Who ordered the car bomb that killed Maltese journalist Daphne Galizia? (2018)(npr.org)
npr.org
Who ordered the car bomb that killed Maltese journalist Daphne Galizia? (2018)
https://www.npr.org/2018/07/22/630866527/mastermind-behind-malta-journalist-killing-remains-a-mystery
54 comments
One of the things I've started to consider recently. Ironically (or not) because of the tactics employed by our favorite President #45.
I think it's a much cleaner tactic for powerful people to simply spend plenty of air time vilifying their enemies and let mentally ill people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder do their dirty work.
This way no important people ever come into contact with the terrorist(s), so they'll always have plausible deniability.
I think it's a much cleaner tactic for powerful people to simply spend plenty of air time vilifying their enemies and let mentally ill people at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder do their dirty work.
This way no important people ever come into contact with the terrorist(s), so they'll always have plausible deniability.
I have heard great things about people over there.
And I think you’re going to win; you've got these Senators, these jobs have virtually disappeared, an embarrassing commitment to the White House and the Old Post Office. I couldn’t care – sever ties?” I said, “I can’t believe it.” The pundits – you know what was going on, they knew exactly, but they’re mostly made in South Korea’s getting frisky. Right?
And I think you’re going to win; you've got these Senators, these jobs have virtually disappeared, an embarrassing commitment to the White House and the Old Post Office. I couldn’t care – sever ties?” I said, “I can’t believe it.” The pundits – you know what was going on, they knew exactly, but they’re mostly made in South Korea’s getting frisky. Right?
[deleted]
How do people find confidence to risk their life (and their kids' happiness) for a cause, when most people around don't care about that cause and seem to be happy with the status quo?
There's a great Podcast by Matthew Caruana Galizia, the son of Daphne & Tortoise Media.
4 Episodes a ~30min:
https://share.transistor.fm/s/81b87c83
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/my-mothers-murder-epis...
4 Episodes a ~30min:
https://share.transistor.fm/s/81b87c83
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/my-mothers-murder-epis...
The most promising way to prevent politicians and criminals from trying to censor through killing journalists is to retaliate the killings by investigating the initiator and their allies until every crime they have committed has surfaced. As soon as it is clear that a flood of investigations are consequence of violence against people who speak the truth the risk of speaking should diminish greatly.
After having lived in a corrupt country, this will just get you killed. These people aren't lone actors, they are part of a network of people looking out for one another. If these sorts of crimes aren't investigated seriously by the authorities, then they are in fact part of that network and you are really going after the main power structure in the society. You will need to affect some sort of revolution to displace that power structure, anything else will just get you locked up/beat up/killed/or worse.
Sometimes investigations can be continued from other countries where silencing journalists is less feasible.
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daphne_Project
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daphne_Project
That can be difficult to do depending on the context. Mexico comes to mind. Criminals can use both fear and loyalty to make it harder to prove crimes and if politicians are involved, they can easily threaten other politicians or even the legal system itself. This isn’t to say that the approach won’t work, long-term de-escalating violence, increasing controls in arms trade, and asserting the rule of law above any individual are all viable. It’s getting the existing gangs and political systems to change their ways that is harder. It’s also worth pointing out that a justice system based on evidence can still serve unjust sentences, make mistakes. And politicians write the laws the system enforces. And many places don’t have free speech and human rights upheld to such an extent that laws can’t easily be written to curb it. So it’s a complicated problem... I’d even start by saying Panama Papers highlights a problem that you can have anonymous “persons” making transactions that are untraceable, etc. And countries and businesses can profit off this, and there isn’t agreement as to when privacy is worth more or less than free speech or when profit is valued more or less than security.
True, Mexico is quite ruff. It's hard to even guess where to start from and what to do.. Maybe go after the people who are responsible for selling the weapons and laundering the money? E.g. US based weapons manufacturers and German banks?
There are countries that are not as hopeless where I can see potential for change, or so it seems at least: https://www.dw.com/en/murder-of-jan-kuciak-13-judges-arreste...
There are countries that are not as hopeless where I can see potential for change, or so it seems at least: https://www.dw.com/en/murder-of-jan-kuciak-13-judges-arreste...
I would say that the most promising way to prevent politicians and criminals from trying to censor through killing journalists is to retaliate the killings by killing them back. It is not something that I necessarily support but I do not believe that you will get anywhere by trying to go through the lawful route. At best it will be ignored (see the wikileaks revelations, did you have many people go to jail?). At worst you might end up getting killed, just like the previous journalists that they murdered.
Requisite mention: Jim Bell's Assassination Politics.
I doubt that it'd ever work. Too few of the oppressed masses would ever be motivated enough to participate, or would risk it, even if they were. And so it'd mostly get more journalists etc assassinated.
But still, it was a cool statement, back in the day.
I doubt that it'd ever work. Too few of the oppressed masses would ever be motivated enough to participate, or would risk it, even if they were. And so it'd mostly get more journalists etc assassinated.
