Russian Federation
    MEMORIAL Human Rights Center Migration Rights Network Edited by Svetlana A. Gannushkina On the Situation of Residents of Chechnya in the Russian Federation August 2006 – October 2007 Moscow 2007 1 Этот материал выпущен МОО ПЦ "Мемориал", который внесен в реестр, предусмотренный ст. 13.1.10 ФЗ "Об НКО". Мы обжалуем это решение. The project is funded by the European Commission Based on the materials gathered by the Migration Rights Network, Memorial Human Rights Center, Civic Assistance Committee, Internet Publication Caucasian Knot, SOVA Information and Analysis Center, and others S.A. Gannushkina, Head of the Migration Rights Network, Chairwoman of the Civic Assistance Committee L.Sh. Simakova, compiler of the Report Other contributors to the Report included: E. Burtina, S. Magomedov, Sh. Tangiyev, N. Estemirova The Migration Rights Network of Memorial Human Rights Center has 56 offices providing free legal assistance to forced migrants, including five offices located in Chechnya and Ingushetia (www.refugee.memo.ru). In Moscow lawyers from the Migration Rights Network use the charitable Civic Assistance Committee for Refugee Aid as their base (www.refugee.ru). ISBN 978-5-93439-246-9 Distributed free of charge 2 Этот материал выпущен МОО ПЦ "Мемориал", который внесен в реестр, предусмотренный ст. 13.1.10 ФЗ "Об НКО". Мы обжалуем это решение. CONTENTS I. Introduction............................................................................................................5 II. Svetlana Gannushkina’s speech at the seminar for administrative law judges in Hohenheim, Germany (November 25, 2006): Chechen refugees and the EU qualification rules....................................................................................................6 III. Living conditions and security situation of internally displaced persons and residents of the Chechen Republic......................................................................18 IV. Situation of people from Chechnya in the Republic of Ingushetia......................42 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Counterinsurgency in a Non-Democratic State: the Russian Example
    Counterinsurgency in a Non-Democratic State: the Russian Example YURI M. ZHUKOV v. 31 August 2010 Chapter in Rich, P. and Duyvesteyn I. (eds.) (2011) The Routledge Companion to Insur- gency and Counter Insurgency, London: Routledge. The influence of regime type on the outbreak, conduct and resolution of low inten- sity conflict has been the subject of considerable debate. Democracies and non- democracies face different levels of conflict risk and confront different types of challenges from non-state opponents. They employ different instruments and strategies in fighting their enemies and may have different track records of victory and defeat. Democratic skeptics argue that these differences favor closed regimes, which face fewer constraints on the use of coercion and have a higher tolerance for sustaining the human and material costs of war.1 Democratic optimists maintain that democracies are less likely to provoke violent opposition in the first place and, by emphasizing legitimacy over intimidation, are better able to secure the peace.2 Both sides have drawn on evidence from a limited number of well-documented West European and American cases. The optimistic argument is derived largely from the best practices of the British in Malaya, and the less spectacular perform- ance of the French in Algeria and the U.S. in Vietnam.3 The skeptical argument cites the British and U.S. experiences in Kenya and the Philippines as examples in which harsher methods – like mass relocation and pseudo-gangs – helped achieve mission goals.4 The bulk of modern counterinsurgency expertise, however, resides in countries with less democratic political systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Deceptive Justice
    “MEMORIAL” Human Rights Center DECEPTIVE JUSTICE Situation on the investigation on crimes against civilians committed by members of the Federal Forces in the Chechen Republic during military operations 1999–2003 (Updated in May 2003) Moscow 2003 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/00f67f/ ПРАВОЗАЩИТНЫЙ ЦЕНТР «МЕМОРИАЛ» HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER «MEMORIAL» Россия, Москва, 103051, М. Каретный переулок 12 тел.: (095) 200-6506, факс: (095) 209-5779, E-mail: [email protected] ISBN 5-93439-113-5 © Human RightCenter,«Memorial», 2003. PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/00f67f/ Contents List of Abridgements . .4 1. Introduction . .6 2. Sentences to the servicemen who committed crimes against the inhabitants of the Chechen Republic . .7 3. Sentences to the policemen who committed crimes against the inhabitants of the Chechen Republic . .11 4. Investigation on criminal cases by the office of public prosecutor . .13 4.1. Investigation on criminal cases by the office of military prosecutor . .20 4.2. Investigation on criminal cases by the office of public prosecutor of the Chechen Republic . .23 5. Attachments 1. Answer from the Deputy Procurator-General of the Russian Federation S.N.Fridinsky to the inquiry sent by the Deputy of the State Duma S.A.Kovaliov on the sentences passed by the courts on criminal cases concerning the crimes against the inhabitants of the Chechen Republic, committed by members of the Federal Forces . .31 2. Izviestia. Evgueny Chubatov, Oleg Yunusov. “Fusillade” article. July, 9 2002 . .39 3. Information from INTERFAX July, 13 2001 . .45 4. Information from INTERFAX July, 16 2001 . .47 5. Information from INTERFAX July, 17 2001 .
