When it’s all said and done, there’s no doubt that the hundreds of stories exposing the intricate web of tax avoidance and laundering, also known as the Panama Papers, will be an important blockbuster feat of journalism.
One data dump used to discredit another. Hmm...
Has anyone else wondered how it is with the immense surveillance networks working 24/7 that there are data dumps at all? Or that this info is perceived as secret?
A few posters questioned the source behind this leak and why it is that it appears to leave U.S. powerbrokers OUT while doing its utmost to demonize Putin. At first, I was suspicious of their speculation... but maybe they are onto something.
I've been looking for a thread to place this item by David Icke. In it, he talks about the ideological groundwork being laid to conflate ANY criticism of government policy--erstwhile termed a "conspiracy theory"--with radical extremism, a hair's breadth away from the stigma of "terrorist."
This is the clip: It's POWERFUL stuff.
The Panana Papers don't demonize Putin, media organizations reporting on them do.
The biggest flaws I see to this whole Washington Conspiracy Theory is that
a) I can't imagine why Washington would want to draw attention to the mechanism by which the super wealthy ruling class rob us.
b) The current U.S government is so viciously hostile towards whistleblowers that orchestrating what has become celebrated as the largest leak ever would seem to undermine their whole "leaking is bad and we will destroy you for it" message
c) Why oh why would Washington include the PM of Ukraine if this was all supposed to be a takedown of Russia? Why Canadians? Why British? Why Saudis?
Western media demonizes Putin every time he sneezes. Why is anyone surprised by this?
And, just as a reminder Putin actually is a corrupt, tyrannical oligarch. That's actually true! Broken clocks are twice a day right.
Oh please ... what are you, his cousin?
I read earlier today that there are supposed to be a lot more releases coming that include Americans "banking" in Panama.
And then there's this:
"Ryle says that the media organizations have no plans to release the full dataset, WikiLeaks-style, which he argues would expose the sensitive information of innocent private individuals along with the public figures on which the group’s reporting has focused. 'We’re not WikiLeaks. We’re trying to show that journalism can be done responsibly,' Ryle says. He says he advised the reporters from all the participating media outlets to 'go crazy, but tell us what’s in the public interest for your country.'
So, Ryle or the ICIJ get to decide who's "innocent?" Or even who's a "private individual?" And "the reporters from all the participating media outlets" are qualified or entitled to decide "what's in the public interest for your country?" Considering the way our media outlets have been covering the Democratic primaries, I wouldn't trust the vast majority of them to give me the correct time!
Its hard to imagine at this point that there will be anything actual that will implicate or threat significant corporate US power. considering how coordinated the approach is to the public, how crafted this message is - targeting wiki, they couldnt help themselves- and how all players exposed are on the list of US competitors, I am going to begin wrapping up my hope that the power didnt beat us to this leak; and played whatever ever game they had to in order to remove themselves from the leak. I hope to stand corrected - but deeply consider the psychology of this leak so far and dare that I am reading it wrong.
Are you joking?
What kind of mental gymnastics must be performed by leftists to view a billionaire secret police-turned-president-for-life oligarch as some sort of people's hero.
You were joking, right?
He seems to have been freely elected, allowing for 15%+ of shenanigans, per wikipedia, still a landslide for him, fwiw, it seems the people back him.
Actually the public record is pretty clear. He oversaw the redistribution of billions of dollars of assets to associates of his, now among the richest people in Russia.
And yes he is very popular in Russia. Being popular - or being competent and rational - do not mean that one is not also a "corrupt and tyrannical oligarch."
Leaks can and will continue because massive surveillance cannot know what it is looking at or why until something happens. Then, of course, any large institution in the business should be able to track down almost any information about almost any individual. Until parameters are established, though, what they have to do is a bit like googling something without the proper search term.
So, for instance, when Snowden's revelations hit, they did not know at first that what they were looking for was an "Ed Snowden." Once they did, they could find his apartment, his wife, his correspondents, his credit purchases, his phone calls, and presumably on and on. But at the beginning, they have to ask questions like "Who had access to that information?" Of course they knew that their databases had been hacked at some point because, well, that actually happens very frequently, and generally completely casually, by people who have no particular interest in causing any damage or getting themselves in any particular trouble. And of course they knew that almost all such events are done from the inside. So surely they would have begun going through the employee lists and searching for files crossing certain desks.
But often this is really quite difficult because those files are supposed to cross most of those desks: that is part of how all this information gets processed. And there is a lot of employee gazing at information that is "innocent"--from a company point of view. It may be idle curiosity, and it is part of how participants learn to judge the contexts of what they are working with. Lots of information is denied or simply not delivered to any one of them or to any sort of position, of course, according to the motivations of various parties to keep secrets of various things.
