WikiLeaks Cash-For-Votes Exposé Rocks Indian 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.'"
why is this unusual (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Bribes in business is one thing. Bribes involving government and elected officials is a different thing altogether.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I totally agree, the world would be a much better place if the rich could openly buy public officials and public policy.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in practice the rich win.
when 400 people in this country have more assets than 150,000,000 .... something is seriously messed up
Re: (Score:3)
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:Wow, you're in orbit (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
The law, in it's majestic equality, forbids both the criminal and the law-abiding citizen to murder, rape, and steal. - Me.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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 netwo
Re:why is this unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Weregeld (Score:2)
It's the way it used to be. And lets face it. That's what life insurance is.
How is that not enforce now? (Score:2)
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 o
Re:why is this unusual (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
You say that like it doesn't happen already.
Re: (Score:2)
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 sec
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious?
Let's hope you're never on trial for a crime you didn't commit and someone bribes the jury.
Re: (Score:2)
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 rampan
Re:why is this unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
So, now that the UN has authorized armed intervention in Libya, will that also be a "war without cause"?
Re: (Score:3)
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 [gwu.edu]
No imminent threat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_on_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq [wikipedia.org]
"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/new [timesonline.co.uk]
Re:why is this unusual (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
“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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 e
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So exposing corruption among brown people is the only kind of leak you support?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you separate people into groups by skin color? Can't you think of something more constructive?
Re: (Score:2)
Nationality? Seems just as randomly assigned to me.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
'We' this and 'we' that. Is the government which represents you really 'you' if they're operating by withholding the truth from you?
Re:why is this unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
[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: (Score:3)
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 w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:why is this unusual (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban [guardian.co.uk]
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 [google.com]
Good Stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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 el
Citation Needed (Score:3)
You're just spreading FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
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 o
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 reall
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 webs
Re: (Score:3)
now is bad timing for any important news really (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
What crimes might those be?
Re: (Score:2)
Crime that may be, but not committed by Wikileaks.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 powe
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am sure that Wikileaks is concerned for nobody's safety.
They have proved that many times over.
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 concern
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You've said this twice already, can you link to a document leaked by them that shows this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
"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: (Score:2)
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything."
Who watches the Watchman? (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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 to
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
$25 Million "lying around the house"? (Score:2)
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? (Score:3)
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (Score:2)
This is just more proof (Score:2)
This just further proves: Julian Assange is a traitor to America!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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