    [Show full text]
  • Stability in Russia's Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments
    Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus: Recent Developments Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs December 13, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34613 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Stability in Russia’s Chechnya and Other Regions of the North Caucasus Summary Terrorist attacks in Russia’s North Caucasus—a border area between the Black and Caspian Seas that includes the formerly breakaway Chechnya and other ethnic-based regions—appeared to increase substantially in 2007-2009. Moreover, civilian and government casualties reached levels not seen in several years and terrorist attacks again took place outside the North Caucasus. Although the number of terrorist incidents may have leveled off or even declined slightly in 2010 from the high levels of 2009, the rate of civilian and government casualties continued to increase throughout the North Caucasus in 2010 and a rising number of terrorist incidents took place outside of Chechnya. Illustrative of the new range and scope of violence, the Moscow subway system was bombed in March 2010, resulting in over 40 deaths and dozens of injuries. Before the recent rise in terrorism, it seemed that government security forces had been successful in tamping down their range and scope by aggressively carrying out over a thousand sweep operations (“zachistki”) in the North Caucasus. During these operations, security forces surround a village and search the homes of the residents, ostensibly in a bid to apprehend terrorists. Critics of the operations allege that the searches are illegal and that troops frequently engage in pillaging and gratuitous violence and are responsible for kidnapping for ransom and “disappearances” of civilians.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Federation, the Torture Or Ill- Treatment of Women, Men and Children in Custody Is Virtually Routine
    This report focuses on specific and serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by Russian law enforcement and security forces. Throughout the Russian Federation, the torture or ill- treatment of women, men and children in custody is virtually routine. Conditions in the country’s disease-ridden and overcrowded pre-trial detention centres are generally so appalling that they amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. In the context of the conflict in Chechnya, there have been widespread and credible reports of attacks against civilians, rape and other forms of torture, “disappearances” and extrajudicial executions by Russian forces. This report highlights the lack of accountability for the perpetrators of these abuses — Amnesty International believes this is a major factor contributing to their persistence. The report also emphasizes the obstacles faced by victims — particularly women, children and members of ethnic or national minorities — in obtaining redress, and the measures required to enable them to see justice done. The publication of this report coincides with the launch of a major worldwide campaign by Amnesty International on human rights in the Russian Federation. The campaign seeks to highlight the discrepancy between the human rights protection which those living in Russia have in international and national law, and the reality of widespread human rights abuses committed in a climate of impunity. Amnesty International members THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION around the world will be urging the government to live up to its obligations to protect, respect, ensure and promote human rights so that there is justice for everybody. The Russian Federation –Denialofjustice The RussianFederation DENIAL OF JUSTICE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL The Russian Federation Denial of justice Cover: A woman walks past a line of riot police in front of the State Duma (parliament) in Moscow, July 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamizing an Insurgency: Considerations on Radicalization in the North Caucasus Patrick J
