Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WikiLeaks Cash-For-Votes Exposé Rocks Indian Government

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the never-a-dull-moment dept.

Government 225

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.'"

cancel ×

225 comments

why is this unusual (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35535978)

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 (1, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536024)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536088)

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.

Re:why is this unusual (1, Informative)

atomicdoggy (512329) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536216)

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

Re:why is this unusual (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536276)

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 or Afghan reauthorized (2)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536360)

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?

Re:why is this unusual (4, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536788)

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 (4, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536270)

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 (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536356)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536506)

Whooooooosh

Re:why is this unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536606)

You can't possibly be that stupid. It was extremely obvious sarcasm and you missed it.

Re:why is this unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536780)

SARCASM. You missed it, the rest of us didn't.

Re:why is this unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35537090)

It wasn't without cause. The available intelligence indicated that Saddam had WMDs. The sad truth, of course, was that he was just faking so as to scare off Iran, betting that the US was less of a threat with the world thinking he had WMDs than Iran would have been with the world knowing he didn't.

Also, the proximate cause of tens of thousands being killed in Iraq isn't the US's involvement there. It was largely the opposing efforts of AQI and elements aligned with the Iranian Republican Guard. Had those groups not become involved, the deaths would have been minimized mostly to those which occurred during the initial invasion.

Re:why is this unusual (3, Interesting)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536408)

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 (2)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536498)

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 (1)

ladoga (931420) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536588)

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 (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536866)

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 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536626)

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

Re:why is this unusual (1)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536664)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35537000)

Indian news don't make global headlines.

Re:why is this unusual (-1, Troll)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536052)

Well, I don't even get why bribes should be unlawful or what is wrong with them. If someone feels its easier to handle things with money, let them. Some people use their charisma to handle difficulties too.

Re:why is this unusual (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536106)

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 (0)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536134)

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

Re:why is this unusual (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536268)

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 (1)

viablos (2018696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536436)

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.

Wow, you're in orbit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536488)

What you're petitioning is already happening under the table, and look where it's getting us. Now you wish to open the floodgates? Seriously? That you don't see the flaws in what you're arguing must make you one of the biggest idiots here. Congrats.

Re:why is this unusual (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536666)

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 (1)

The End Of Days (1243248) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536482)

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 (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536298)

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 (3, Interesting)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536312)

"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 (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536908)

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 (1)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536322)

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 (2)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536424)

Well, this would make groupon really worth something.

Re:why is this unusual (1)

Coeurderoy (717228) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536572)

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 (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536118)

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 (1)

Stormthirst (66538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536280)

It's pretty much how the Roman Empire worked.

Re:why is this unusual (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536394)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536398)

As we could see a few days ago that's how it works in tribal Pakistan.

-- Teun

Weregeld (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536400)

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

Re:why is this unusual (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536454)

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 (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536248)

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 (1)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536310)

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 (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536362)

"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 (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536494)

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

Good Stuff (4, Insightful)

hellkyng (1920978) | more than 3 years ago | (#35535984)

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 (1)

Soilworker (795251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536034)

It's way too common.

Re:Good Stuff (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536064)

A function like Wikileaks' is necessary.

Wikileaks itself is entirely fungible in the performance of that function.

And Wikileaks is crippled by the way it's gone about performing that function.

Deservedly so, IMO.

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

Re:Good Stuff (3, Insightful)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536156)

>>>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 (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536286)

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

There's a difference between properly classified information and improperly classified information. The law and everyone tasked with following it knows that, and what to do about it. There are procedures for declassifying improperly classified information and punishing those who engage in improperly classifying information. Those procedures ensure that people who should be protected are not put in danger.

Wikileaks does not know that difference. It just dumped data without redacting it. We will probably never be told who they got killed as a result, but the act of putting those people in danger is criminal, and there's no amount of patting the dog and pretending to have reformed themselves that will change that.

Re:Good Stuff (1)

techoi (1435019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536410)

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.

