10 ms·

What's the point of assassinating anyone after the documents (Panama Papers) have already been leaked? Surely the cat's long out of the bag. Just ask Nawaz Shar

• onion2k 9y ago
  Other journalists might be reluctant to do any similar investigations in the future. Or perhaps it's just straightforward revenge.
• eponeponepon 9y ago
  Seems clear enough that there are more cats still in the bag, and likely enough more bags...
  • turk184 9y ago
    I think that the level of corruption worldwide has reached such a state that it is amazing civilization doesn't collapse.
• erikb 9y ago
  This is the dark side of capitalism. It won't go away. You discover 1000 people, they maybe even lose everything. 2 years later there will be another 1000 people.
  • dragandj 9y ago
    What does capitalism have to do with that?
    • arethuza 9y ago
      The Panama papers were about attempts to hide and obfuscate the control of capital?
      • mjburgess 9y ago
        Yeah, which has nothing to do with capitalism -- right? Unless you're using the humanities definition of capitalism by which it means "everything bad in the world".
        • arethuza 9y ago
          Well, for "capitalism" to function in the way we've come to expect there have to be certain legal frameworks in place (property rights, companies, etc.) which are generally fairly tightly regulated. The Panama Papers described various schemes (often illegal even in Panama) where these legal frameworks were abused to hide ownership and control of large amounts of capital. Were these problems caused directly by capitalism? No. We're the criminal activities described in the Panama Papers facilitated by the structures that have to be in place for capitalism to work. Yes, I think that is arguable. The Panama Papers are an argument for more effective regulation, not against capitalism.
          • mjburgess 9y ago
            > The Panama Papers are an argument for more effective regulation, not against capitalism. So you conclude with agreement despite disagreeing in each premise? As I said. Capitalism =/= the way the world is set up. Capitalism is an economic model. This humanities use of the word obfuscates more than it clarifies. The regulatory environment of the world is not "capitalism". At a guess, I'd say its vaugely semi-feudal. But certainly, there is no transnational court system to make the kinds of rights-based guarantees you'd need.
    • erikb 9y ago
      On a more abstract level it is the same in every system. But money, tax, company ownership are the attributes it has in capitalism. And this Malta Papers and Panama Papers topic is about tax, money and company ownership.
  • hd4 9y ago
    Ah, but this is the light side of information. We keep uncovering these 1000 people, and the next 1000, until they realise there is nowhere to hide and their activities will become public knowledge. This is what they're scared of, after all. That they lose the ability to operate normally in public.
    • coldtea 9y ago
      >We keep uncovering these 1000 people, and the next 1000, until they realise there is nowhere to hide and their activities will become public knowledge. That's charming.
      • thriftwy 9y ago
        That's doable. Never underestimate the power of metodical work. People have great appreciation of "it was a wonderful little scheme but it doesn't work nowdays". What's really charming to them is your cynicism, it's what they invested in.
        • coldtea 9y ago
          >Never underestimate the power of metodical work. Never underestimate several milenia of human history. >What's really charming to them is your cynicism, it's what they invested in. If only.
          • thriftwy 9y ago
            If anything several millenia of human history has taught us, is that it's possible to enforce laws that govern the society. And that if society is no longer governed by laws, it quickly falls apart. Indeed, societal failure is no stranger in a course of history than beehive colony failure.
            • yb7721 9y ago
              Enforce against Joe citizen. The government, the bureaucracy and big money have always been above the law. But of course you are welcome to continue the work of Caruana Galizia.
  • goatlover 9y ago
    This only happens under capitalism?
    • erikb 9y ago
      Nope. But the attributes used in this case (money, taxes, company ownership) are core elements of capitalism. Therefore the reference. I'm happy to present this in whatever terms you prefer. In fact it's the core of all systems, but people don't like to talk in abstract terms. Think about how people would react if you tell them feudalism, fascism, communism, capitalism is actually not so different.
      • tertius 9y ago
        Not because of the systems, rather just that people are involved.
        • erikb 9y ago
          In other words you consider a system not to be the sum of what people do but the theoretical definition of how it should be. When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with".
          • tertius 9y ago
            > When I say "system" I mean "all of what the people are doing including which kind of theories they back their actions with". That's a little opaque. That could include criminal or immoral activity, think money laundering or mass killing of political opposition. Capitalism, for instance, is silent on types of immoral behavior that it could encourage. Thus classifying that behavior as "capitalist", i.e. as a part of the "system" which you reference may be what people are reacting negatively to.
