It is a well established word with a commonly understood meaning in English. For example, a Lynching is another form of murder with a different and generally well understood meaning for native English speakers. If you're not a native English speaker, does your native language not have terms similar to these?
What matters in an assassination is the motive, not the weapon.
A murder-for-hire of a prominent politician committed by a third party with a car bomb on behalf of someone is not an assassination it was commissioned by their cheated-on spouse.
A bomb is most commonly indiscriminately targeted at larger numbers of people, such as in cases of terrorism, which is by far the most common association for a bomb these days.
Assassination implies a very specific target. A bomb does not inherently and more often implies the intent of broad targeting.
Yes, if you shoot a politician or a journalist you're not only doing it to kill them, but to deprive their constituents or their audience of their services. That's why assassinations are considered worse than straight-up random murder.
Assassination = murder of a prominent person for political reasons, often carried out by a third party (an assassin).
Slaying = a killing. That's it. Besides not having any political motive, a slaying isn't even necessarily murder; killing someone in war, in self-defense or on accident is still a slaying.
in medieval times, it was common to refer to war casualties as having been 'slain in battle'.
I don't know what the etymology of the word is, but I get the impression it implies death by close combat. I personally wouldn't describe a bomb victim as having been 'slain'.
There could also just be a translation thing going on here, by someone whose first language isn't English.
"Slaying" is mostly archaic outside of literary contexts at this point, but it does refer to both humans and animals. It's still used pretty often in North American crime journalism.
Some AP stories from the past two weeks found with a quick Google using "slaying" to refer to the killing of humans:
No, it's an attempt at humor underscoring the futility of fighting the power that caused the "slaying".
And it's exactly why everyone is bringing up the "need" for EU investigative force. We know this isn't going anywhere and it happens often, even in the "advanced industrialized countries" we hold so dear.
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 Sharif (ex-PM of Pakistan).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes each of them is worried about losing here. But the system is the system. That is what "next" means. You discover a few, but it doesn't change the system.
Who replaces the people in charge? Who takes care of the people in charge not getting corrupt themselves? Who takes care that the most logical action for a leader is not a corrupt one?
It's simply not possible. And look through history. We already went through many systems and in all faced this same issue. The people in charge where replaced multiple times already, because the previous generation died. And it's not always the blood related children who pick up the crown either.
People somehow pressure them out. It is always messy and specific, so, it's pointless to ask for generalities.
Who takes care of the people in charge not getting corrupt themselves?
Nobody. You follow the steps.
Who takes care that the most logical action for a leader is not a corrupt one?
I don't understand this question.
Anyway, if you take a look at history, you will see that the only thing that ever solved a rotten top are those steps I outlined. Waiting for the old people to die off is a way of doing it, but quite slow and unbiased; it works much better with societal pressures biasing it towards keeping the more honest people.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I would actually recommend just going and reading Candide - you can download a free copy in English translation for your kindle or similar formats, it's not long, it is funny, lots of things happen and there is also philosophy discussed. And it also is "educational".
Very disturbing. EU needs a "federal" police force to investigate such things. Regardless of what the prime minister says, and we should assume his innocence, we cannot assume that his government will investigate it when he's an obvious suspect.
To make matters worse, Malta is a tiny island state where "everybody knows everybody". I was there just a few months ago and you can comfortably walk around the (stunningly beautiful) capital in a few hours and see the entire nation in a matter of days.
While Malta supposedly has a great deal of corruption, it's not considered more corrupt than so many other member states in Southern and Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.
The FBI isn't a large part of the reason the US has so many people in jail & prison. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are about 3/4 of the cause, along with treating drug addiction as a crime instead of as strictly a health concern is most of the rest of that (with all of it broadly falling under the war on drugs). The get-tough-on-crime (by putting everyone in prison) era, during the Reagan / Bush / Clinton years, is the root.
Do you think the FBI is really driving incarceration? Federal prisoners are only ~10% of the US prison population and tend to be convicted of more serious crimes.
It has some already. But they need real teeth to investigate crimes like this.
But having unleashed, powerful agencies they do not control is hard to swallow for many politicians, so international anti crime agencies are often limited to advisory roles.
I, personally, do not think that European countries that already harass other European countries should have even more power by creating a new supranational investigative body which they will consist of, that will only further assert their power over other member states.
The original comment suggested countries only from Western and Northern Europe, thus my comment. I find it disturbing that this subtle discrimination is supported. I do not oppose the idea of all countries being involved.
That's not what the original comment was suggesting - the line about Western and Northern Europe was that the author feels that such a supranational instigative body would also be helpful there.
I believe you misread the post. I think what it meant to say was that such a police force would also be nice in Western and Northern Europe, where big cases of corruption usually lead to long winded hearings and commission processes and take years and years to investigate often ending with few concrete results.
No, the original comment by <flexie> did not suggest "countries only from Western and Northern Europe". Therefore, your allegations of subtle discrimination are based on your own mistaken reading of the comment:
...quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.<
Alleging discrimination is serious, so you should at least make sure to actually read and think aobut a comment before accusing it's author of being discriminatory.
I have read it, obviously, since I have made a comment. I could have misinterpret it due to wording, commas and ideas inwrought in the other part of the comment, which has actually happened.