But still, it was a cool statement, back in the day.
This works really well once you have setup a system of law to convict politicians and rich people for crimes.
But if you don't have that system setting it up will require violence - either externally applied or internally.
But if you don't have that system setting it up will require violence - either externally applied or internally.
This can become a problem if your judiciary is corrupted.
I mean, it ought to be fine, but if a country were to let politicians pick the judges, that would be a problem right?
Like maybe one elected politician just gets to pick anybody he wants, friend of a rich donor maybe, and they're now a judge even though they've no relevant qualifications?
Not mentioning any particular North American countries whose name begin with the letter 'U'.
I mean, it ought to be fine, but if a country were to let politicians pick the judges, that would be a problem right?
Like maybe one elected politician just gets to pick anybody he wants, friend of a rich donor maybe, and they're now a judge even though they've no relevant qualifications?
Not mentioning any particular North American countries whose name begin with the letter 'U'.
Justicial Appointments are confirmed by Congress.
USA has many problems, but its Constitution is not one of them.
USA has many problems, but its Constitution is not one of them.
fit2rule(1)
> USA has many problems, but its Constitution is not one of them.
I, and many others consider our country to be experiencing a constitutional crisis, so I politely refute your assertion.
I, and many others consider our country to be experiencing a constitutional crisis, so I politely refute your assertion.
> Justicial Appointments are confirmed by Congress.
How is this a defense from corruption? The judicial is gated by the corruption from authority. This process is why judges are largely grouped into conservative or liberal appointments...because the Supreme Court Judge positions are almost always the result of a specific political environment. At any given point in time, there is a large pool of technically qualified judges. Who gets vetted (politically) is the topic of discussion, in the confirmation hearings.
How is this a defense from corruption? The judicial is gated by the corruption from authority. This process is why judges are largely grouped into conservative or liberal appointments...because the Supreme Court Judge positions are almost always the result of a specific political environment. At any given point in time, there is a large pool of technically qualified judges. Who gets vetted (politically) is the topic of discussion, in the confirmation hearings.
> "I was openly accused of damaging my country's reputation by talking about corruption,"
I have seen this at a smaller scale in several companies. Human resources will negate any wrong doing of abusive upper management to avoid "damaging the company". As, many good employees leave the company, lack motivation or passive-aggressively sabotage projects the company suffers massive damage, losses opportunities and money.
The people protecting corruption or abuse are not all evil, none of them is in moral high-ground, thou. But, it is the way companies are designed to reward personal loyalty to upper-management what makes the so prone to corruption and inefficiencies.
Design a company, or a country, that rewards loyalty to the company - not to the managers or rulers - and it will be extremely successful.
Meanwhile we are stuck in a situation that even assassination takes a long time to untangle and have an effect. It could be worse, at least we know what happened and we are free to talk about it. Improvement takes one step at at time.
I have seen this at a smaller scale in several companies. Human resources will negate any wrong doing of abusive upper management to avoid "damaging the company". As, many good employees leave the company, lack motivation or passive-aggressively sabotage projects the company suffers massive damage, losses opportunities and money.
The people protecting corruption or abuse are not all evil, none of them is in moral high-ground, thou. But, it is the way companies are designed to reward personal loyalty to upper-management what makes the so prone to corruption and inefficiencies.
Design a company, or a country, that rewards loyalty to the company - not to the managers or rulers - and it will be extremely successful.
Meanwhile we are stuck in a situation that even assassination takes a long time to untangle and have an effect. It could be worse, at least we know what happened and we are free to talk about it. Improvement takes one step at at time.
I think loyalty is the root of all corruption. If it's not it's pretty close.
Secrecy - and its many forms, such as (but not limited to) ignorance, subterfuge, deceit, etc. - is the root of all corruption. Societies and institutions, groups of people which keep secrets, are fundamentally corrupt. You cannot deceive and be dishonest when the truth is available for all and sundry.
You can freely be dishonest, and weaponise that dishonesty, and thus profit from it, in conditions where secrecy is elevated as a norm. The nations with the greatest secrets are also the most corrupt.
You can freely be dishonest, and weaponise that dishonesty, and thus profit from it, in conditions where secrecy is elevated as a norm. The nations with the greatest secrets are also the most corrupt.
And fear based discipline. Whistle-blower retaliation.
And that, right there, is why the hideously corrupt hate Wikileaks so so much. Wikileaks publish. Always. Their reputation on it is rock solid.
If you're corrupt or involved in a cover up you gotta hate that. And do everything to destroy it.
And that, right there, is why the hideously corrupt hate Wikileaks so so much. Wikileaks publish. Always. Their reputation on it is rock solid.
If you're corrupt or involved in a cover up you gotta hate that. And do everything to destroy it.
Wikileaks was like that before it got infiltrated in 2016. Then it changed rapidly, not publishing when it does not serve Russian interests. One very prominent example:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-l...
