WikiLeaks Cash-For-Votes Exposé Rocks Indian Government

mage7 writes "While the world's attention seems to be focused on the events unfolding in Japan and the Middle-east, Indian headlines are being dominated by the latest WikiLeaks' revelations. The newly leaked cable (dated 17 July 2008) suggests that India's ruling Congress party bribed MPs in order to secure their votes for a controversial nuclear deal between India and the US. Among other details, it describes how a senior Congress aide showed a US embassy official 'chests of cash' allegedly containing about $25 million to pay off MPs ahead of the vote. Another Congress insider told a US official about how the Minister of Commerce and Industry formerly 'could only offer small planes as bribes ... now he can pay for votes with jets.'"

Comments

why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

So...at what point do we really think that bribes are NOT the norm. Honestly we can decry this as horrible but it's how things work.

Re:why is this unusual

[FooAtWFU]

It's a lot more effective to decry it as horrible (and do something about it) when you have concrete examples of people who have been bribing each other.

Is Assange finished with his "I hate America and want to bring down their evil, corrupt regime" business for the time being, then? Because I approve of this sort of leak; it does a lot more good in the world than the dubious Afghanistan-related stuff.

Re:why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree, the world would be a much better place if the rich could openly buy public officials and public policy.....

Re:why is this unusual

[vadim_t]

I really hope you're trolling because it's that much of an insane statement.

But supposing are you serious: Let's say bribes are legal. How would that work exactly? Should laws come with a price attached? Pay $1M, and we forget that murder?

Yeah, that'd make for an interesting world.

Re:why is this unusual

[atomicdoggy]

Interesting comment, I think it is known as "making shit up" since none of that was found.

Re:why is this unusual

[Hogwash McFly]

Are you serious?

Let's hope you're never on trial for a crime you didn't commit and someone bribes the jury.

Re:why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

in practice the rich win.

when 400 people in this country have more assets than 150,000,000 .... something is seriously messed up

Re:why is this unusual

[hedwards]

He doesn't require your approval. I realize that it's hard to believe, but perhaps the fact that many tens of thousands are dead because of the Bush administrations decision to go to war, without cause, is of interest because hundreds of thousands died for no good reason and that the period after the invasion was arguable worse than most of Hussein's period in power.

But, no, this is clearly evidence of a vendetta by Assange against the US government rather than a combination of a lack of resources and a compelling international interest in the information.

Re:why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Children, this is what is known as the "never read the documents but has crazy political views" commenter. It's an odd species, certainly less numerous than the "didn't RTFA commenter."

Re:why is this unusual

[Stormthirst]

It's pretty much how the Roman Empire worked.

Re:why is this unusual

[hedwards]

You do realize that in a system like that, those who aren't rich won't have any say at all because what self respecting politician is going to roll over for a fiver, right?

Re:why is this unusual

[eln]

Bribes, or the expectation of bribes, gum up the works of commerce. The strongest economies in the world almost universally have strong anti-corruption measures in place. The weakest economies are generally those where bribery and corruption are endemic. This is not a coincidence.

If bribes are legal, or even illegal but tolerated, it's not long before a bribe is expected by everyone just to do their jobs properly. It's impossible to run a competitive economy in this type of environment because rampant bribery introduces massive costs and inefficiencies into the system. For evidence, look at basically every third world country.

Re:why is this unusual

[Mikkeles]

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." - Anatole France [trans.]

Re:why is this unusual

[Labcoat Samurai]

Not just rich, it would be allowed to everyone..

Which would be a good point if the *amount* of a bribe wasn't an important factor in its success.

Re:why is this unusual

[jhoegl]

How is it clearly a vendetta?
I mean, clearly information is being released, and it may or may not be true. But if proven true, then a vendetta it is not. It is just truth.
To label it anything else is to misplace the anger at those that caused it.
If this had never happened, it would have never been released.

Re:why is this unusual

[MightyMartian]

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
- Ovid

I think the same sentiment applies to corruption.

The fact is that yes, we know that bribery happens often, and in emerging economies like India, it is very prevalent. But that hardly means we should just knowingly nod our heads and shrug our shoulders. As prevalent as corruption is, it should not be tolerated where it is discovered. Indeed, it's prevalence should spur on those seeking to root it out.

Re:why is this unusual

[Hatta]

Let's say bribes are legal. How would that work exactly?

Pretty much how the US works today. If bribes were legalized in the US tomorrow, very little would change.

Re:why is this unusual

[DeadCatX2]

Because true patriots turn a blind eye when their own government begins violates the fundamental human rights that they criticize other governments of violating.

Quick! Look over there! A politician in another country is being bribed!

Re:why is this unusual

[shadowrat]

Well, this would make groupon really worth something.

Re:why is this unusual

[viablos]

But on the other hand it would also mean more fair system. Those who work more or contribute more to the economy have more "votes" to say how the country should be run. It rewards hard working people.

Re:why is this unusual

[countertrolling]

Yes, bribes should be legal, just like drugs, prostitution,and gambling should be legal. And why not get it out in the open? What has the law done so far besides making it all more expensive and leaving it all in the hands of mobsters? Prohibition has given bribery a bad name. And has made it an exclusive province of the rich. The rest of us have the same rights of access to all the political processes

Re:why is this unusual

[The End Of Days]

Please feel free to point out a realistic example of a situation where the powerful do not have easier access to power than those less powerful.

Re:why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Bribes in business is one thing. Bribes involving government and elected officials is a different thing altogether.

Re:why is this unusual

[TubeSteak]

Is Assange finished with his "I hate America and want to bring down their evil, corrupt regime" business for the time being, then? Because I approve of this sort of leak; it does a lot more good in the world than the dubious Afghanistan-related stuff.

Umm... this scandal is based off of leaked diplomatic cables from America.

There's going to be a steady drip drip drip of embarrassment and scandals for a very long time.
Some of it will tarnish America, some of it won't, but there's still ~247,000 cables to go.

So whether or not Assange is finished with his "I hate America and want to bring down their evil, corrupt regime,"
he's set in motion events that are no longer in his control and can't really be stopped by any person or government.

Re:why is this unusual

[Coeurderoy]

Not just rich, it would be allowed to everyone..

.Weel one of the pareto laws makes this a failure...

If you have one guy able to win 1000 X ton one side and 1000 guys able to put 1 X he will win....
Basically the "cost of organizing" the 1000 people and the marginal gain for each person makes it that the guy with 1000X wins...

and if the guy is investing 900 X he still gets ahed by 100 X wich is assumedly something worthwhile, while the other get only 1/10th of X wich is not so much...

So bribes and democracy do not mix very well...

(but then old boys network are not much better...)

Re:why is this unusual

[ladoga]

Is Assange finished with his "I hate America and want to bring down their evil, corrupt regime" business for the time being, then? Because I approve of this sort of leak; it does a lot more good in the world than the dubious Afghanistan-related stuff.

I guess it's Americans like you who haven't been bothered to read WikiLeaks before US related leaks came into spotlight. Maybe it's new to you, but majority of leaks have been about things other than US of A and their dealings with other nations. Also whoever exposes thruth about your government's wrongdoings does not necessarily hate America, in fact he might care of you and do you a favor by doing so.

Would you rather stay in the dark and unknowingly support torture, selling children for Afghan cops' sex slaves (google for "DynCorp" and "Bacha Bazi") and whatever other disgusting stuff your tax money has been spent in? Is that just dubious Afghanistan related stuff that you have no interest in aware of? Well... some people say that ignorance is a bliss.

Re:why is this unusual

[h4rr4r]

So exposing corruption among brown people is the only kind of leak you support?