    Kafkasya Calışmaları - Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / Journal of Caucasian Studies (JOCAS) Kasım 2018 - Mayıs 2019 / November 2018 - May 2019, Yıl / Vol. 4, № 7-8 ISSN 2149–9527 E-ISSN 2149–9101 Islamizing an Insurgency: Considerations on Radicalization in the North Caucasus Patrick J. Ambrogio* Abstract This article examines the radicalization of the insurgency in Chechnya and the Northeast Caucasus during the conflict of the 1990s and 2000s. In the post-Soviet era, the separatist movement in the region shed its secular and nationalist roots and assumed a more radical and Islamist character. This research analyses whether counterinsurgency tactics employed by Russian forces contributed to the radicalization of the insurgency or if this radicalization was the result of external factors, such as the influence of foreign fighters and their ideologies hat were not native to the North Caucasus region. In the North Caucasus, the Russian Federation employed an enemy-centric approach to counterinsurgency, rather than a population-centric approach common to the United States and other Western countries. This research concludes that the presence of foreign missionaries, fighters, and ideologies were the main catalysts that caused the conflict to become religiously inspired. The internal factionalism of the independence movement also facilitated this process, with certain leaders aligning with foreign, Islamist radicals who promised to support the Chechen cause. While Russia’s counterinsurgency tactics did contribute to radicalization and inflicted severe psychological trauma on the population, they were not the ultimate cause of the insurgency’s transformation. Keywords: Russia, North Caucasus, Islam, Chechnya, Insurgency * Patrick J. Ambrogio, , undergraduate student. E-mail: [email protected] (Received: 22.04.2019; Accepted: 30.05.2019) 1 Patrick J.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of the Second Chechen War 1999-2009 M
    International Human Rights Pressure, the Strategic use of Forced Disappearances: The Case of the Second Chechen War 1999-2009 M. Rodwan Abouharb Department of Political Science The Rubin Building, 29/30 Tavistock Square, University College London London, WC1H 9QU. Phone: +44 (0)20 7679 4922 Fax: +44 (0)20 7679 4969 Email: [email protected] & Erick Duchesne Département de Science Politique And Institut Québécois des Hautes Études Internationales (HEI) Pavillon Charles-De Koninck 1030, av. des Sciences-Humaines Local 3453 Université Laval Québec (Québec) Canada G1V 0A6 Phone: 1-418-656-2131 Poste 2406 Fax: 1-418-656-7861 [email protected] & Caroline L. Payne Department of Political Science D-327 Academic Center Lycoming College Williamsport, PA 17701 Phone: (570) 321-4277 Fax: (570) 321-4371 Email: [email protected] Prepared for the Human Rights in an Age of Ambiguity Conference, New York City, June 13-15, 2016. ABSTRACT We argue that repressive political leaders are rational utility maximizers acting strategically in their choice amongst types of repression. Choices amongst repression types depend partly upon leaders being held responsible for their particular actions. We argue that some decision-makers who wish to continue with repression will respond to increasing scrutiny of their state’s human rights record by firstly conceding that human rights violations may have taken place, but blame the opposition for these exactions. In contrast with the spiral and boomerang models, which posit that state behavior will improve, we argue that the second response of these repressive states will be to modify their repression strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Thumping the Hive Russian Neocortical Warfare in Chechnya
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Calhoun, Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 2012-03 Thumping the hive Russian neocortical warfare in Chechnya McIntosh, Scott E. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/1379 NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS THUMPING THE HIVE: RUSSIAN NEOCORTICAL WARFARE IN CHECHNYA by Scott E. McIntosh September 2004 Thesis Advisor: M. Tsypkin Second Reader: T. Thomas Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED September 2004 Master’s Thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: Thumping the Hive: Russian 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Neocortical Warfare in Chechnya 6. AUTHOR(S) Capt Scott E. McIntosh, USAF 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING Naval Postgraduate School ORGANIZATION REPORT Monterey, CA 93943-5000 NUMBER 9.
    [Show full text]