Citation Needed (2)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536434)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536712)

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:Good Stuff (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536570)

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 (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536632)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536728)

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 (1)

techoi (1435019) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536320)

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 (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536338)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536368)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536812)

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.

now is bad timing for any important news really (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536018)

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 [arstechnica.com] 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 (-1, Troll)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536090)

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?

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.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really (3, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536206)

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 (-1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536602)

Illegal release of classified information.

Some of what they released had been improperly classified, some of it was properly classified and deserved to remain secret.

Doing good does not excuse doing bad.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really (1)

haruchai (17472) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536774)

Crime that may be, but not committed by Wikileaks.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really (1)

Brannoncyll (894648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537010)

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 (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536380)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536508)

What crimes, man? Publishing leaked cables? Oh wait, the NY Times published those too... and a number of other journalist agencies. There was no crime.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536638)

Wikileaks is not a journalistic organization. The NY Times knows the difference between properly and improperly classified information, and knows how to handle classified information so as not to put people in danger unnecessarily. If the NY Times were to do it the way Wikileaks did it, the NY Times would not be able to keep from being tried and convicted for it.

Re:now is bad timing for any important news really (2)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536534)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536652)

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 (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536550)

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 (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536714)

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 (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536950)

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 (1)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536580)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536668)

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 (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536722)

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 (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537032)

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 (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536556)

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 (1)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537110)

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...

Denials all around (5, Funny)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536038)

"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?

Well, it's as *good* as money, at least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536046)

United States: Listen, Mr. Samsonite, about the briefcase, my friend Harry and I have every intention of fully buying you off.
Nicholas Andre: Open it up. Open it up!
United States: [Motioning to Mary] Go ahead, open it up. Do what he says. Hurry.
Nicholas Andre: What is this? What is this? Where's all the money?
United States: That's as good as money, sir. Those are I.O.U.'s. Go ahead and add it up, every cent's accounted for. Look, see this? That's a car. 275 thou. Might wanna hang onto that one.

Who watches the Watchman? (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536050)

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? (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536154)

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? (1)

coastwalker (307620) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536236)

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? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536170)

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? (1)

fava (513118) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536294)

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? (4, Insightful)

Lloyd_Bryant (73136) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536382)

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? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536624)

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? (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536912)

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.

Cuba banned Michael Moore's film (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35537014)

Remember how they leaked a false report that Cuba stopped Michael Moore's film? The State Dept lies to itself its so dishonest.

Re:Who watches the Watchman? (1)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536884)

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 [thehindu.com]

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? (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537118)

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?

$25 Million "lying around the house"? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536252)

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.

only $25M to buy the lot of them? (2)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536426)

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.

Will anything happen? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536440)

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 (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536548)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35536996)

Spreading nuclear technology is NOT counter to the Non-proliferation Treaty, in fact the whole part 3 of the treaty is about sharing nuclear technology and equipment.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty )

This is just more proof (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 3 years ago | (#35536560)

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

Re:This is just more proof (2)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35537048)

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

Standards in other countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35537044)

Note, not trying to defend their actions. Now that that's aside, what's standard in India? The impression that I get from here in the States is that other counrtries are much more tolerant of bribes. IIRC, there was some controversy about corporations based in the US writing off bribes as an expense in Italy, and when they couldn't do it they wondered how they were going to conduct business there. That said, "tipping" somebody to get your drivers license the same day and buying a nuclear deal are both wrong--it's just a question of degree. However, in countries where the former is tolerated, are you more or less likely to experience the latter?

In the US, ordinary citizens virtually never experience corruption in dealing with officials. At least, I've never experienced it. Tickets, licenses, transactions, taxes... It's all been on the up-and-up. OTOH, corporations and wealthy connected people fund most of the political activity. They've avoided the whole ugly appearance of quid-pro-quo by making the quid extremely large. You can't point to one suitcase full of money in the US, because there's a continuous rain of money.

I'm not really sure who is doing better.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...