Re:why is this unusual

[vadim_t]

I approve of Wikileaks especially when it leaks stuff about my country (not the US). I don't subscribe to bullshit like patriotism. The more data, the better, and the more likely something can be done to fix the problems.

I also approve of leaks about the US, of course.

Re:why is this unusual

[h4rr4r]

That is some fine trolling you are doing there. The richest %1 being the most hard working, if your going to lie might as well go big.

Re:why is this unusual

[flyingsquid]

Yeah, nice white collar bribe leaks. No more of that anti warm/fuzzy US Afghanistan death squads and evidence of wiping out entire villages to artificially increase insurgent death counts.

[Citation needed]

If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war. But there are plenty of incidents to point to without making things up. Try reading the newspaper regularly, or just do a quick search on Google news. Just a couple of days ago, an airstrike killed two children, and nine children were killed a couple of weeks ago, prompting outrage by Karzai (url:http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/NATO-to-Probe-New-Afghan-Civilian-Casualties-118084799.html). There are plenty of other well-publicized cases: an AC-130 gunship that took out a wedding party and killed 40 people (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/asia/06afghan.html); a sociopathic officer who was directing his men to murder Afghan civilians; he and his men were arrested and are facing charges (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05gibbs.html).

You're not under any obligation to support the war or the U.S. But in an age where you can get accurate facts to support your arguments in 10 seconds with a quick search of Google News, Wikipedia, or WikiLeaks, there's no excuse for running around and making stuff up. It's the information age, so there's no excuse for not having your information straight.

Re:why is this unusual

[_Sprocket_]

Would you rather stay in the dark and unknowingly support torture, selling children for Afghan cops' sex slaves (google for "DynCorp" and "Bacha Bazi") and whatever other disgusting stuff your tax money has been spent in? Is that just dubious Afghanistan related stuff that you have no interest in aware of? Well... some people say that ignorance is a bliss.

I would suggest you go do the Google search you mentioned. That whole incident is some local agent working for DynCorp going off and hiring "Bacha Bazi" entertainment (which does appear to often involve child prostitution). The local government finds out, busts the guy. Some reporter gets wind of it and the local government wants the State Departement to lean on the reporter and hush it all up as they're very happy with DynCorp, believe this represents a lapse in judgment on their own citizen, and don't want the negative publicity. The State Department informs the local government representative that such things are not possible in the US and, besides, would simply escalate the problem. End of story. But somehow we end up with an ongoing meme of the State Department hiring out child prostitution. Sure - the series of events are there but you really have squint to make it appear in that light.

Re:why is this unusual

[Dhalka226]

Certainly a good quote, both humorous and insightful in its own way.

The truly sad part is it doesn't take much to argue even that isn't really true -- in several different ways.

Re:why is this unusual

[cdrguru]

Why do you separate people into groups by skin color? Can't you think of something more constructive?

Re:why is this unusual

[zero0ne]

The difference would be that we would get to see who is bribing who... You will also need to make it illegal to not report your bribes.

Re:why is this unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

“Patriotism ... is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.” - Emma Goldman

Re:why is this unusual

[tnk1]

First off, I think the grandparent was talking about vendettas sarcastically. He doesn't think there is one. I don't really think there is one either, but I can't prove it either way.

That said, I do feel strongly that people should understand that just because you are releasing the truth doesn't mean that you aren't engaging in a vendetta. The facts can be measured out and released in such a manner and in just such a way as to cause purposeful discomfort to people.

If you knew someone that you hated was cheating on their wife, but you waited until just the right moment for maximum damage before you told the wife about it, you might well be engaging in a vendetta. While such a truth is always going to cause some discomfort, there are certainly better times than others to release it. Or you don't have to release it at all....

As for whether or not it being the truth makes the intent irrelevant, consider some things that are true about you that you wouldn't want released. Or more likely, things you wouldn't want released without the right context. Or maybe, facts strung together in just the right way to make it look like something it is not.

To speak to the content itself, these prospective facts are very damaging. These facts are newsworthy, or perhaps it might be more accurate to say that with the proper context pieced together, they provide the basis for solid news. In any event, I can see why Wikileaks would publish them, considering that generally they are not in the business of actual journalism. They tend to be more like raw data providers with some, but not much in the way of editing or analysis.

On the other hand, consider that India has been known to have corruption issues. It may well be that both sides of the aisle were receiving bribes, but we only have the one side of the conversation. That doesn't make bribery right or good, but it may turn what looks to be an outrageous one-sided deal into what was actually a sale to the highest bidder. In other words, a one sided release of data can turn into an unspoken lie that the *other* side is completely innocent and working in good faith, when their only real "virtue" is not having enough money to win.

In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way.

Re:why is this unusual

[quarterbuck]

It's cheaper than that and perfectly legal in some countries. CIA paid only about 1.4 million for 2 murders and a homicide.
I accept that there is a slight difference here, in that the payment went directly to the kin and not to judges/politicians. But yes, the answer is Pay $1M, and we forget that murder is true in some parts of the world

Re:why is this unusual

[rsilvergun]

Some of the abuses caused by remote drones are pretty well documented, even if the parent is a little extreme. It's kinda like how you can't talk about real conspiracies because of all the nut jobs...

Re:why is this unusual

[Archwyrm]

a sociopathic officer who was directing his men to murder Afghan civilians

A staff sergeant is not an officer. He is a non-commissioned officer (NCO), but there is a huge difference between an NCO and a commissioned officer (commonly just 'officer').

Re:why is this unusual

[vadim_t]

Actually I agree on drugs, prostitution and gambling.

But think of what legalized bribing means. First, if you can legally ask for one, and everybody else asks for one, why wouldn't you? So it's effectively a tax on every service. Want to send mail? The post office employee wants a bribe. Want mail delivered? The postman wants one too. Need a tire changed? Well, maybe next week unless you can "tip" the mechanic. You don't pay, work doesn't get done. That's very inefficient.

Then the other consequences: no security anywhere. You can be legally killed. A coworker can bribe your boss if he doesn't like you. Want a harem of 10 year old girls? No problem if you can pay the price. People don't like it? You can bribe the police to make sure they stop bothering you. It effectively eliminates law and makes it be whatever somebody is paying for today. And it probably changes depending on where you are.

Even supposing you think you could manage living in that kind of madness, it wouldn't work all that well for you. After all, most wealth belongs to a very small amount of people, and you're most likely not in that list. It would take possibly millions of people to out-bribe somebody of the caliber of Murdoch, and you're out of luck if what he wants is a return of the Prohibition. Now he can legally get any law he wants passed, and make sure it's enforced by paying whoever needs to be paid.

Re:why is this unusual

[h4rr4r]

Nationality? Seems just as randomly assigned to me.

Re:why is this unusual

[c6gunner]

If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war.

Um, no. WW1 - with chemical attacks, trench warfare, and massive deaths from disease and starvation - was a "pretty awful war". WW2 - with leveling of entire cities through aerial bombardment, organized genocide, and 60 million deaths - was a "pretty awful war". Afghanistan is a minor skirmish. It's a footnote in the history of warfare. It's a glorified training exercise. But it is most certainly not a "pretty awful war".

Speaking of which .... should we have been opposed to WW1 and WW2, because they were "pretty awful wars"?

Re:why is this unusual

[c6gunner]

So, now that the UN has authorized armed intervention in Libya, will that also be a "war without cause"?

Re:why is this unusual

[martin-boundary]

So...at what point do we really think that bribes are NOT the norm. Honestly we can decry this as horrible but it's how things work.

That's a strawman. It doesn't matter here if bribes are the norm or not. What matters is: did bribes get paid this time and to whom? Whoever accepted them should be punished.

Always act on the concrete facts, beliefs about all sorts of other things don't matter.

