Slashdot Mirror
Plotting a Coup In the Internet Age
chrb writes "The Guardian is reporting on the attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US. The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence."
I thought of Ender's brother
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Can we finally close this legal loophole? There's no reason why lawmakers should be allowed to take money from non-US citizens, and particularly from other countries. Only US Citizens can vote in elections; there's no reason why other countries and non-citizens should be able to influence how citizens vote, or dictate our foreign policy.
moox. for a new generation.
attempts of an exiled Sheikh to regain power in a bloodless coup. The plot, led by British solicitor Peter Cathcart, involves the use of Washington political lobbyists, PR agencies writing fake blogs and Twitter accounts, and a newspaper advertising campaign in the US.
That's called politics.
Send your spendthrift head of state this
If this happens then they will just setup a US shell corporation for a few hundred bucks in Nevada or whatever to channel the money through. Or in the case of Canadian elections a company funneled the money through children and relatives to bypass the maximum donation per person. At least with it out in the open we can easily see who (politicians that is) is accepted what from whom.
An outright ban on lobbying would be nice in any case.
We are all God's parents.
Though I completely agree with you it's not "people" but "companies" purchasing lobbying every minute of every day here in the US. Our country has been for sale to industries and individual companies for quite a while. The politicians don't care who writes the checks as along as they clear. It's just a sad state of affairs.
If your foreign policy involves invading their country and killing thousands of innocent people (or funding others to do it instead), then why shouldn't they have a say?
yah! Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
"Vote with your wallet" should be reserved for consumer activities.
How we know is more important than what we know.
There is a term for a government that bans lobbying. Its called a dictatorship.
I know we're supposed to hate corporations, lobbyists, etc, but I wish that people would stop and think about what they're saying.
"Dear Peter Wiggin: This letter is to inform you that you have received enough upvotes on your reddit comments to become president of the world. Please be at the UN tomorrow at 8:00 sharp." :D
use gnu-plot and gnu-coup
The coup attempt is remarkable in its choice of modern communications and political lobbying, rather than the traditional resort to violence
How is this unique? History has been dotted with bloodless revolutions, The Glorious Revolution in England, the mostly-peaceful resistance to the 1991 soviet coup attempt, resistance to the salt laws in India, etc.
Heck, the majority of successful revolutions have been bloodless. Those that involve wars and the such usually have to fight another war or conflict to solidify the victory. Had the American Revolution been bloodless chances are the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened, etc.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Whereas now the winner is the candidate backed by the organization with the most money. I'm not sure how this is better.
Right; I'm not saying to ban lobbying, simply, ban lobbying by those who can't vote in our country. To bring up the old Nazi defense, how would things have turned out in WW2 if the Nazis had dumped a bunch of money into US lobbying to win support for Germany in the war? Or at least delayed it until they'd occupied Britain and Sweden?
That's an extreme point of view, but on a smaller scale, Israel dumps a huge amount of money into our political system, and in return they get $100 for every $1 they spend on lobbying in terms of foreign aid, $15 billion dollars worth of "military aid money", in addition to discounts on US military hardware and preferential treatment on military equipment sales to the US government.
We do help out a lot of smaller countries financially and send aid, but it is nowhere near what we send to Israel, and Israel's funding on lobbying reflects that. The whitehouse has been mum on this whole flotilla disaster so far, and while they've been more vocal lately, it's generally very muted response in general.
There's no reason why you can't have lobbying, it's a good system that definitely gets abused, but in a two party system you definitely need lobbying so that special interest groups like PETA, Pro-Lifers, Pro-Choicers, Gun Control, NRA, Socialized Medicine-ites, "Hands off my Medicare!"-ers and every other group out there can have their say in Washington. By no means end lobbying outright.... just limit it to domestic and foreign policy that is actually beneficial to our country, not policies that are detrimental to the USA.
moox. for a new generation.
just limit it to domestic and foreign policy that is actually beneficial to our country, not policies that are detrimental to the USA.