No need to be sorry, my downvoted comment was overly defensive in the first place, so I take the blame for that :) I have misread it and that goes on me!
The solution to government corruption is more government!
Man, this thread is great for a chuckle. The same people saying that wouldn't say, "The solution to police brutality, is more police to watch the police." Then we'll need more police to watch the police to watch the police. Then we'll need police to watch the police to watch the police to watch the police. ad nauseam.
How about we all agree that international politics and corruption in government is not a simple topic with easy catchphrase answers? What's government consist of? People. And money/power. The two hardest things on the planet to keep from becoming corrupt. Anywhere you have lots of ONE of them, it's a nightmare of security, regulations, and social engineering. Government has both. Limitless nameless faces all trying to climb over each other to get ahead. It's Hollywood without the talent or the regulation.
So what is your solution? you haven't made an argument that there is an alternative choice other than 'more government'. Sure, bureaucracies are sprawling beasts of inertia, but what's the alternative here? Less government hasn't exactly proven to be less corrupt - it might just look like that because less corruption is outright visible.
Like most problems, the defense is isolation and segmentation.
You build a bureaucracy where the folks running said bureaucracy are disconnected from meddling by the people at the top. When you go to DMV, there isn’t significant corruption in that process. It’s equally painful for everyone. There’s some reshuffling of appointees between administrations, but the bureaucracy does what it does.
This is the type of crime, that by definition, nobody who has the power to investigate wants to investigate.
This most likely was payback for exposing someone's offshore holdings, and the response was chosen to send a message: "Do not expose", and was done in such a bald-faced way that this crime's occurrence presupposes the existence of the very corruption needed to facilitate getting away with it, that any investigation would need to uncover.
TL;DR - that a crime like this, which requires corruption to execute and get away with, can happen, presupposes the investigative apparatus is unable to investigate it, with high probability.
Anonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.
And yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?
Why not? Most "Eastern European EU citizen" I know support this kind of idea... what is wrong with it? Corruption is bad, and I would not care if a French, German or Bulgarian national uncovers it.
I think a lot of people from the former Eastern Bloc don't like the idea of federal police because it sounds a bit close to some of the communist era policing.
Because the EU should absolutely not become a superstate like the US, it should remain firmly an economic and political union and the less force it is capable of exerting, the better. That means no army and no police force? How Democratic can such structures be really? Also don't tell me western and northern states won't be privileged in such a scheme. It's us in the south and the east that are corrupt and can't handle our organized crime groups obviously.
These money that did disappear purchase loyalty of locals at the power. It will stop only when these people will be no longer needed to push for EU interests.
That's a nice pipe dream. But without force, it'll become irrelevant.
It can be as Democratic as people make it.
Western states are already privileged, they have the population advantage.
Anyway, it's not like corruption (and market efficiency) analyses are just made up.
Case in point, Hungary. Billions of euros went there and at least 30-40% got funneled to "friends and family". The good old Putin model. Dear Leader has nothing, his yearly wealth report is whiter than snow, his friends on the other hand .. well, they are the best businessmen on Earth: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/what-s-bo...
The other "interesting" thing is that OLAF (the EU's anti-corruption office) found a lot of irregularities in Hungary, recommended investigations. And nothing happened. (The Prosecutor General of Hungary ... happens to be a good friend of those involved.) See also: https://budapestbeacon.com/olaf-says-hungary-misappropriated...
Yes and no; the current EU is put together with accountability structures that make sense for a trade body (which is after all what it evolved from) - as a Brit it reminds me of our (deliberately apolitical) civil service. In principle it could be possible to reform the EU into something with the kind of accountability structure appropriate to a political body, sure, but it's an enormous institution with a lot of cultural inertia.
It already has better foundations and processes than a lot of member states' internal ones.
Sure, the failure case of a strong EU is much worse than the current situation (EU-dystopia), but the current situation is very much like a limbo, it's kind of like an opportunity, and it won't exists forever. (Poorer states will be left behind, because even though they are subsidized by the EU, without structural changes, the whole system will break into pieces.)
It is so nice when the rich civilized European states decide what poor states should do. After all the rich European states know more than the poor states what's good for them. After all, Africa is grateful for the European colonialism. Just ask any Sudanese or Liberian.
That's a nice pipe dream. But without force, it'll become irrelevant.
Transnational authority is extremely terrifying and western Europe has an extremely horrible and tragic track record when allowed to decide the fate of other people.
It can be as Democratic as people make it.
That's a nice pipe dream.
Western states are already privileged, they have the population advantage.
I meant that force would be used disproportionately against poorer states
Case in point, Hungary. Billions of euros went there and at least 30-40% got funneled to "friends and family".
I have opinions about the wisdom of subsidies in general.
Less privacy, once again. If you look at all the legislation that has been put into place over the last two decades to combat money laundering and terrorism financing -- was this really necessary? Did it really have an impact? I still hear about terrorists blowing themselves up every day.
Yes, high level political corruption is bad and this assassination is tragic. It should be fought. But do you think that by just introducing another body, things will be much better?
People will be people. Corruption, dealmaking and scheming, together with greed, is as old as mankind. It will happen regardless, and it happens in Western countries as well (Belgium, France, the UK, etc); just in a different way.