Re:why is this unusual

[ATMAvatar]

That may be true, but it is irrelevant to the context of the quote. For example, replacing "officer" with "soldier" would not change the meaning of the statement as far as a casual reader is concerned.

Re:why is this unusual

[c6gunner]

The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids both the criminal and the law-abiding citizen to murder, rape, and steal. - Me.

Re:why is this unusual

[c6gunner]

I might agree to some extent if the "bribes" were going into the public budget rather than the pockets of individuals. Want government funded healthcre? Raise 500 billion dollars. Want to start a war? Raise another 500. I have no problem with establishing fees in order to discourage frivolous demands and establish some responsibility within the "voting" population. But as soon as the money starts going into the pockets of individuals, you start sliding into the third-world-nation mindset where you can't even get to work in the morning without having to bribe 5 different "public officials" on the way.

Re:why is this unusual

[Xyrus]

You say that like it doesn't happen already.

Re:why is this unusual

[AlamedaStone]

Wasn't without cause in what sense, exactly?

Media campaign for Iraq war started in advance of any intelligence findings at all
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm

No imminent threat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

"The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that many of the allegations in the speech were not supported by the underlying intelligence."

MI6 warns Blair that no WMDs exist - Bush admin ignores it
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4466512.ece

There's like 50 of these, get a grip. We were railroaded into the war under the false premise that these were the people who attacked us. It was probably for ideological reasons, but plenty of big players dipped their beaks as deep as they could go. As for "proximate" causes (which, one can easily argue, would not have even happened without our involvement), the civilian casualty count in Iraq was greater than tens of thousands, with lowest estimates starting upwards of 100,000.

I can't believe I'm still arguing these points. How much evidence is required? Yes, I hated Bush II, but we aren't talking about some red-blue pissing match. This blood was spilt from and by our children, and it was based on fabrication and hand-waving. Won't someone... PLEASE actually think of the children - like, for real this time?

Re:why is this unusual

[c6gunner]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/afghanistan/mortality-rate-adult-male-per-1-000-male-adults-wb-data.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/afghanistan/survival-to-age-65-male-percent-of-cohort-wb-data.html

'nuff said. I think this is the first war were the death rate is lower than the pre-war period. We westerners really suck at this genocide thing.

Re:why is this unusual

[joelleo]

nicely spoken.

/me admires his new sig

Re:why is this unusual

[guruevi]

There is a difference (albeit small) between the US Government and the UN Sockpuppets. Iraq was not approved by the UN and there were even objections by the UN Security Council (which the US is again, the largest voice in) against the invasion. If I remember correctly, at one point Kofi Annan even declared it an illegal invasion and Hans Blix (of Team America, World Police fame) also objected against the proofs.
In Libya a dictator is trying to hold it's power over a rebelling nation. The country has practically been taken over by the 'people' and he is shelling his own cities and it's citizens (regardless of tribal allegiance). A bit worse than Sadam Hussein did because Sadam actually had a people that supported him (it was more of a tribal genocide).

Re:why is this unusual

[Skidborg]

Hypothetically speaking, what if some armed force went around killing their own civilians to inflate death counts and get international sympathy?

Re:why is this unusual

[metlin]

I remember reading The Black Swan by Nicholas Nassim Taleb, where he remarks just how easy it is construct a nationality and instill "patriotism" with a a few speeches, a simple flag and a song. He decries the sheer simplicity and irony of it all. It exploits people's tribal instincts to "belong" somewhere, and is the oldest con game in the book.

Re:why is this unusual

[Alex Belits]

Bribes, or the expectation of bribes, gum up the works of commerce. The strongest economies in the world almost universally have strong anti-corruption measures in place. The weakest economies are generally those where bribery and corruption are endemic. This is not a coincidence.

The "strongest" (by the amount of green paper it prints) US economy merely legalized corruption.

Re:why is this unusual

[Charliemopps]

Bribes ARE the way things are done in India. It's to the point now that regulations are so twisted and unmanageable that the only way to get anything done is with bribes. But that doesn't mean it's right. In the US we are supposedly given a vote. But our choice is between people that want to take our money and waste it on government programs that do more harm than good, or people that want to take our money and waste it on tanks and jet fighters when our enemies are 2 guys in a pickup truck and a hunting rifle.

Just because things have always been this way does not mean they will always have to be this way. Just ask the people of Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and on and on. Stand up, say NO MORE. If they don't give you a choice worth voting for, write someone in. If you can't write someone in, don't vote. At least admit it's wrong and say so, loudly.

Re:why is this unusual

[ChrisMaple]

Severe, systematic corruption and bribery is characteristic of India. It's the primary reason that India remains a poor country. Given the relative numbers of people in India and Afghanistan, India's corruption has caused more death and suffering than anything that happens to Afghanistan could possibly cause.

Re:why is this unusual

[rtb61]

How about, you do not spread freedom and democracy by promoting corruption in government. The only message that sends, is that's how the system works for our government, so that's how the system should work for your government, it's called capitalism, if you can afford you can buy any laws you want.

Re:why is this unusual

[shaitand]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+afghanistan+civilian+deaths+labeled+insurgents&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Re:why is this unusual

[shaitand]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban
http://www.google.com/search?q=wikileaks+afghanistan+civilian+deaths+labeled+insurgents&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

No making up needed. The leaks revealed that the vast majority of "insurgents" are civilian casualties.

Re:why is this unusual

[Isaac Remuant]

prevented or tried to prevent?

Re:why is this unusual

[Isaac Remuant]

sorry about that, I canceled the preview and posted again without realizing I was replying to a different post.

Re:why is this unusual

[Archwyrm]

It is relevant because the lowest ranked NCO leads a four man fire team (assuming infantry here), whereas the lowest ranked officer leads around thirty men (platoon) and this number increases sharply with the rank of the officer. By contrast, a staff sergeant, the highest ranked NCO who leads his own element, leads only a nine man squad.

So, when I read that an "officer" was the culprit, I immediately think on a much greater scale. Dismissing important terminology as irrelevant is a mistake. A wise man once wrote:

It's the information age, so there's no excuse for not having your information straight.

Re:why is this unusual

[Mashiki]

No. Because democrats are in power.

Re:why is this unusual

[the_womble]

The unmanageable regulations stay in place because the people most able to lobby against them are quire happy knowing they can bribe their way around them, while rivals with less access are hobbled.

Re:why is this unusual

[andydread]

er. Hussein was never in power in Afghanistan. Just sayin'...

Re:why is this unusual

[WindBourne]

If assange was serious about wikileaks, then he would release those russian cables. Bet he will not.

Re:why is this unusual

[RockDoctor]

he's [Assange has] set in motion events that are no longer in his control and can't really be stopped by any person or government.

The statement is true, but the way it is constructed implies that you believe that Assange at some point claimed to be in control of the consequences of the leaks that he hosted.

He didn't ever claim to have any such control, or even to believe that such control was possible or desirable. Unless you know of him making such claims.

Re:why is this unusual

[Geminii]

But our choice is between people that want to take our money and waste it on government programs that do more harm than good, or people that want to take our money and waste it on tanks and jet fighters when our enemies are 2 guys in a pickup truck and a hunting rifle.

Make government programs publicly auditable and military weaponry illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, or support. The last time America actually needed to defend itself militarily was Pearl Harbor. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just have an arrangement with Canada to rent a defense force on an as-needed basis.

Re:why is this unusual

[BitZtream]

Iraq was not approved by the UN and there were even objections by the UN Security Council (which the US is again, the largest voice in) against the invasion.

So passing several resolutions saying that if inspections weren't granted by X date they would be done by force wasn't approval?