And who decides if a policy being lobbied for is actually beneficial to our country before it can be lobbied for?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Other countries just cap expenditures, campaign advertising, etc. I think this is the entire point... America has a broken political system where its perfectly acceptable to buy an elected official and rather than look to the rest of the world for how to solve this they just declare that they are already living in the best of all possible worlds.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Better yet, how about an outright ban on campaign contributions?
So you'd limit lobbying to organizations powerful enough to directly support a candidate, such as TV stations, newspapers, and organizations who can open their own TV stations and newspapers?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Hmm, sounds more like Milo Minderbinder. From TFA:
"Documents seen by the Guardian show that Cathcart has acted as a paid agent for Sheikh Khalid bin Saqr al-Qasimi in a multimillion-pound campaign to "undermine the current regime's standing"...Cathcart, a miniature steam train enthusiast and chairman of his local parish council who operates from modest offices in the outer London suburbs, cuts an unlikely figure in the plot, which involves highly paid US PR consultants, Washington lobbyists and former US-special forces strategists hired at a cost of at least $3.7m (£2.6m)."
Is this a serious attempt to 'undermine the current regime's standing', or just a successful scheme for undermining the Sheikh's bank balance? I guess Cathcart's alleged cut of the proceeds will really help him expand his model train layout, though.
Dear Sir,
I am the ousted prince of an Arab Emerite, in possession of $22 million US dollars, and need your assistance in transfering those funds into another account. If you help me, a payment of $220,000 US dollars will be transferred to you for you5r help.
If you are interested, please visit http://www.scams-r-us.com/.
Sincerely,
Sheikh Khalid, Crown Prince of Ras al-Khaimah
I am officially gone from
I bet nobody in that country notices the coup. Damn paywalls.
K.
The freedom to back a lobbying effort with cash. We're talking about two different scenarios here:
1) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public."
2) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public. And here's a check for a hundred thousand dollars."
You really don't see a problem with this?
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
This looks more an internal power struggle. Why should any other country be involved?
The article says the champaign claims that UAE "a rogue state and gateway for Iran", while it's conveniently forgotten that before 2003 there was already Al-Qaeda money in transit there.
The sheik-whatever seems to be playing the US fears towards Iran too, that's very convenient.
Most worrying, is the fact the presence of "regime change" referring to the attempt of that sheik's return, while expecting support from the US (since he's sympathetic to that country). Sounds familiar?
Nowhere in the article I could see the wishes of UAE's people being considered. But that's a minor detail, it seems.
we will never keep money out of politics. there is just too many ways to give gifts, favors, contributions, bribes, you name it.
There we go again. Existence proofs only work if the people you're talking to as willing to look at the proof. Listen up Americans, there's plenty of other civilized countries around the world that send politicians to jail for taking gifts, favors, contributions and bribes. Wake up and demand accountability.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You're missing the point of lobbying, which was to combat bribery:
1) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public." Later that night a hundred thousand dollars in cash is transferred.
2) "I represent many large oil companies, and we think approach X would be beneficial to not only our interests but the interests of the general public. And here's a check for a hundred thousand dollars."
Your scenario 1 isn't realistic because large oil companies is happy to pay the hundred thousand dollars, and the politician is happy to received the hundred thousand dollars regardless of whether it's legal or not. Outlawing it will simply make it underground.
Your statement makes no logical sense. Any form of government could ban lobbying for any number of reasons.
There's a term for government that is run by the majority population. It's called a democracy, and if it's people choose, they can ban lobbying. And if that doesn't work, they can bring it back.
A country run by lobbyists paid by the rich is called a plutocracy, and while not quite as bad as some dictatorships, is still highly undesirable if you have any interest in equality before the law. I'd say paid lobbyists distort the government that's supposed to represent the will of the majority of americans, since lobbyist access is wealth dependent.
But there is already a way that those groups and all others, including those not affiliated with an organization, can have their say in Washington. That's by voting in order to elect representatives. The only reason why voting is so broken is because we have a very high (around 90%) incumbency rate at the federal level and once in office, to whom will the politician listen? The voter who is 90+% likely to re-elect him, or the lobbyist who gives him cold hard cash? The answer to that seems rather obvious. If you want voting to once again be something better than "the lesser of two evils" you need to eliminate lobbying as a necessary first step. The necessary second step would be to allocate an amount of public money for candidates' campaigns, a very generous amount that is adjusted yearly for inflation, and then outlaw as bribery all other financial contributions to a candidate or his/her campaign.