Less privacy? Privacy is already lost. It'd be much better if we'd gain something for this loss.
Currently there is at least one EU member state that is playing dirty, basically stealing money from its people. (State guaranteed profits for friends' companies.) And unsurprisingly Hungary doesn't want to participate in the EU Prosecution ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/... )
So, how do you know there wouldn't be more terrorist acts without those regulations? Of course, the burden of proof should be on those who proposed the regulations in the first place to argue for the effectiveness of the regulations, but your framing of the problem remains inefficient.
Furthermore, yes, people are people, and greed is universal. But we can measure corruption (and fraud), and we see that in states/countries with certain institutions failing (or absent) result in more fraud/corruption.
And it's very much like herd immunity. Our banking privacy is already lost ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard ) it'd be good to have something keeping those tax authorities in check. (And who will watch the watchers, yes. I know.)
Yes, obviously in countries with absent or failing institutions there is more fraud and corruption. But high level political corruption is literally everywhere. You're right on low level corruption, though.
Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany? There is definitely less fraud going on, and the corruption is less obvious, but it's still there.
One simple example: go to any western EU country. Take an entrepreneurial family that, say, employs 500+ people in a country. It is almost certain they will get 1) better tax rulings, and 2) the tax authority will be more lenient when dealing with them. They will get away with more.
And if an overeager civil servant doesn't understand that, the case will likely be taken away from him and moved to someone who does. Because political connections matter and that's what happens. If you're part of the "elite" of any country, there's a lot that can be done by knowing the right people.
There are known ways to minimize corruption. Transparency and public accountability, public tenders, well documented public procurement workflow, mandatory conflict of interest disclosures, and so on.
It's not rocket science.
And yes, I know. There are always favorites, friends, family. That's the thing that a well functioning judiciary should be able to post-correct. (Similarly how EU market liberalization must be coupled with enforcement of no-most-favored-nation, the same treatment should apply to local family owned and non-local non-family owned companies.)
Of course, the populace has to be the driving force, to elect people who promulgate these equality ideas from the top.
Yes, a supranational organization which draws its executive leadership from unelected politicians certainly needs to create an armed force with broad-stroke investigative powers in order to prevent corruption. That sounds like a fantastic idea!
Exactly part of the EU meisterplan - 1st economic union, then, oh wait, that doesn't actually work without sacrificing national sovereignty.. guess we need to have a federal european government afte rall, and all the better if noone is elected.
Not a germanophobe; but that the trajectory of a single autocratic western empire (what would result from this police force in my view) is not a new idea, and infact the EU is to some extent simply an economic-focused philosophical follower-on of the holy roman empire, which in turn was the philosophical follower-on of the actual western roman empire.. The fact that the german central bank dominates the economic discussion does make for a bit of fun double entendre however.. which is not to say that this is either good nor bad - i'm of mixed feelings as concerns our view of historical systems..
it's just rediculous that it pretends to be some sort of 'free market democracy'
All answer to democratly elected politicians.
In much the same way that when acting in cabinet, the 'prince electors' were still subject to their local populace.. it is a second tier.
It is completely inconsistent to complain about the EC not being directly elected (it is nominated by the member governments) yet also complain about "sacrificing national sovereignty" to the EU.
The entire reason that the EC is controlled by the member governments rather than by the directly-elected parliament is because that arrangement maintains national sovereignty of the member states. A directly elected European executive would have a competing mandate with the national governments; an EC controlled by the member governments is naturally subservient to them.
when a consortium of other state leaders can meet to enact legislation that is binding on my country it is not sovereignty, even if my leaders have a vote..
I understand this is by treaty currently so your points tsnds; my argument is that creating standing armed bodies such as this is a step down the path to a change in such arrangements (as basically all of history will demonstrate)...
The title makes it sound like other nations had criticised the Malta for having these ties, when it actually was about an individual doing something _against_ the law of Malta (I presume).
It's more complicated than that. Among other topics, she was investigating ties between the mafia and Malta's gambling industry (the island's most important after tourism), and the links between those and the island's politicians.
Caruana Galizia’s death resulted from a “barbaric attack” that also amounted to an assault on freedom of expression, Muscat said.
Memo to all: if you cost someone reputation, $ hundreds of millions, jail time etc., freedom of expression means jack. If they can kill you without being traced to them, they will kill you and your daughter in the crib. In US due to FBI etc., they try to "kill" you differently via lawsuits, blackballing...
If you saw El Chapo e few years ago at a California mall, would take to twitter to announce "OMG, just saw El Chapo...look at his picture"? I wouldn't. He could have lunch with me and I wouldn't recognize him
The leak exposed the identities of rich and powerful people around the world who allegedly had offshore holdings in Panama.
In other words, some foreign intelligence agency could have very well assassinated her. Good luck getting to the bottom of that.
I'm kind of at a loss why there isn't some organization that offers protection to investigative journalists. They're basically fish in a barrel otherwise. Surely there's enough altruistic rich people out there to fund something like that.
Of course, when you're talking intelligence agencies, there's not much that can stop them if they're determined. Protection on that level has to be more in the form of mutual understanding.