The reality of it is, the UN threatened on several occasions to invade, and just never did it. The US on the other hand followed through.

A bit worse than Sadam Hussein did because Sadam actually had a people that supported him (it was more of a tribal genocide).

Its rather hard to be a leader and have a military to shell his own cities if no one supports him. Clearly some people do, even if its just the military, they are still following orders.

Re:why is this unusual

[BitZtream]

Make government programs publicly auditable and military weaponry illegal to buy, sell, manufacture, or support. The last time America actually needed to defend itself militarily was Pearl Harbor. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper to just have an arrangement with Canada to rent a defense force on an as-needed basis.

Do you know WHY Pearl Harbor was the last time? Its not because Canada would protect us.

Do you know why Canada and Mexico don't need a massive military? Because the US will step right up if anyone fucks with either one of them because the next step is the US.

When your military is so far advanced and so powerful no one else has a chance in hell of doing damage it tends to keep other rational people away. The only people the US worries about are those countries that actually have the capacity to be a problem. The ones with nukes, and China. Formally the USSR was a concern, but now not so much for obvious reasons.

Seriously, Canada? What are you smoking?

Re:why is this unusual

[Geminii]

Well, let's see. Canada's successfully invaded the US. Canada's special forces are reckoned to be pretty much world's best. Canada's located close by, and relations are mostly good. Canada knows how to keep its military budget under 2% of GDP, instead of wasting ten times that much. Canada has a wonderful international reputation. Canada doesn't throw away trillions of dollars invading other countries. Canadian troops don't commit suicide by the thousands because they're choking on their own government's stupidity. No-one's attempted to invade Canada in the last three hundred years except the US, and they got their asses handed to them. No-one intelligent has attempted to invade Canada at all.

No-one in the world needs the US military. In fact, no-one in the world WANTS the US military except the US military and its contractors. If the US spontaneously disappeared up its own fundament tomorrow, countries currently allied to it would be more likely to heave a sigh of relief that they weren't being dragged into brain-dead expensive illegal invasions all over the place.

Given that Canada is not bleeding itself dry committing mass murder of civilians on the other side of the planet, is generally regarded as a good international neighbor, has half the percentage of GDP owed in debt, and is world-renowned for being significantly more badass than the USA - possibly because it doesn't spend half its budget trying to desperately convince everyone how badass it is - it's the ideal authority to take over and straighten out those functions that the US has proved it can't handle.

Come to think of it, Canada should probably step in to sort out the US's banking and financial system as well, because the US hasn't been able to do that properly either.

Oh, and healthcare.

And learning to use firearms properly.

And elections.

Lessons in not being a third-rate asshole generator probably wouldn't go astray, either.

Re:why is this unusual

[shaitand]

Hiding the information to establish it in classified internal US military documents doesn't seem like a good way to garner international sympathy.

Good Stuff

[hellkyng]

Exposing this kind of corruption is what makes WikiLeaks necessary in my mind. Despite the (sometimes valid) criticism of WikiLeaks you don't see anyone else exposing this kind of stuff.

Re:Good Stuff

[Soilworker]

It's way too common.

Re:Good Stuff

[C_amiga_fan]

>>>Wikileaks should deal with its legal troubles and pass off...to someone who is still trustworthy.

What the HELL are you talking about? Wikileaks hasn't done anything wrong to be labeled "untrustworthy". It sounds like you've been buying into the Corrupt US Government's propaganda.

Aside -

I wonder if the Indian government will not try to copy the US, and arrest Assange as a "traitor"? (shrug) Well whatever.

Re:Good Stuff

[techoi]

Wikileaks should deal with its legal troubles and pass off the business of keeping governments honest to someone who is still trustworthy.

Not trying to defend Wikileaks, but please do tell who that trustworthy group/individual would be...I can't think of anyone or any group. Maybe if journalism had not become just another corporate business interest. Maybe...

Re:Good Stuff

[hedwards]

Trustworthy? You do realize that the lack of trust is largely a function of how much effort the various people being harmed by the leaks have put into it, right? I've heard an awful lot of big talk from people about how he's been using his organization to further a political agenda, but I don't see more than a coincidental correlation. It's far too likely that it's a combination of lack of resources and public interest that's been driving the choice of materials leaked.

I fail to see how choosing somebody else to head the organization isn't going to result in that individual being smeared in a similar fashion by folks like you that don't like what he's leaking.

Re:Good Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not think fungible means what you seem to think it means:
Fungibility is different from liquidity. A good is liquid if it can be easily exchanged for money or another different good. A good is fungible if one unit of the good is substantially equivalent to another unit of the same good of the same quality at the same time and place.

Examples:

Cash is fungible: one US$10 bank note is interchangeable with another.
Crude oil is fungible: a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude oil is fungible (direct exchange) with another barrel of the same type and grade of crude oil.
Different issues of a government bond (maybe issued at different times) are fungible with one another if they carry precisely the same rights and any of them is equally acceptable in settlement of a trade.
Diamonds are not fungible because diamonds' varying cuts, colors, grades, and sizes make it difficult to find many diamonds with the same cut, color, grade, and size.

So... who else does exactly what wikileaks does?

Re:Good Stuff

[techoi]

I'm talking about the well-known fact that Wikileaks unnecessarily released secrets that put innocent people's lives in danger.

Huh? Source please. You pulling that out of your ass (or repeating someone's BS) hardly makes that a "well-known fact". Please point to the innocent people that are now in danger or the resulting damage to said people's health.

Re:Good Stuff

[countertrolling]

I'm talking about the well-known fact...

You're talking about a well know lie...

More likely the opposite is true. Please, cut with the BS propaganda.. you can quit pretending there's a good guy in your little adventure out there.

Re:Good Stuff

[eldepeche]

I don't necessarily disagree that the leaks caused tangible harm, but talking about the classified status of the information doesn't bring a lot of light to the situation. Pretty much nothing was declassified during the Bush administration, and the Obama White House has unfortunately followed suit. There have been documented abuses of classification, including classifying documents containing no information not available in the New York Times. Saying "WikiLeaks revealed classified information" doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.

Not apologizing for their actions, but it's a lot harder to condemn them in an environment where classification is the default, rather than something done deliberately.

Re:Good Stuff

[blair1q]

Saying "WikiLeaks revealed classified information" doesn't really mean anything in and of itself.

No, which is why I'm always careful to qualify that with "properly".

Re:Good Stuff

[blair1q]

I mean Wikileaks can be replaced with SombodyElseleaks.

I do not mean Wikileaks can be traded for cash.

Therefore, I mean Wikileaks is fungible, not that it is liquid.

Frankly, I wouldn't give a nickel for their chances once the AG files charges, so it's definitely not liquid.

As for who could do what they do, well, anyone can. All Wikileaks does is provide a computer on the web where anyone can dump anything via a secure connection (an ssh-wrapped browser upload, I have no doubt). Then they post it on a website or give it to someone else to post. Any keen 13-year-old could become the next Wikileaks.

Re:Good Stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

My primary criticism to Wikileaks has always been the seemingly anti-american agenda.

Now that they're showing they're willing to attack other countries too, eh. No ground for me to stand on anymore.

Re:Good Stuff

[Yvanhoe]

Not. An. Excuse.

Re:Good Stuff

[BitZtream]

While I agree with you in principle, I'm a little scared of a civil war in a country known to have nukes handy.

I would like to think that there are people in my country who know what they are doing trying to resolve these issues without throwing the country into chaos.

Of course, I realize that I'm just hopelessly optimistic about my own government, but still one has to wonder if its a good idea to start bringing about anarchy in nuclear armed nations.