...is it dishonest for the presenter to imply that the pundit in the chair is free to offer any opinion, when the truth is that fifty pundits were
telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited?
-- Matthew Parris
Then and only then does the vote start to mean something again. Since the people vastly outnumber the corporations and their owners, and the corporations do not get to inject their superior concentrated wealth into the political system, you end up with a vote that means more and a system that tends to represent the people better than it represents the corporations. It's not a matter of taking the money out of politics, for (as others have pointed out) that's not feasible; it's about making the money meaningless by having a large amount of it available for all candidates. Even a very large amount would cost us far less than what we now finance because of special interests and others with clout.
I would be in favor of this being done in such a way that the "minor parties" would have an equal ability to put their candidates onto ballots and to finance campaigns. Only when a real diversity of political philosophies all have an equally viable chance at winning elections can you have real choice for the people. Among many other things, that would imply a replacement of the two-party dupoloy with the recognition that the domination of politics by two parties is equivalent to the negative effects for customers caused by an economic duopoly, with or without collusion. Only when the people have real choice can the powers-that-be claim true legitimacy.
Right now it isn't the throne, but the power behind the throne that is important. Matthew Paris said:
Television lies. All television lies. It lies persistently, instinctively and by habit. Everyone involved lies. A culture of mendacity surrounds the medium, and those who work there live it, breath it and prosper by it. I know of no area of public life -- no, not even politics -- more saturated by a professional cynicism. If you want a word that takes you to the core of it, I would offer rigged.
Right now that is how politics works. "Fifty pundits were telephoned, but only the fellow prepared to offer the requisite opinion was invited." Fifty, or maybe fifty thousand or more people would like to hold public office. Only the fellows of the requisite opinion, as evidenced by party affiliation and loyalty/orthodoxy, were invited to receive campaign contributions. Those with the cash to contribute have that cash because they benefit from the status quo, and could benefit more from a stronger version of it (caused by proceeding further along the course it has been on). Now you inherit a self-reinforcing feedback cycle that wants to become more so. Nowhere in this do you have free choice for the governed, only for those to whom the governed has surrendered his power.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
a bribe is a bribe. Splitting hairs and calling it a "campaign contribution" is a symptom of a sick society. If you're a politician and you're receiving any incoming beyond what your position pays you, you're accepting bribes. The possibly permissible exception is if you own shares in a company, in which case you need to keep away from anything which may be a conflict of interest. And no, it doesn't matter if you set up a shell company to receive the payment, or it's your political party that is receiving the payment, or it's your wife or your friends that are receiving the payment.
Nothing *eliminates* corruption. You can only minimize it. it's like the 'war on drugs' in that respect.
Wow, you really don't get it do you? Every other civilized country in the world has done it. Corruption is headline news in these countries. The US is not the norm, it's the sick exception.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Let's assume we ban campaign donations from foreign individuals -- can they give money to citizens who may be sympathetic to their cause? Or organizations formed inside the U.S.?
What about, say, BP, which, though of foreign origination, is a legally recognized entity inside the U.S.? Now that the Citizens United Ruling has come down, what kind of law will you pass to keep them from spending as money as they like getting people who are sympathetic to them elected this fall?
Even if you manage some way to fence out campaign donations flowing through citizens and businesses -- how will you keep them from spending huge amounts of money on PR firms? Without creating an highly regulated press and broadcast industry... and preserving internet freedoms?
I'm with you that these things are all real and significant problems, worthy of some serious thought about how to fix. I'm just trying to point out that even apparently simply fixes like the idea of banning foreign campaign contributions are harder than they might seem to implement. The problem of the power of money is a deep, deep topic.
Tweet, tweet.
The U.S should adopt election laws like the ones we have up here in Canada. Take a look at the Federal Accountability Act.
Here are some key points:
So you'd ban all foreign lobbying, not just what appears detrimental to the country? That makes more sense.