A lot of comments here seem to be implying she is a highly respected journo who broke the Panama Papers. She did some good comments on them and other interesting stuff but was also a TMZ as someone puts it.
This. As a Maltese person who has been following her for a very long time it is frustrating to see the way in which she is being mischaracterised in the international media. She was well known in Malta for making false allegations, character assassinations, mocking people from what she considered to be a low social status, publishing revenge porn to humiliate people and so on.
Background: One of Malta's biggest industries is online "gaming". It's basically virtual poker and other virtual gambling games. It's a huge money maker and has attracted lots of foreign EU nationals to work in the small nation's IT sector.
Does anyone know or have any good ideas about how to donate money to her cause? (her website doesn't have any donate links on it).
I often find with stories like this, that are horrifying, that the least I can do to show my support is donate money to the cause in the hope that it can help those brave enough to pursue it.
Her son works for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and is sure to continue her work. You can donate to them here: https://www.icij.org/donate/
Maltese person here who has been following this journalist for a long time. The international reporting of this omits a lot of important information. It is far from certain that her assassination had a political motive. While I admired her for uncovering cases of corruption, she also had a very nasty streak, resorting to things like publishing revenge porn [1][2] and mocking women for the way the dressed [3]. A revenge motive completely unconnected to politics cannot be excluded.
I don't deny that the circumstances of the assassination are suspicious, and I also think a political motive is possible, but people are jumping to conclusions without waiting for evidence.
Another one?
No, it's the same. I think the only new information is that the FBI has agreed to help with the investigation.
This was an assassination, yet not a single article about this contain that word.
Is there really a significant difference between "assassination" and "slaying"?
You definitely have someone to blame when there's assassination, and also the whole country should take an image hit.
See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
It is a well established word with a commonly understood meaning in English. For example, a Lynching is another form of murder with a different and generally well understood meaning for native English speakers. If you're not a native English speaker, does your native language not have terms similar to these?
Yeah, I'm not a native speaker, and while I get there are different terms for different types of murder, it seemed "slay" was pretty much equivalent.
Slay is usually used for up close brutal killings. It has its origins in an old English word also used to mean to strike or hit something physically.
This was somewhat remote for the killer, possibly professional and likely politically motivated so assassination seems appropriate.
"Assassination" generally carries connotations of politically motivated violence that "slaying" does not.
The medium used, a bomb. Is typically associated with assassination. We are not talking about someone stabbing someone else here.
What matters in an assassination is the motive, not the weapon.
A murder-for-hire of a prominent politician committed by a third party with a car bomb on behalf of someone is not an assassination it was commissioned by their cheated-on spouse.
On the other hand, a politician or journalist being stabbed for political reasons is an assassination. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inejiro_Asanuma.
Motive isn't always clear right after the event occurred. Could very well be speculation at that point.
Anyone can be a journalist btw. It isn't a protected profession with a title or degree requirement. "Professional journalism", OTOH..
A bomb is most commonly indiscriminately targeted at larger numbers of people, such as in cases of terrorism, which is by far the most common association for a bomb these days.
Assassination implies a very specific target. A bomb does not inherently and more often implies the intent of broad targeting.
Yes, if you shoot a politician or a journalist you're not only doing it to kill them, but to deprive their constituents or their audience of their services. That's why assassinations are considered worse than straight-up random murder.
There's a very big difference.
Assassination = murder of a prominent person for political reasons, often carried out by a third party (an assassin).
Slaying = a killing. That's it. Besides not having any political motive, a slaying isn't even necessarily murder; killing someone in war, in self-defense or on accident is still a slaying.
I always thought that slaying refers to non-human victims, as in "slaying the dragon"
in medieval times, it was common to refer to war casualties as having been 'slain in battle'.
I don't know what the etymology of the word is, but I get the impression it implies death by close combat. I personally wouldn't describe a bomb victim as having been 'slain'.
There could also just be a translation thing going on here, by someone whose first language isn't English.
"Slaying" is mostly archaic outside of literary contexts at this point, but it does refer to both humans and animals. It's still used pretty often in North American crime journalism.
Some AP stories from the past two weeks found with a quick Google using "slaying" to refer to the killing of humans:
* https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-10-12/3-people-...
* https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/philly-man-arreste...
* https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/connecticut/articles...
Yeah even the title "bomb kills" sounds like a bad joke. Next newsflash at 11 will be like "bullet kills X" instead of using the right words.
Bombs kill bystanders all the time...
Here the bomb was in the car, aimed at killing a single person.
Exactly. A single bystander... No way to know if this was targeted.
Are you suggesting her car suicide bombed it's self, while she was in it?
No, it's an attempt at humor underscoring the futility of fighting the power that caused the "slaying".
And it's exactly why everyone is bringing up the "need" for EU investigative force. We know this isn't going anywhere and it happens often, even in the "advanced industrialized countries" we hold so dear.
Google News shows multiple uses of the word. Here is an example:
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20171016/local/fo...
"What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas".
Unfortunately this is what happens when you say the truth.
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 Sharif (ex-PM of Pakistan).
Other journalists might be reluctant to do any similar investigations in the future. Or perhaps it's just straightforward revenge.