I'm all for the truth, but not if it means nuclear detonations. Long term I want every country to be a better place, but if Assange's methods bring about a revolution tomorrow that results in megaton detonations, I'd probably rather that it take 10 or even 100 years to bring about change and avoid the whole vaporizing of large amounts of people and turning parts of their country into a wasteland thing.

now is bad timing for any important news really

[v1]

Japan's recent disasters have unfortunately drawn away the public eye from the middle east and now this. Almost a shame that way. The public (and the media) only have so big of an attention span. There's just too much going on around the world right now for everything to get the coverage it deserves.

Makes me wonder if wikileaks had intended to publish this leak some days earlier and postponed it when Japan jumped the charts?

And then we have that Hollywood Patriot Act that is going to fly completely under the public's radar.

All quite a shame really...

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Microlith]

Wikileaks may be using it to distract from its crimes.

What crimes might those be?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[hedwards]

Precisely what crimes has Wikileaks committed? It's perfectly legal to publish materials that have been leaked, and nobody at Wikileaks actually investigates or leaks materials, making me wonder what a government shill like you is on about.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Omnifarious]

You are seriously dumb, deluded or both if you think that the people running Wikileaks are in the least concerned with what a bunch of rednecks in the US think is criminal behavior on their part. I'm not exactly a fan of Wikileaks, but their behavior has made their agenda crystal clear, and this release perfectly fits it and represents no change whatsoever in their general mode of operation.

Wikileaks is out to end secrecy being used as a cover for things that are embarrassing on the part of people with power and money. That's their mission and goal. And it's very telling that you think it's "detracting from their crimes" when it happens to other people, but think it's criminal when it happens to our own government.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[shaitand]

What crimes? Last I checked the only thing resembling a crime Wikileaks has been accused of is revealing US Death Squads in Afghanistan murdering civilian villages to increase their insurgent kill count.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Omnifarious]

Any and all abuses relating to copyright law will largely not make it into the public eye via the traditional news media. The traditional news media is owned by organizations that think they stand to gain from tougher copyright enforcement. So if any of this is reported at all, it will be reported in a positive light.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless you're a constituent of the government in question, what the fuck do you care?

Let's see - a country with the world's 2nd largest population and 11th largest economy. Gee, events there couldn't possibly have any effect on the rest of the world, now could they?

This story is important in India. In the rest of the world, it's merely sensationalist, and Wikileaks may be using it to distract from its crimes

Er, what crimes? Or are you assuming that since Assange has been accused of something, all of the people involved in Wikileaks must be co-conspirators?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

No, I am sure that Wikileaks is concerned for nobody's safety.

They have proved that many times over.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

Let's see - a country with the world's 2nd largest population and 11th largest economy. Gee, events there couldn't possibly have any effect on the rest of the world, now could they?

If the 2nd-largest population only has the 11th-largest economy, it's a fair bet they've had very little effect on the rest of the world.

Er, what crimes?

See other posts. The U.S. Government is still preparing charges for when they can get him into custody.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Microlith]

You've said this twice already, can you link to a document leaked by them that shows this?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[h4rr4r]

Please do list these crimes, please try to stick to real ones though. The US government is full of idiots who wanted to charge a non-citizen with treason, so try to remember I might not always trust everything they say.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[haruchai]

Crime that may be, but not committed by Wikileaks.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[SuricouRaven]

That's the second time you have posted that, and still no citation. Or are you using idea that if you repeat a lie often enough, it will come to be seem as the truth? It's a good propaganda trick, but you need a lot more spamming for it to work.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Brannoncyll]

The New York Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais and La Monde also printed the US Embassy cables. If Wikileaks committed a crime then so did they.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

If you don't understand the law, don't argue it.

The U.S. certainly can charge anyone on the planet with a crime committed anywhere on the planet.

Getting them extradited to stand trial for it is a matter of cooperation between nations, expense, and patience.

Things that increase the chances that extradition will occur: 1. the host country agrees with the charge and the possible punishment.

Okay, there was only one thing.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[R3d M3rcury]

There's just too much going on around the world right now for everything to get the coverage it deserves.

Not sure if you're being serious...

You're right, though. Let's see...we have a choice between reporting on corruption in India or showing the umptee-umpth video of a tsunami plowing into cars and houses and pictures of things where they are not supposed to be (cars in trees, buildings in the ocean, etc.)

Gosh. Decisions, decisions...

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[bug1]

"No, I am sure that Wikileaks is concerned for nobody's safety.
They have proved that many times over."

Wikileaks say they are releasing these leaks because they are in the publics best interests (not their own), it follows that that such people would also care about other peoples safety.

Why do you say otherwise ?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Brannoncyll]

Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization

Granted they are not a brick and mortar establishment but I disagree that they are not a journalistic organisation.

Also I doubt Wikileaks gave a crap about the governments opinion of its redactment policies, more likely they were concerned about putting people in danger.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

They say that, but they keep on ignoring the lives they're putting at risk, when they know they can do their job without putting lives at risk.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Brannoncyll]

Well no. They did not solicit any secrets. They were given them by a disgruntled soldier.

Are you really so blind as to believe that people in government don't do unlawful and unethical things all the time under the cover of national security? Remember that power corrupts. Wikileaks provide a vital service in allowing whistleblowers to expose these practises, now that most of the old newspapers are too gutless to do this. Without these organisations you will find your precious 'democracy' moving ever closer to fascism.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[h4rr4r]

The U.S. certainly can charge anyone on the planet with a crime committed anywhere on the planet.

That is immoral and disgusting. The US legal system should be limited to crimes that occur in some part in the US. If someone wants to drink at age 18 in the UK or smoke pot in Holland the US legal system as no right to interfere.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Omnifarious]

I don't care about anybody's 'safety' either. Nobody is ever 'safe'.

If our own government were really as concerned with our 'safety' as it claims to be, they would stop propping up authoritarian regimes. The people in those countries know exactly why their dictators are so hard to depose, and they take it out on us, the people of the US. The best way to make sure people don't get hurt is to make sure there's no good reason for them to be a target in the first place.

And I don't expect Wikileaks to be concerned with people's safety any more than I expect that of our own government. Selling 'safety' is the way to hoodwink a coward, and our politicians are only too aware of this fact.

I consider it a great courtesy that Wikileaks went to the lengths it did (which I think are quite extraordinary) to remove material that would directly lead to foot soldiers and spies being assassinated. I don't in any way consider it their responsibility.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

That is naive and stupid. The legal system is why we don't just attack every country where an American citizen gets murdered. It's why we have the authority to capture the Taliban in Afghanistan, even though the ones we actually found in Afghanistan didn't actually commit a crime against us, and the ones that did died in the process of committing the crime.

If you want to change it, you're going to have to become king or something, because them's the rules.

BTW, if someone wants fly to Holland to smoke pot they'll have to remember that it's actually illegal to do so, even though it's openly tolerated by the Dutch government. But they can still be busted for it there, and they can be busted for it when they get back home, if the US AG has the evidence.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Frosty Piss]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but unless you're a constituent of the government in question, what the fuck do you care?

Because it involved bribing Indian MPs in order to secure their votes for a controversial nuclear deal between India and - wait for this! - the US ?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[blair1q]

Well, no, they solicited them from the disgruntled soldier, and promised him glory and fame.

Well, he got the fame alright.

As for your second paragraph, you're not paying attention. I'm the one here who knows the difference between properly classified information and improperly classified information, and how to get improperly classified information declassified properly, so that it doesn't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed. You and Julian Assange, not so much.

My precious democracy is already fascist, since the Supreme Court, which is packed with fascists, declared that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without revealing anything about it. So that's another case where you're simply not paying attention and using words that don't mean what you think they sound like they should mean.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Brannoncyll]

Well, no, they solicited them from the disgruntled soldier, and promised him glory and fame.