However, it is often incredibly difficult to separate domestic from foreign. In Check Point, for example, a foreign company (HQ in Israel), or a domestic company (shares traded on the NASDAQ, most share owners probably US entities)? What about IBM (HQ in the US and the majority of employees in other countries, shared publicly traded)?
-- Support a free market in the field of government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee
moox. for a new generation.
Yes, and there are people who follow the lead of Howard Hughes, and do exactly that: give the maximum to every candidate, no matter what their platform. That way, whoever wins, they'll be able to say, "I gave."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
i stopped reading after this.
do not read this line twice.
I just finished reading a fictional book with a similar plot. In summary, a defense contractor wishes to restart the cold and so hires a "perception management" (PM) consultant to whip up world hysteria against Russia via the internet by utilizing fake blogs & news reports.
Neato Idea. That's awesome. Seriously, not trolling here. Plain. Fucking. Awesomeness. If I could choose between You and bottled lightning, I would choose you.
So we have established:
1) Your Awesome.
2) You clearly have more morality in your fingernail (any one of them) than any politician in Washington.
Now..... let's start...
We need to make it a crime to be "taking gifts, favors, contributions and bribes" if you hold political office.... Hmmmm....
Okay. I'll fire up my word processor of +10 Legal Lawyerin' and get to work on making the law and you get out there and explain to people what we are trying to accomplish and secure enough votes so we have a majority of the US and can get the law enacted.
Huh? What do you mean we can't do that? We're a democracy! WTF! Reprawhatsits?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. Representative Democracy. We elect those people and they are supposed to represent us. Wellll... it seems like a catch-22 here. They won't vote the law in, and we can't make the law ourselves..
Wait... We can get you elected and have you propose the law and change things right?
Let's take over a small state with enough like minded people and get you into the Senate. The people need your common sense and decency based approach to government and politics.
********************
a few years pass
********************
Senate: "The Senate floor will recognize the junior member QuantumG from the State of Complete-Awesomeness (we managed to rename Idaho or some shit)"
QuantumG: "I propose a law criminalizing the acceptance of any campaign contributions, material items, gifts, bribes, or sexual favors from willing pages in a completely non-homosexual manner"
Senate: (hushed) "We have a turd in the punchbowl.. repeat ... turd in the punchbowl"
*******************
Do you seriously wonder at all why most Americans are either a) Completely disillusioned and apathetic (the smart ones), or b) Raving fucking lunatics screaming at the top of their lungs about how the other side is evil, bruises fruit on sight, and beats small children?
Even the most idealistic and decent people will be tainted by government within the first few months and you can't get shit done till you have been in Washington for years. It's seniority and it is just a huge boys club up there. You wait, Al Franken will turn into Palpatine given enough time.
Wake Up?
I am awake. I also have no power to change a god damn thing. It does not matter who I vote for, it does not matter if the person I voted for is a good person either, nothing good will come from anything in government.
We have not been represented in forever. The last thing I really remember that was profoundly good and representative of our collective will (most of us) was civil rights. Back to bullshit as usual after that.
Those that have the power right now are only going to grant, or delegate, that power to like minded people willing to promulgate their views. You seem to think that if enough Buddhist Monks were to join the Yakuza that in a few years the Yakuza would be all peaceful, shiny, and happy and shit. No. You would have monks with tainted souls and bad Karma.
I just hope we don't turn into a police state within my lifetime so I don't have to get in better shape and start putting bullets through storm troopers heads. I am too old and tired at this point to start and participate in the inevitable revolution to come.
Yes, I am hopelessly cynical and disillusioned with government and politics, and deservedly so. It's a fucking circus, has been my whole life, and will continue to be one. It has only serviced the agendas of the powerful and influential (corporations) and consistently shafted the people. My disillusionmen
If Garry Trudeau had put this into Doonesbury ("Duke's PR Coup"), his readers might have accused him of going too far off the deep end.
You think you have a point.... but you really don't.
Petition does not mean offer money, or some other form of compensation. It means, in this context, "a written document signed by a large number of people demanding some form of action from a government or other authority".
No, it does not "explicitly" state anywhere that the act of proffering anything other than words is constitutionally protected behavior.