Seems clear enough that there are more cats still in the bag, and likely enough more bags...
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.
What does capitalism have to do with that?
The Panama papers were about attempts to hide and obfuscate the control of capital?
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's charming.
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.
Never underestimate several milenia of human history.
If only.
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.
Yes each of them is worried about losing here. But the system is the system. That is what "next" means. You discover a few, but it doesn't change the system.
The system won't change if the guilty stay in charge.
Here is how you change a system: 1 - you replace the people in charge; 2 - if the new people don't change it, you go back to item 1.
Who replaces the people in charge? Who takes care of the people in charge not getting corrupt themselves? Who takes care that the most logical action for a leader is not a corrupt one?
It's simply not possible. And look through history. We already went through many systems and in all faced this same issue. The people in charge where replaced multiple times already, because the previous generation died. And it's not always the blood related children who pick up the crown either.
People somehow pressure them out. It is always messy and specific, so, it's pointless to ask for generalities.
Nobody. You follow the steps.
I don't understand this question.
Anyway, if you take a look at history, you will see that the only thing that ever solved a rotten top are those steps I outlined. Waiting for the old people to die off is a way of doing it, but quite slow and unbiased; it works much better with societal pressures biasing it towards keeping the more honest people.
lol. then give an example. If my argumentation is true this should basically never happen.
What if they keep murdering the people who discover them, then people stop discovering them?
This only happens under capitalism?
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.
Not because of the systems, rather just that people are involved.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
Pour encourager les autres.
Damn your slightly-quicker-than-mine fingers.
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)
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
edit: added rant. edit: added more rant.
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.
Thank you for adding more context to the quote.
Or those who lack the general education required to understand the common reference can simply, you know, Google it?
I would actually recommend just going and reading Candide - you can download a free copy in English translation for your kindle or similar formats, it's not long, it is funny, lots of things happen and there is also philosophy discussed. And it also is "educational".
In French:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4650
In English: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19942
"It's especially frustrating on mobile where it's not as easy to explore."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour%20encourager...
From 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."
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).
A) Revenge B) Sending a message to anyone who may be sitting on more damaging information
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.
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.
Very disturbing. EU needs a "federal" police force to investigate such things. Regardless of what the prime minister says, and we should assume his innocence, we cannot assume that his government will investigate it when he's an obvious suspect.
To make matters worse, Malta is a tiny island state where "everybody knows everybody". I was there just a few months ago and you can comfortably walk around the (stunningly beautiful) capital in a few hours and see the entire nation in a matter of days.
While Malta supposedly has a great deal of corruption, it's not considered more corrupt than so many other member states in Southern and Eastern Europe, and quite frankly, it would be nice also in Western and Northern Europe to have a supranational investigative body in stead of or in addition to parliamentary hearings, commissions etc. that often require parliament majority which rests with the government parties anyways.
So, something like the Europol? (And there's also Interpol).
Europol budget is 1/80 of FBI's
FBI uses it's budget to spy on its own citizens (Prism) and interfere with political process. The budget is supposed to be small.
FBI's budget should have been 1/80 of FBI's too -- the US has 25% of the world's prison population, with just 4% of the world's population.
Wow, they are doing such a great job obviously! /s
The FBI is only a small part of the US criminal justice system. 90% of US prisoners are held in state or local prison, not federal ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...
The FBI isn't a large part of the reason the US has so many people in jail & prison. Mandatory minimum sentencing laws are about 3/4 of the cause, along with treating drug addiction as a crime instead of as strictly a health concern is most of the rest of that (with all of it broadly falling under the war on drugs). The get-tough-on-crime (by putting everyone in prison) era, during the Reagan / Bush / Clinton years, is the root.
Do you think the FBI is really driving incarceration? Federal prisoners are only ~10% of the US prison population and tend to be convicted of more serious crimes.
And what does Europol does anyway? Are they actively involved in high profile investigations?
Europol's function is basically just coordination of the police forces in EU countries. It's not even close to a federal police force.
It has some already. But they need real teeth to investigate crimes like this.
But having unleashed, powerful agencies they do not control is hard to swallow for many politicians, so international anti crime agencies are often limited to advisory roles.
I, personally, do not think that European countries that already harass other European countries should have even more power by creating a new supranational investigative body which they will consist of, that will only further assert their power over other member states.
Can't they consist of people from all countries?
The original comment suggested countries only from Western and Northern Europe, thus my comment. I find it disturbing that this subtle discrimination is supported. I do not oppose the idea of all countries being involved.
That's not what the original comment was suggesting - the line about Western and Northern Europe was that the author feels that such a supranational instigative body would also be helpful there.
Got it, sorry. I misinterpreted it. My apologies.
I believe you misread the post. I think what it meant to say was that such a police force would also be nice in Western and Northern Europe, where big cases of corruption usually lead to long winded hearings and commission processes and take years and years to investigate often ending with few concrete results.
You are correct sir, my bad. That makes more sense now, thanks for clarifying. Sorry!
No, the original comment by <flexie> did not suggest "countries only from Western and Northern Europe". Therefore, your allegations of subtle discrimination are based on your own mistaken reading of the comment:
Alleging discrimination is serious, so you should at least make sure to actually read and think aobut a comment before accusing it's author of being discriminatory.