Of course, none of that necessarily means that the Panama Papers might not be suspect in some way. I have no idea, honestly. My initial impression is that what we have here is just grossly petty journalistic back-biting on the part of people who may very well have a scoop although they are not particularly radical or truthful or brilliant themselves. 400 journalists? Hmn. I really have to wonder who organizes that and who manages to keep it a secret. I really do not know even the particulars, but it seems a strange way to go about such things. It is certainly not the person who leaks who does this: every single person that one approaches in such a situation may rat one out, and approaching 400 professional journalists would be like Russian roulette with an automatic pistol.
I'd wager the shennanigans are pretty damn strong. Look at the whole situation with Medvedev. And then that murder of Boris Nemstov. I'm no expert on Russia, I'm sure others here could list a bunch more grimy stuff.
Russia isn't exactly The Font of Democracy.
I don't think that's clear at all. Being popular also doesn't mean you're a 'president-for-life', but it probably means you can win the election.
He was constitutionally prohibited from running for a third term, so he gave his crony Medvedev the presidency for one term while he controlled the nation as premier for four years, after which he retook the presidency again. That's effectively four terms and counting.
You think he'll ever resign? Imagine if Obama (or Bush!) ran out their two term limit, then took a job as Senate leader or whatever Americans do for four years and let Clinton/Karl Rove take the presidency for one term, while continuing to control the party, and then came back into power for a "third" term? And imagine if, along the way, Bernie Sanders was mysteriously murdered, and maybe Nader, too.
Would be pretty messed up, right?
Doesn't sound good at all, but we don't have the same laws. You forgot to mention Bush would be overwhelmingly popular during this period, done a fair bit of good for the country, eliminated some oligarchs, enriched others, and out-played the more powerful "Russians" who would be doing everything they could to damage him and the US. Who's the Bernie in this case? I thought Putin just murdered journalists. Per Gorbachev, Russians “must remember that [Putin] saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse."
Unlike WIKI leaks, there may be more of an agenda. I scanned through the list of leaders and noticed no one from the US. Are they holding back to protect Clinton during the election? Would that be "more responsible journalism?"
Release it all and let the light shine on this filth!
Manning is now in the same place that Peltier is (different prison, different reasons aside from the fact that both took on the US govt and came up short which is how our govt punishes those who do just that) and he is never going to be released (just like Peltier). Peltier was framed by the FBI and Manning was sentenced as a lesson to all those wannabe truth-tellers: This will happen to you. Assange could expect the same (as well as Snowden) and he has been illegally held prisoner in the embassy (surrounded so he can't depart), Snowden has a sentence of death over his head (multiples have called him a traitor, committed treason which is executable--Hillary was one of those and Sanders hasn't been much better). As for these Panama Papers, the Unaoil scandal, this is no shock and this is how these people (and companies) do business now. Bush 2 made torture legal. Obama made drone wars (ignoring all international law and boundaries) legal. You can't declare this corruption, a scandal if it's the way things are now done (and have been for decades). What Manning and Assange uncovered and released was treason (and murder) by our elected leaders. This is merely business as usual.
I found that odd myself since that is not possible. What a blow that would be for Hillary at this stage since she is neck deep in financial corruption.
i copied the same section that you selected for the discussion because something seems very weird, here. i mean doesn't it appear that this consortium of "journalists" is acting in opposition to the very meaning of journalism by not making the information available to the public? i found the following definition for journalism. my bold.
Journalism: the activity of gathering, assessing, creating, and presenting news and information. It is also the product of these activities.
also for some time now, i've wondered what's happening with julian assange. news has been scarce, but i found this bit published just today.
Lawyers say Assange needs urgent medical care
Published time: 6 Apr, 2016 12:16
Lawyers for Julian Assange have urged Stockholm to repeal his arrest warrant, citing health concerns. The WikiLeaks founder has been holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London since 2012, dodging extradition to Sweden and possibly the US.
Attorneys Thomas Olsson and Per Samuelsson said Assange is suffering from shoulder pain and is in need of urgent dental care, Sweden's TT news agency reported.
UK & Sweden ‘undermining UN’ over Assange detention – letter
The lawyers say the WikiLeaks founder cannot receive adequate medical attention at the embassy, where he has been living for almost four years after being granted asylum by Ecuador in the summer of 2012.
The Stockholm court will rule on the request after the prosecution delivers its verdict no later than April 13, the agency said. It's the latest move by Assange's defense team to have his arrest warrant over sexual assault allegations overturned. A similar request was made in February.
Siouxrose Hello I always like reading your posts. Thanks for sharing that video. I'm on board with what he says about Cameron and have researched the JFK conspiracy especially Mark Lane's research. No doubt, many conspiracies and I'm sometimes mocked for mentioning them .... And this guy in the vid makes much sense.
But whoa I was shocked about what he said about a global warming conspiracy. That one seems weird. Do you have more info?