Evidence?

I'm the one here who knows the difference between properly classified information and improperly classified information, and how to get improperly classified information declassified properly, so that it doesn't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed.

I'm not talking about leaking documents from the 1950s about UFO sightings or some bollocks, I'm talking here about current and relevant secrets about the people in power who will do their utmost to prevent those secrets from getting out. I'd like to live in your happy little world where the government will willingly release this information in exchange for a politely worded letter.

My precious democracy is already fascist, since the Supreme Court, which is packed with fascists, declared that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns without revealing anything about it.

I agree with you on this one. Tell me then why you aren't out there fighting to change this? Julian Assange is.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[h4rr4r]

Us minding our own business is not another option?

Probably not, but that is more just a sad affirmation of a fact rather than this crap you are so proud of.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Lloyd_Bryant]

BTW, if someone wants fly to Holland to smoke pot they'll have to remember that it's actually illegal to do so, even though it's openly tolerated by the Dutch government. But they can still be busted for it there, and they can be busted for it when they get back home, if the US AG has the evidence.

Now for the real question - what the hell have *you* been smoking?

If you commit a crime, you can only be tried and punished for it in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. If you, a private citizen of the US, go to the Netherlands, commit a murder there, then return to the US, you can NOT be tried for that crime in the US. At most, you can be arrested by US authorities, and sent to the Netherlands to stand trial (whether or not this is the case depends on what extradition treaties, if any, exist between the US and the Netherlands).

(note that the rules are somewhat different if you are an active duty serviceman - the military has automatic jurisdiction over all criminal acts of active duty personnel, regardless of where those acts occurred)

Now if you were in the Netherlands, and you hired a hit man to kill someone in the US, you could potentially be tried and convicted in a US court - under the "accessory before the fact" and "conspiracy" concepts, you are as guilty as the actual killer, even if you were on another continent when the crime was committed.

*That* is the basic theory underlying the trials of those captured in Afghanistan - they were involved in the planning of attacks against US targets, and as such the US should have jurisdiction over them.

And finally - smoking pot isn't illegal *anywhere* in the US. The laws all revolve around cultivation, possession, sale, etc. The only criminal penalties for using are the "driving under the influence" laws if you get caught driving while stoned.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[bug1]

"They say that, but they keep on ignoring the lives they're putting at risk, when they know they can do their job without putting lives at risk."

Hmm, but didnt the pentagon invtigate and say they couldnt _prove_ wikileaks put lives at risk, or are you talking about something else they leaked ?

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Jessified]

"I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the internet."

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[shaitand]

I gave citations the last time. In this context it is the gp who needs to provide citations for wikileaks supposed 'crimes'

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[andydread]

Cluestick time. It is not a crime to _recieve_ and print classified information in the United States of America. End of story. Espionage charges do not apply here.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[commandermonkey]

... and does not handle release of classified information the way the NY Times does.

You mean going to the US government and asking what it is OK for them to print?
NYT: We have evidence of massive illegal wiretaps from the federal government
US Gov:Ummm, could you not print that we are kind running for reelection right now and the general populous, although kinda stupid and they tend to let us do what ever we want if we just say there are scary terrorists(read:non-whites/non-christians) out there who are going to eat your babies, they may vote us out of power.
NYT: Okey-doke, just let us know when it's ok to tell the country of your crimes.

Seriously though, the NYT goes around bragging about getting the administrations permission before publishing anything bad.

In fact, once the government pointed that out following its original releases, Wikileaks changed its methods and now submits the information to the NY Times for redaction, so as to avoid further charges.

In fact Wikileaks doesn't trust the NYT and so now cuts them out of their releases. The last batch the NYT had to get from another newspaper.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[drinkypoo]

If you commit a crime, you can only be tried and punished for it in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. If you, a private citizen of the US, go to the Netherlands, commit a murder there, then return to the US, you can NOT be tried for that crime in the US.

Aha, but it is a violation of US law to go to another country solely for the purpose of performing an act which is illegal in the USA.

And finally - smoking pot isn't illegal *anywhere* in the US.

Who told you that? It's Schedule A. That means it's illegal to use it without jumping through many hoops.

Your comment had small pieces of useful information but it was wrapped in gobs of misinformation. As such it looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead people. At best, you're wrong.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[Lloyd_Bryant]

Aha, but it is a violation of US law to go to another country solely for the purpose of performing an act which is illegal in the USA.

Only if the law in question gives a strong indication (if not explicitly detailing) that it is intended to be applied to US citizens in other nations. For instance, traveling to another country to have sex with a minor *is* punishable in the US, even if the act is legal in the country where it happens. But in that case, the PROTECT Act of 2003 explicitly makes it illegal to do so - before that Act was passed, there was no legal basis for prosecuting individuals who did this. So it's possible for a US citizen to be prosecuted here for what was a non-crime in the country where the act was committed, but this is *not* the default for all laws.

Who told you that? It's Schedule A. That means it's illegal to use it without jumping through many hoops.

There is no "Schedule A" for drugs. I'm assuming you mean "Schedule I" under the Controlled Substances Act, which regulates commerce (production, distribution, etc) of various substances. It does not in any way make it illegal to use them. AFAIK, the federal government doesn't even have to authority to outlaw use of drugs (except on federal land) as the only part of the Constitution they can use for drug regulation is the Commerce Clause.

Your comment had small pieces of useful information but it was wrapped in gobs of misinformation. As such it looks like a deliberate attempt to mislead people. At best, you're wrong.

I'd say the same about your posts, but they're missing the small pieces of useful information as well.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really

[BitZtream]

Its a crime to solicite it, and it IS a crime to publish it.

It isn't treason to publish unsolicited classified information you receive, but its still a crime.

Denials all around

[Labcoat Samurai]

"Nachiketa Kapur denied the report, saying: "I vehemently deny these malicious allegations. There was no cash to point out to."

"Satish Sharma told a news channel that he did not even have an aide called Nachiketa Kapur."

Wait, so who did they interview?

Re:Denials all around

[Kaenneth]

"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything."

Who watches the Watchman?

[LWATCDR]

How do we know that these cables where not edited?
From the BBC
"Nachiketa Kapur denied the report, saying: "I vehemently deny these malicious allegations. There was no cash to point out to."
Satish Sharma told a news channel that he did not even have an aide called Nachiketa Kapur.
"I never had and still don't have a political aide," he said.
Mr Sharma is described as a "close associate of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi [and] considered to be a very close family friend of [Congress party chief] Sonia Gandhi".
The cable said that Mr Kapur also claimed that MPs belonging to regional party Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) had been paid 100 million rupees ($2.5m; £1.5m) each to ensure they voted for the "right way".
RLD leader Ajit Singh has denied the charge and said that he was "opposed to the nuclear deal" and his party MPs "voted against the government".
These exchanges are alleged to have happened at the time of a controversial deal between India and the US which paved the way for India to massively expand its nuclear power capability."

It should be easy to find ot if this person had such an aid.
If you are unwilling to trust the government why are you willing to trust Wikileaks? Just wondering since this leak as far as I can see has no data to support it. And the best way to earn trust would be to release a bunch of leaks unaltered and then when it is worth the risk release an altered one.

I am just wondering if it is wise to take something that is so easy to forge as the truth without verification.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[coastwalker]

talking of editing, what the hell happened to Slashdot?, I cant get a flat view back, all I get is the first line of comments - what happened? all of a sudden the most erudite conversation I know of on the net got reduced to a one line tweet.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Wikileaks has been right every single time so far.

Furthermore, objective reasoning would realize that these are merely leaked cables, and that the cables could be wrong.

