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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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

[Yvanhoe]

Not. An. Excuse.

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

[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

[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

[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

[Jessified]

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

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.

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?

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?

[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?

[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: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?

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:This is just more proof

[dclozier]

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

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?