It was an interesting argument, but 60 seconds with a dictionary kind of tears your argument apart there.
Now of course, I am equating Lobbying "explicitly" with the act of proffering money in return for preferential representation in government. Just from observation alone, that would seem to be what is happening quite frequently. Perhaps we nee another word for such a disgusting practice, rightfully lamented, and wholly responsible for the hopeless state of affairs that is government.
I think the greater point is that corruption doesn't always look like corruption. Other countries have helped mitigate this problem, but I seriously doubt the public knows about even a fraction of how often this happens on a global scale. Especially given how many countries are not open books when it comes to these sort of things. Not to mention the rampant corruption organized crime helps create. While a bribe is always a bribe, a bride doesn't always look like one.
The companies that offer bribes also need to be punished for doing so. The US enacted the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/) to combat this problem but few companies ever get more than a slap on the wrist and a wink & nod. Both sides need to realize that offering or accepting a bribe is something that can cost them more than just a few dollars (or whatever the currency).
Now for the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption
The global costs are quite large.
Nope, that would just be silly.... 100% public funds. Not a dime out of their own pockets could be spent towards the election.
So I'm not allowed to endorse a candidate in my own publication? Or on my own Web page? That would kill freedom of speech.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
in 2000, done through the courts and influence on the media. It was called Bush v. Gore.
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
Fallacy spotted. Please contribute to the debate with real arguments, thank you.
Wow, you really have your head up your ass, don't you? Every other civilized country in the world has enacted anti-corruption laws which have loopholes.
I'd be delighted if you could actually show me those loopholes in european countries. We have our fair share of corrupt politician over here, but they don't use any loopholes. They falsify, and when they get caught, they (hopefully) go to jail. There is no intended loophole.
So if I own a holding company, which in turns owns two other companies of mine, I am not allowed to receive any money from MY company.
If the company is yours, there is no problem in you perceiving money from it. There is however a potential problem of conflict of interests that will have to be watched by an independent commission should you be elected.
The problem with many American people is that they're so proud of the U.S.A. that they will defend it tooth and nail, even in its utmost illogical and unjust aspects and feel threatened every time some guy points out the idiocy of some parts of their system. Every country has its defects, and some that are under the international spotlight have theirs more exposed than others. Get used to it.
The rational person understands that changing the world is unlikely to succeed, and gives up. Thus the world is changed by the irrational.
You have enormous power. You are just afraid to exercise it.
Every other civilized country in the world has done it.
Your statement proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that you sir are and most likely always will be an idiot. You lose.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I agree with almost everything you have said and that has been more or less my position for a while. The only point where I take issue is on alternatives to democracy. I personally don't think that we have ever given them a fair shake. We have tried a few variants on the structure of democracy (parliamentarian, congressional, constitutional monarchy, even a little direct democracy) , and we have tried a few variants on authoritarian forms of government (military dictatorship, communism, monarchy, theocracy, plutocracy, etc). I contended that there is a vast region of unexplored government types that we have never given a real shot.
Consider for a moment a draft republic. Instead of deciding which politicians represent the people, you simply pull names out of a hat. If you get selected, you have to serve for a period of time. Once your time is up, you leave. Any attempt to stay in office or create a law to let you stay in office is considered treason and results in immediate banishment.
In such a system you would NEVER give one politician any real power. You would have no president. You would want as many hands on power as possible because anyone, from a genius to a retarded idiot, could be one of those hands. Only by diffusing power could you safely operate such a system. Unlike literally all other forms of government (democracy included), you would see the government try and spread out decision and making instead of concentrate it into the hands of a few.
As an added bonus, you could probably do away with political parties. With no way to influence who serves as a representative, the only way left corrupt a politician is direct bribery. There can be no promises to help them get re-elected or any of that silliness.
I'm not saying the idea is without flaws, but it is a non-democratic and non-authoritarian form of government that doesn't rely on utopian ideals. I am pretty sure that there are other forms of possible government that could fit the bill. It isn't going to happen in the US, but I would love to see other countries give it a try. How many failed developing nation democracies do we have to have before we realize that maybe democracy isn't the end all be all?