I have read it, obviously, since I have made a comment. I could have misinterpret it due to wording, commas and ideas inwrought in the other part of the comment, which has actually happened.
Okay, I'm sorry for being overly critical. It was first thing in the morning where I am, must have woken up on the wrong side of the bed!
No need to be sorry, my downvoted comment was overly defensive in the first place, so I take the blame for that :) I have misread it and that goes on me!
What kind of harassment do you mean? Could you give examples?
The solution to government corruption is more government!
Man, this thread is great for a chuckle. The same people saying that wouldn't say, "The solution to police brutality, is more police to watch the police." Then we'll need more police to watch the police to watch the police. Then we'll need police to watch the police to watch the police to watch the police. ad nauseam.
How about we all agree that international politics and corruption in government is not a simple topic with easy catchphrase answers? What's government consist of? People. And money/power. The two hardest things on the planet to keep from becoming corrupt. Anywhere you have lots of ONE of them, it's a nightmare of security, regulations, and social engineering. Government has both. Limitless nameless faces all trying to climb over each other to get ahead. It's Hollywood without the talent or the regulation.
Thats why you build constructs that gets all the people climbing over each other, to be busy backstabbing?
So what is your solution? you haven't made an argument that there is an alternative choice other than 'more government'. Sure, bureaucracies are sprawling beasts of inertia, but what's the alternative here? Less government hasn't exactly proven to be less corrupt - it might just look like that because less corruption is outright visible.
It’s not that hard.
Like most problems, the defense is isolation and segmentation.
You build a bureaucracy where the folks running said bureaucracy are disconnected from meddling by the people at the top. When you go to DMV, there isn’t significant corruption in that process. It’s equally painful for everyone. There’s some reshuffling of appointees between administrations, but the bureaucracy does what it does.
This is the type of crime, that by definition, nobody who has the power to investigate wants to investigate.
This most likely was payback for exposing someone's offshore holdings, and the response was chosen to send a message: "Do not expose", and was done in such a bald-faced way that this crime's occurrence presupposes the existence of the very corruption needed to facilitate getting away with it, that any investigation would need to uncover.
TL;DR - that a crime like this, which requires corruption to execute and get away with, can happen, presupposes the investigative apparatus is unable to investigate it, with high probability.
Isn't the message more like "expose, but anonymously"? Well, I mean, hopefully that's how people would understand it.
Anonymous exposure doesn't carry the same weight and can easily get lost in shuffle. No one cares about a random page buried in Wikileaks until some journalist highlights its existence and starts making a lot of noise about it. I mean, from what I understand, this journalist was 'just' reporting on information that was already readily available to anyone willing to go through all the Panama Papers.
And yet somehow we have Fake Steve Jobs, The Grugq, and the Shadow Brokers.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
Pretty sure pseudonymity is just as effective for investigative reporting bylines as using an identifier tied to the address at which your family sleeps.
I'm just not sure I believe that. Do you think the Snowden leaks, for example, would have had the same spread and impact if it was just an pseudonymous data dump and without someone like Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian adding a 'face' and legitimacy to the information?
The face doesn’t need to be his face.
pseudonymity != anonymity.
Most pseudonyms give away plenty of information to be able to be tracked by an assassin or other kind of "influencer".
This'll be the last we ever hear of this story. The half-hearted investigation will fizzle away to nothing, and everything stays the way it is.
There's the European Public Prosecutor body intended to be established sometime soon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Public_Prosecutor
Malta doesn't seem to be in the list of participating countries, though. It's also only for financial fraud.
As an Eastern European EU citizen...fuuuuck no.
Why not? Most "Eastern European EU citizen" I know support this kind of idea... what is wrong with it? Corruption is bad, and I would not care if a French, German or Bulgarian national uncovers it.
I think a lot of people from the former Eastern Bloc don't like the idea of federal police because it sounds a bit close to some of the communist era policing.
Communist era policing is local, opaque and with tendency for cover-ups. State wants prosecution to make their problems go away quietly.
Federal police by definition has a lot of eyes on the process so it's the opposite.
Because the EU should absolutely not become a superstate like the US, it should remain firmly an economic and political union and the less force it is capable of exerting, the better. That means no army and no police force? How Democratic can such structures be really? Also don't tell me western and northern states won't be privileged in such a scheme. It's us in the south and the east that are corrupt and can't handle our organized crime groups obviously.
To be fair, a lot of EU money does magically disappear in Eastern Europe due to corruption. But I don't disagree with your statement.
That's by design.
These money that did disappear purchase loyalty of locals at the power. It will stop only when these people will be no longer needed to push for EU interests.
And so the EU police will also be fair.
That's a nice pipe dream. But without force, it'll become irrelevant.
It can be as Democratic as people make it.
Western states are already privileged, they have the population advantage.
Anyway, it's not like corruption (and market efficiency) analyses are just made up.
Case in point, Hungary. Billions of euros went there and at least 30-40% got funneled to "friends and family". The good old Putin model. Dear Leader has nothing, his yearly wealth report is whiter than snow, his friends on the other hand .. well, they are the best businessmen on Earth: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-25/what-s-bo...