And also because odds are anything that's going to make the American Empire freak out THIS much is probably true.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[coastwalker]

Oh its ok, my apologies for posting to myself, I was wrong, turns out that that point and click Microsoft windows slider gadget lets you see as much as you want. Brilliant. The trouble with Wiki leaks is that it is context free, no editors, no journalism. Ok fine it leaks stuff but to be honest unless you live in Iran or Libya its pointless reading any of their releases until you can see what investigative journalists have done with the information. By the way, well done to Mr Obama for getting the world together to kill that scum bag Gadaffi.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[fava]

It would not be the first time that an "aide" to a powerful figure made "arrangements" on their bosses behalf and then the "aide" and the bribe was never seen again.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[Lloyd_Bryant]

It should be easy to find ot if this person had such an aid.

Well, they *obviously* found someone named "Nachiketa Kapur", whose response was "There was no cash to point out to". Note that it wasn't "I don't work for Mr Sharma", or "I have no connection to that political party", or anything else that might indicate that he was *not* in fact Mr Sharma's aide.

What we'll probably discover is that Mr. Kapur is officially employed by someone other than Mr Sharma, in some position that on paper has nothing to do with politics. But Kapur's response indicates that he is involved in that party, and has some association with Sharma.

If you are unwilling to trust the government why are you willing to trust Wikileaks? Just wondering since this leak as far as I can see has no data to support it. And the best way to earn trust would be to release a bunch of leaks unaltered and then when it is worth the risk release an altered one.

Because governments routinely lie, while Wikileaks has yet to be caught in *any* sort of fabrication? Your theory of them building their reputation via real information so they can then fabricate some false info suffers from one major problem - what does Wikileaks get from risking that hard earned reputation? Is causing a scandal in India really worth risking the whole Wikileaks project?

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[shaitand]

Wikileaks is releasing the cables and guaranteeing they are actual cables. They are not guaranteeing that the information contained within the cables is real. It is certainly possible that bogus cables are intentionally sent by diplomats for the express purpose of counter-intelligence in case anyone is listening.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[Fred Ferrigno]

Ambassador David C. Mulford — the man who sent many of the secret U.S. embassy cables accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks — put to rest any doubts on the veracity of their contents on Friday, stating that “certainly the reports from the U.S. embassy [in New Delhi] in general are accurate reports.”

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1551181.ece

If WikiLeaks faked a single cable, especially one as easily checked as you say this one is, they would eventually be found out. That would give anyone looking to dismiss the rest of the cables just the excuse they need.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[_Sprocket_]

Wikileaks is releasing the cables and guaranteeing they are actual cables. They are not guaranteeing that the information contained within the cables is real. It is certainly possible that bogus cables are intentionally sent by diplomats for the express purpose of counter-intelligence in case anyone is listening.

Or that the cables contain faulty analysis of information.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[Rakishi]

If you are unwilling to trust the government why are you willing to trust Wikileaks?

Because wikileaks has no strong incentive to lie and a massive incentive to not lie?

Wikileaks doesn't gain much from the cables, some reputation but they have so many cable and their reputation is already very high. The cost of a fake cable, which would instantly be discovered, would sink all of that and likely get some of them put in jail (due to a lack of a public opinion shield from annoyed governments).

Governments on the other hand, or rather the politicians and bureaucrats that make them up, have very strong ideological and monetary reasons for lying and historically have been shown to do that very often. Now, as someone else noted. You can argue that the government official who created this cable originally was in fact lying or unknowingly passing on false information. That is logical and plausible. Saying wikileaks faked it is on the other hand pure FUD, shame on you.

And the best way to earn trust would be to release a bunch of leaks unaltered and then when it is worth the risk release an altered one.

This isn't magical information that no one else in the world has ever seen. [sarcasm]I'm sure the US government which hates wikileaks and has the original cables would never point out discrepancies.[/sarcasm]

I am just wondering if it is wise to take something that is so easy to forge as the truth without verification.

No, it's very difficult to forge this because many other source of it exist. Or do you claim some massive conspiracy between everyone whose read this cable before, who still has access to this cable and wikileaks?

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[ap7]

If you lived in India, you would know that what WikiLeaks cables say is far closer to the truth than what the government and the people accused of bribery have been saying. Most replies from ministers and officials have been dodgy on the issue. During this very vote, MPs from the opposition had waved bundles of cash in parliament they claimed were offered by ruling part officials to vote for the India US Nuclear Deal.

Millions of dollars float about in the political arena in the country, flowing from one politician to the next in a manner perhaps not even seen in the US. A recent scam involving telecom spectrum was estimated to cost the government 1,700,000 million rupees.

Most politicians are seriously rich. They, with the help of the government that they run, grab millions of dollars worth of prime government land for themselves illegally and for free. The politicians get their money from their own businesses that have managed to snag quick regulatory clearances despite major violations, from government tenders that they actively fix and have their own businesses win at high costs, from government officials (including the police)who send up part of their bribery earnings as tributes in return for political support, from businessmen who want politicians and the government to look away while they are upto naughty things, and so on. Whistleblowers are ruthlessly silenced.

You see how politicians and the government are central to the entire mess. If I was an Indian, I would trust WikiLeaks more than these people anytime.

Re:Who watches the Watchman?

[LWATCDR]

So you trust them because the tell you what you want to hear...

$25 Million "lying around the house"?

[hey!]

I don't buy that. The money came from somebody who stood to earn a lot more than $25 million on this deal. If we knew who that was, we'd know who was calling the tune. If we knew whose hands the money passed through, any Americans on that list would be subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. That might even include administration officials who were acting in a private capacity for their friends.

Re:why is this unusual or Afghan reauthorized

[WillAffleckUW]

Yes, but the House and Senate reauthorized the Foreign War of Republican Adventure in Afghanistan by a 393 to 81 vote (or something like that) today.

We have always been a debtor nation providing free military to Red China and Russia to extract Afghan and Iraqi resources at US taxpayer expense ... right?

Weregeld

[Colin Smith]

It's the way it used to be. And lets face it. That's what life insurance is.
 

only $25M to buy the lot of them?

[ChipMonk]

Well, that's my first thought, anyway. But then I remember that William Jefferson (D-Louisiana, formerly) was bought with $400K, with $90K of that being cold, hard cash.... literally, it was found in his freezer by the FBI. I guess the MP's in India know what their going rate is.

Citation Needed

[BitterAndDrunk]

They redact before posting. The argument can be made that they don't redact enough and the identifying details are still unobscured, but that's not what you said.

You're just spreading FUD.

Re:Citation Needed

[blair1q]

They now redact before posting, and they now go through the NY Times and other bona-fide journalistic outlets to get published.

They only do that because, after their first round of leaks of US Government secrets including information that should not have been released, someone who actually knows the fucking law explained to them why the NY Times can get away with it by doing it properly so as not to reveal the names of people whose lives would be put unnecessarily at risk.

Assange and Wikileaks are a bunch of script-kiddies, not journalists. And they can be replaced by anyone with an ssh client and a laptop.

Re:Citation Needed

[techoi]

Oh, that...yeah, we can't have people letting out the names of, say, CIA operatives for political gain. No...that would be a horrible thing and no upstanding person or government would ever do that. Only a-holes like Assange would do that...right? Give me a break. The emperor (be it Bush, be it Obama, be whomever is running the United Corporations of America at the time) wears no clothes. Some are just mad that the masses are figuring that out finally.

Re:Citation Needed

[blair1q]

Wait. So, you're saying, because Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Scooter Libby (the fall guy) did it, it's okay for Wikileaks to do it?

Because they also sold America a pile of lies about WMD to get the Iraq war started. You want Wikileaks or anyone else doing that?