            • erikb 9y ago
              Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Money laundering, mass killing of political opposition or mass killing of workforce are attributes of this system. You understand the way I define it very well. But for some reason you don't accept that yet. Second point: In Feudalism you do immoral things to gain land and title. And communism you do immoral things to gain a higher position in the party hierarchy. In capitalism you do immoral things to gain money. That's what I mean. The terms change but not the morality of actions. You always exploit weaker people to compete with other exploiters, or you choose to be an exploited part of the system. You can choose the moral path, but that automatically means being a loser according to the system. In capitalism the winner is the company owner that makes millions. Think about our celebrities. Steve Jobs is a celebrity, right? And wage slaves, sararimen, are the losers we frown upon and try not be associated with, while actually most people are in fact in this group. This is very capitalism specific. In Feudalism the businessmen also make lots of money, but they are frowned upon, because they don't have inheritable land and title. Same game, different vocabs. What makes it capitalist is not the question of whether or not it's immoral What makes it capitalist is that the always occuring exploitation takes the form of money, tax avoidance, and company ownership. That's my point. You can disagree with it, no problem. Many people do. But please try to understand and accept it as possible point of view first.
  • valvar 9y ago
    Or perhaps we should take a second look at the incentive structures (robbery by license of coercion) which cause the rise of such nasty alternatives?
    • erikb 9y ago
      You can apply policy top-down. But actually the higher one rises the ranks the more it is about pure, immoral power play. This again leads to the best psychopaths being at the top, which again means policy won't exclude their main methods of action. So really, what do you want to do about it? You can't enforce policy bottom up. That's why someone is above you in the food chain.
• SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
  Pour encourager les autres.
  • zimpenfish 9y ago
    Damn your slightly-quicker-than-mine fingers.
  • MichaelApproved 9y ago
    Such a vague comment is only helpful to those who are already familiar with its meaning. It's in French and the translation is "To encourage others". Looks like, more important than the translation, is that it's a famous quote from The Battle of Minorca https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756) If you see another vague reference: "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others." it's from the same battle. Note to those who leave these drive-by vague quotes, they're nearly pointless. Not everyone knows what you're talking about. Those that are familiar with the quote are already familiar with the reference. It's just a circle jerk of "I get that reference". Congratulations, you educated no one. Sure, I looked it up but that's rare. Most people will see the comment, dismiss it and move on. It's especially frustrating on mobile where it's not as easy to explore. Here's a little bit from the wiki on the battle > The Battle of Minorca (20 May 1756) was a naval battle between French and British fleets. It was the opening sea battle of the Seven Years' War in the European theatre. Shortly after the war began British and French squadrons met off the Mediterranean island of Menorca (historically called "Minorca" by the British). The French won the battle. The subsequent decision by the British to withdraw to Gibraltar handed France a strategic victory and led directly to the Fall of Minorca. > The British failure to save Menorca led to the controversial court-martial and execution of the British commander, Admiral John Byng, for "failure to do his utmost" to relieve the siege of the British garrison on Menorca. edit: added rant. edit: added more rant.
    • SideburnsOfDoom 9y ago
      > famous quote from The Battle of Minorca More accurately it's a famous quote from the satirical novel Candide by Voltaire, published in 1759. It is about The Battle of Minorca, not that the battle matters much in this context. The point of posting this old quote in French is to indicate that this question, and the answer, is nothing new to this time and place. In fact there are famous witty quotes about it. It means "too encourage the others" - in the sense that if you want some people to run faster, shooting at the slowest would "encourage" the others. That kind of satire. Those who don't know it are welcome to google it and educate themselves.
• zimpenfish 9y ago
  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager%20les%20autres https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager... From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Minorca_(1756) "In this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from time to time to encourage the others."
• coldtea 9y ago
  For one, they might have some more papers. Second, revenge. Third, keeps others from coming forward (e.g. witnesses when the papers-related cases come to courts, etc).
• kakarot 9y ago
  A) Revenge B) Sending a message to anyone who may be sitting on more damaging information
• arkades 9y ago
  The existence of the papers is not the same as a deep analysis of the papers and an investigation of the leads and implications contained therein. She was doing the latter, and still producing new revelations through it.
• BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Do you think this is the only bag holding a cat? Their is a very clear message to everyone to not let the cat out of the next bag.