The other "interesting" thing is that OLAF (the EU's anti-corruption office) found a lot of irregularities in Hungary, recommended investigations. And nothing happened. (The Prosecutor General of Hungary ... happens to be a good friend of those involved.) See also: https://budapestbeacon.com/olaf-says-hungary-misappropriated...
Yes and no; the current EU is put together with accountability structures that make sense for a trade body (which is after all what it evolved from) - as a Brit it reminds me of our (deliberately apolitical) civil service. In principle it could be possible to reform the EU into something with the kind of accountability structure appropriate to a political body, sure, but it's an enormous institution with a lot of cultural inertia.
It already has better foundations and processes than a lot of member states' internal ones.
Sure, the failure case of a strong EU is much worse than the current situation (EU-dystopia), but the current situation is very much like a limbo, it's kind of like an opportunity, and it won't exists forever. (Poorer states will be left behind, because even though they are subsidized by the EU, without structural changes, the whole system will break into pieces.)
It is so nice when the rich civilized European states decide what poor states should do. After all the rich European states know more than the poor states what's good for them. After all, Africa is grateful for the European colonialism. Just ask any Sudanese or Liberian.
Transnational authority is extremely terrifying and western Europe has an extremely horrible and tragic track record when allowed to decide the fate of other people.
That's a nice pipe dream.
I meant that force would be used disproportionately against poorer states
I have opinions about the wisdom of subsidies in general.
Less privacy, once again. If you look at all the legislation that has been put into place over the last two decades to combat money laundering and terrorism financing -- was this really necessary? Did it really have an impact? I still hear about terrorists blowing themselves up every day.
Yes, high level political corruption is bad and this assassination is tragic. It should be fought. But do you think that by just introducing another body, things will be much better?
People will be people. Corruption, dealmaking and scheming, together with greed, is as old as mankind. It will happen regardless, and it happens in Western countries as well (Belgium, France, the UK, etc); just in a different way.
Less privacy? Privacy is already lost. It'd be much better if we'd gain something for this loss.
Currently there is at least one EU member state that is playing dirty, basically stealing money from its people. (State guaranteed profits for friends' companies.) And unsurprisingly Hungary doesn't want to participate in the EU Prosecution ( http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2017/... )
So, how do you know there wouldn't be more terrorist acts without those regulations? Of course, the burden of proof should be on those who proposed the regulations in the first place to argue for the effectiveness of the regulations, but your framing of the problem remains inefficient.
Furthermore, yes, people are people, and greed is universal. But we can measure corruption (and fraud), and we see that in states/countries with certain institutions failing (or absent) result in more fraud/corruption.
And it's very much like herd immunity. Our banking privacy is already lost ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Reporting_Standard ) it'd be good to have something keeping those tax authorities in check. (And who will watch the watchers, yes. I know.)
Yes, obviously in countries with absent or failing institutions there is more fraud and corruption. But high level political corruption is literally everywhere. You're right on low level corruption, though.
Do you think there is less high level political corruption in France, Belgium, the UK or Germany? There is definitely less fraud going on, and the corruption is less obvious, but it's still there.
One simple example: go to any western EU country. Take an entrepreneurial family that, say, employs 500+ people in a country. It is almost certain they will get 1) better tax rulings, and 2) the tax authority will be more lenient when dealing with them. They will get away with more.
And if an overeager civil servant doesn't understand that, the case will likely be taken away from him and moved to someone who does. Because political connections matter and that's what happens. If you're part of the "elite" of any country, there's a lot that can be done by knowing the right people.
I don't know, but it's not "unknowable".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#R...
There are known ways to minimize corruption. Transparency and public accountability, public tenders, well documented public procurement workflow, mandatory conflict of interest disclosures, and so on.
It's not rocket science.
And yes, I know. There are always favorites, friends, family. That's the thing that a well functioning judiciary should be able to post-correct. (Similarly how EU market liberalization must be coupled with enforcement of no-most-favored-nation, the same treatment should apply to local family owned and non-local non-family owned companies.)
Of course, the populace has to be the driving force, to elect people who promulgate these equality ideas from the top.
Will not happen, German politicians delay everything anti-corruption as long as absolutely possible.
Yes, a supranational organization which draws its executive leadership from unelected politicians certainly needs to create an armed force with broad-stroke investigative powers in order to prevent corruption. That sounds like a fantastic idea!
Exactly part of the EU meisterplan - 1st economic union, then, oh wait, that doesn't actually work without sacrificing national sovereignty.. guess we need to have a federal european government afte rall, and all the better if noone is elected.
Heil das Heiliges Römisches Reich!
Maybe not so far fetched http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/59067
Oh come on. Do you take those guys seriously?
Eh?
They work at the whim of the parliament don't they?
EU parliament is lame duck, the commission can ignore any resolution if they so please.
Democracy in EU is only second order because commission is made up government representatives of each member.
What's with the funny German? Are you saying you are an EU sceptic or are you mainly a germanophobe?
You know that different dialects of German were just some of the many languages spoken in the Holy Roman Empire, and not the official ones, right?
I agree that democracy in EU is far from perfect but no EU institution is beyond democratic control. All answer to democratly elected politicians.