It's possible to do secrecy and investigative journalism without burning America's entire intelligence apparatus in the middle east and getting people killed (the confirmed results of what Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Libby did by outing Valerie Plame, which destroyed Brewster Jennings, the CIA's front firm in the middle east, and revealed everyone employed or associated with it in the middle east to be a CIA operative or collaborator).

The only one wearing no clothes is you. You don't know right from wrong.

Re:Citation Needed

[jmac_the_man]

So you're saying, because Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Scooter Libby (the fall guy) did it, it's okay for Wikileaks to do it?

Richard Armitage, who was working within the State Department to prevent the Iraq war, is the one who leaked Valerie Plame's name. The investigators knew that when the investigation (into who leaked her name) started. The Libby indictment and conviction were entirely political. There's valid things to dislike the Bush administration for. But this isn't one of them.

Re:Citation Needed

[techoi]

No, what Wikileaks did was more productive and helpful.

It's not right from wrong, it's about the world moving on while the dinosaurs lie, cheat and steal to keep their power. A bunch of citizens in the middle east just figured that out. I suspect the average American will get to that point as well - especially as the middle class continues to be herded into the lower class. Government is supposed to fear their people...not the other way around.

Wikileaks shining a light on the lies, cover-ups and dirty dealing that is SOP for most governments is not only a good thing, but a necessary thing given that your vaulted profession of true journalism is pretty much dead - especially from the investigative side. Reporting on Charlie Sheen and Lindsey Lohan just isn't going to cut it. Wikileaks is just filling a need that used to be met by that profession. It might look and feel different, but the need for transparency hasn't left and something will always fill it. And transparency sure as hell isn't going to come from our government - no matter which party is in charge.

Re:Citation Needed

[blair1q]

If you read the story linked to Libby's name on that Wikipedia page, you find that he was spreading her identity around long before the first date in that timeline. The timeline is typical Wikipedia misinformation, and you fell for it.

Re:Citation Needed

[jmac_the_man]

Libby talked to Judith Miller on July 8th, 2003. (Miller claims they talked about the CIA, but not about Plame specifically, and that someone else gave her Plame's name.) Novak's story ran July 14th of that year (i.e. so he did the research earlier), which isn't long before the 8th, especially since Armitage told Bob Woodward about Plame in June of that year. Novak and Armitage both said, repeatedly, that Armitage was Novak's initial and primary source. And since Armitage was working AGAINST the war, leaking Plame's name wasn't part of a grand conspiracy to discredit Joe Wilson. Sorry.
Also, typical Wikipedia misinformation favors conservatives over liberals? What Wikipedia are you reading?
My sources are the Wikipedia pages on Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby, and Plame affair. New Slashdot sucks and is screwing up links in this reply window, so I'm not linking to them, but you can put those titles in a Wikipedia search box if you really care.

Re:Citation Needed

[drinkypoo]

It's possible to do secrecy and investigative journalism without burning America's entire intelligence apparatus in the middle east and getting people killed (the confirmed results of what Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Libby did by outing Valerie Plame, which destroyed Brewster Jennings, the CIA's front firm in the middle east, and revealed everyone employed or associated with it in the middle east to be a CIA operative or collaborator).

And yet American intelligence tried real damned hard to find a case where the Manning leaks had resulted in harm to anyone and actually couldn't, and further, admitted it publicly. It seems that there is very much a difference here, and further, it is on Wikileaks' (and Assange's) side.

Will anything happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an Indian, and I have seen lot of things like this in the past. Even if you have video proof of cash being handed over, they will claim and "prove" that the video was doctored (which, by the way, I am not making it up, it did happen a few years ago in Tehelka Sting Op). We are still yet to do anything about Bofors case that happened decades ago. The recent navy land corruption, the much publicised Stamp Paper case.....the list in on and on...I can go on for days. Long story short, it will circle around the media for a few days until there is new corruption case and everyone will move onto the next one. Nothing will come out of this...Everyone is corrupt in India....

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

[mdsolar]

Assisting India with nuclear technology is counter to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and the deal should never have been made. No wonder it is corrupt.

Re:Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty

[mdsolar]

India never signed the treaty and thus is excluded. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel should receive no assistance.

This is just more proof

[Sloppy]

This just further proves: Julian Assange is a traitor to America!

Re:This is just more proof

[dclozier]

It's worse than that - he's not even a US citizen! ;)

Re:This is just more proof

[quacking duck]

It's worse than that - he's not even a US citizen! ;)

Surely that's the worst crime of all--after all, who *doesn't* want to be a US citizen? ;-P

Re:This is just more proof

[microbox]

A traitor to America, and an Australian to boot. How that works, I do not know. But apparently Australians can betray America, which I find rather disturbing, since I am Australian.

Re:Wow, you're in orbit

[mosb1000]

The problem is that keeping it hidden is necessary to perpetuate it. If this kind of thing were done openly people would be like "woah, wait a minute, what are we signing up for?" Today we are baffled that the "system" doesn't work. We wonder why it doesn't work, or what improvements can be made to it. We think maybe if we elect different leaders they will do a better job. Maybe if our party had more power they'd fix things. Maybe if more people voted the quality of the votes would be better and the quality of the candidates would be better.

Rules like this exist for the people that break them. It's illegal to accept bribes so that some people can go on doing it and others won't realize it's happening. You swear an oath so that you can lie and people won't think you're lying. We have a system where it's illegal to pay for political influence so that people won't realize we have a system where political influence it bought and sold.

In reality, the system works exactly as intended, but people don't realize what is intended by it. I think it would be better if they did.

Re:why is this unusual or Afghan reauthorized

[xwizbt]

'We' this and 'we' that. Is the government which represents you really 'you' if they're operating by withholding the truth from you?

This is Indian Poltics, not news

[Yakasha]

Ignorant masses still trying to apply their own sense of how things should be to the entire planet.

Every Indian already knows this happened. Maybe not this specific incident, but they know that bribes change hands with EVERY decision the government makes. That is simply how things are done there.

Here, you call it a campaign contribution.

How is that not enforce now?

[Shivetya]

Rich and famous personalities regularly buy themselves out of prison time convictions by burying courts and juries in "expert" testimony and specialist is psychological word plays. Corporations pay millions to the government and victims all without admitting guilt. Bribes are a way of life, those doing them just have managed to get them under a new name, fees, penalties, and the like. The courts are as corrupt as government they are part of. Its a rich man's game and all we can do it sit and watch. They own both parties who in turn craft laws essentially legalizing the whole affair, just as long as the right pockets are lined.

So yeah, we already have our interesting world, unfortunately.

Conspiracy?

[b4upoo]

Any American officials or companies who stood to gain from this bribery may well face charges in American courts.
        Palm Beach County Florida just caught more than a dozen public employees accepting bribes and gifts. Apparently the range of jail sentences will rand from 14 years to 300 years in prison. Florida can go insane over bribes or corruption. We had a land developer near Tampa that moved survey stakes one foot in order to create one additional home lot. He was sentenced to 150 years. And we no longer have good behavior or early release. At most he can get 15% sentence reduction for the convenience of the prison administration. Perhaps the Feds need this kind of sentencing.

Re:why is this unusual or Afghan reauthorized

[Alex Belits]

Yes.

You didn't prevent this from happening, so you are OK with that.

Re:Cash for votes, or "I will lower taxes".

[ChrisMaple]

"I will lower taxes" is a promise to steal less. "Cash for votes" is bribery.

Re:Cash for votes, or "I will lower taxes".

[Ksevio]

In one situation only the supporters get the money.

So what ?

[hebertrich]

That's the American way. Short post .. nothing new here nor anything surprising.
Next story.