Not a germanophobe; but that the trajectory of a single autocratic western empire (what would result from this police force in my view) is not a new idea, and infact the EU is to some extent simply an economic-focused philosophical follower-on of the holy roman empire, which in turn was the philosophical follower-on of the actual western roman empire.. The fact that the german central bank dominates the economic discussion does make for a bit of fun double entendre however.. which is not to say that this is either good nor bad - i'm of mixed feelings as concerns our view of historical systems.. it's just rediculous that it pretends to be some sort of 'free market democracy'
In much the same way that when acting in cabinet, the 'prince electors' were still subject to their local populace.. it is a second tier.
Bureaucracies grow larger and gain more power over time!?
Can the EU be stopped? Nations will plead the 50th slowly over time.
That's the only answer I believe is feasible.
How do you propose handling this assassination?
No clear answers unfortunately..
Increased effort to fight corruption on a local level and dismantle the tax loopholes which facillitate such things would probably be the right path..
It is completely inconsistent to complain about the EC not being directly elected (it is nominated by the member governments) yet also complain about "sacrificing national sovereignty" to the EU.
The entire reason that the EC is controlled by the member governments rather than by the directly-elected parliament is because that arrangement maintains national sovereignty of the member states. A directly elected European executive would have a competing mandate with the national governments; an EC controlled by the member governments is naturally subservient to them.
when a consortium of other state leaders can meet to enact legislation that is binding on my country it is not sovereignty, even if my leaders have a vote..
I understand this is by treaty currently so your points tsnds; my argument is that creating standing armed bodies such as this is a step down the path to a change in such arrangements (as basically all of history will demonstrate)...
In addition to the president doing this against a critic, you could also do this as a third party if you wanted to incriminate the president!
The title makes it sound like other nations had criticised the Malta for having these ties, when it actually was about an individual doing something _against_ the law of Malta (I presume).
It's more complicated than that. Among other topics, she was investigating ties between the mafia and Malta's gambling industry (the island's most important after tourism), and the links between those and the island's politicians.
Caruana Galizia’s death resulted from a “barbaric attack” that also amounted to an assault on freedom of expression, Muscat said.
Memo to all: if you cost someone reputation, $ hundreds of millions, jail time etc., freedom of expression means jack. If they can kill you without being traced to them, they will kill you and your daughter in the crib. In US due to FBI etc., they try to "kill" you differently via lawsuits, blackballing...
If you saw El Chapo e few years ago at a California mall, would take to twitter to announce "OMG, just saw El Chapo...look at his picture"? I wouldn't. He could have lunch with me and I wouldn't recognize him
In other words, some foreign intelligence agency could have very well assassinated her. Good luck getting to the bottom of that.
I'm kind of at a loss why there isn't some organization that offers protection to investigative journalists. They're basically fish in a barrel otherwise. Surely there's enough altruistic rich people out there to fund something like that.
Of course, when you're talking intelligence agencies, there's not much that can stop them if they're determined. Protection on that level has to be more in the form of mutual understanding.
Evidently not. And they would be hugely outnumbered by rich people who buy newspapers and journalists to pursue far more harmful agendas.
I guess security could be crowdfunded too. Kind of like a life and death version of Patreon.
It might be a tough sell though.
Thoughts on Daphne Caruana Galizia from the Malta sub reddit before the assassination -
https://www.reddit.com/r/malta/comments/4tltyf/i_think_ive_l...
Also see throwaway_malta's comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15485624
A lot of comments here seem to be implying she is a highly respected journo who broke the Panama Papers. She did some good comments on them and other interesting stuff but was also a TMZ as someone puts it.
This. As a Maltese person who has been following her for a very long time it is frustrating to see the way in which she is being mischaracterised in the international media. She was well known in Malta for making false allegations, character assassinations, mocking people from what she considered to be a low social status, publishing revenge porn to humiliate people and so on.
This sounds to me like a plausible motive:
https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20170906/local/nd...
https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2015/07/the-gaming-activiti...
Background: One of Malta's biggest industries is online "gaming". It's basically virtual poker and other virtual gambling games. It's a huge money maker and has attracted lots of foreign EU nationals to work in the small nation's IT sector.
Does anyone know or have any good ideas about how to donate money to her cause? (her website doesn't have any donate links on it).
I often find with stories like this, that are horrifying, that the least I can do to show my support is donate money to the cause in the hope that it can help those brave enough to pursue it.
Her son works for the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and is sure to continue her work. You can donate to them here: https://www.icij.org/donate/
good idea, thanks!
Maltese person here who has been following this journalist for a long time. The international reporting of this omits a lot of important information. It is far from certain that her assassination had a political motive. While I admired her for uncovering cases of corruption, she also had a very nasty streak, resorting to things like publishing revenge porn [1][2] and mocking women for the way the dressed [3]. A revenge motive completely unconnected to politics cannot be excluded.
I don't deny that the circumstances of the assassination are suspicious, and I also think a political motive is possible, but people are jumping to conclusions without waiting for evidence.
[1](https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2013/08/oh-look-whos-here-m...)
[2](https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2015/09/bottom-of-the-barre...)
[3](https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2016/09/hot-new-style-wroug...)
NOTE: I cross-posted my comment from the other thread on this subject (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15485005).