This is such utter nonsense. How can any honest intellectual consider this to be anything other than the result of a calculated agitprop campaign by the utterly corrupt US military industrial complex ..
Assange is not a Russian agent, and Wikileaks is not a Russian operation, and never was. It just so happens that the majority of dire, desperate corruption that Wikileaks revealed, was indeed committed by Western entities. This does not mean that Russia doesn't have its problems - but it has not committed war crimes and other very real crimes against humanity at anything near the scale of the criminal Western war coalition and the member 5-eyes nations.
Please, inform yourself as to the nature of the very real agitprop campaign that has been waged against Wikileaks, and in so doing - have the courage to see Assange for the hero he really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgw6FoFPhjo
Assange is not a Russian agent, and Wikileaks is not a Russian operation, and never was. It just so happens that the majority of dire, desperate corruption that Wikileaks revealed, was indeed committed by Western entities. This does not mean that Russia doesn't have its problems - but it has not committed war crimes and other very real crimes against humanity at anything near the scale of the criminal Western war coalition and the member 5-eyes nations.
Please, inform yourself as to the nature of the very real agitprop campaign that has been waged against Wikileaks, and in so doing - have the courage to see Assange for the hero he really is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgw6FoFPhjo
> “The problem with the Trump campaign,” Assange said at the time, “is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day.”
That seems really reasonable. Beyond the obvious thing that seems not to been mentioned; you can't publish what you don't have.
Separate to that FP note themselves in this very article the concrete support for exactly what Wikileaks claimed. The previously published trove was published later in full, elsewhere to zero interest, including zero interest from FP. Beyond some anti-Assange spin seen here. The author of this piece doesn't have their heart in it though, do they? They want us to know all that so wrote it quite clearly for everyone to see.
But yeah, spin it all to something nefarious because the existence of Wikileaks is kryptonite for corruption so everyone needs to unite against it. /s
Oh and Biden is a racist, misogynist, corrupt, senile idiot. Just like Donald. Congratulations democracy. But make sure you don't notice that because failure to pick a party and see no evil in it means you're a Russian asset. Just ask Hilary.
That seems really reasonable. Beyond the obvious thing that seems not to been mentioned; you can't publish what you don't have.
Separate to that FP note themselves in this very article the concrete support for exactly what Wikileaks claimed. The previously published trove was published later in full, elsewhere to zero interest, including zero interest from FP. Beyond some anti-Assange spin seen here. The author of this piece doesn't have their heart in it though, do they? They want us to know all that so wrote it quite clearly for everyone to see.
But yeah, spin it all to something nefarious because the existence of Wikileaks is kryptonite for corruption so everyone needs to unite against it. /s
Oh and Biden is a racist, misogynist, corrupt, senile idiot. Just like Donald. Congratulations democracy. But make sure you don't notice that because failure to pick a party and see no evil in it means you're a Russian asset. Just ask Hilary.
You are absolutely correct - people whose personal identities are highly dependent on associating with the untouchable West will have a much harder time accepting the truth of Wikileaks immensely valuable, important contribution to modern discourse over the nature of the West's coalition of the willing/5-eyes criminal state than those who do not have an American/UK/British/Canadian/NZ/etc national identity that will be bruised by the revelations of their nations' absolute, evil corruption, war crimes and real crimes against humanity.
Personal loyalty. You can have loyalty to a cause or a country that isn’t corrupt.
If you notice the way trump talks, it’s always about loyalty to him personally, not the country.
If you notice the way trump talks, it’s always about loyalty to him personally, not the country.
I agree that there are ways in which loyalty manifests itself in positive ways for society and/or civilization as a whole, but I wonder whether or not unbounded loyalty to anything always comes with negatives.
There is also self-serving corruption.
Loyalty is required for any systematic, organised, group-based corruption, however.
Typology of corruption: http://corruptioncontrol.com/Types_of_Corruption.html
Loyalty is required for any systematic, organised, group-based corruption, however.
Typology of corruption: http://corruptioncontrol.com/Types_of_Corruption.html
I'm not sure what you're arguing. Rewarding loyalty to the company typically takes the form of profit sharing, wherein employees would be incentivized to ignore management abuse (for instance) because they know raising the alarm will detract from the company's profits and, thus, their own profits.
Are you advocating for profit sharing/wealth redistribution in a really indirect way?
Are you advocating for profit sharing/wealth redistribution in a really indirect way?
> Are you advocating for profit sharing/wealth redistribution in a really indirect way?
Why not? I would support mandatory stock options based on the number of employees. In reality though, I think it would be defeated by creative accounting just like taxation.
Why not? I would support mandatory stock options based on the number of employees. In reality though, I think it would be defeated by creative accounting just like taxation.
How would stock options change anything in that regard? If you blow the whistle, the price decreases and your options are worth less money. You still have incentive to keep your mouth shut.
I’m not arguing either way but would point out:
1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
2/ Keeping your job is a reward.
1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
2/ Keeping your job is a reward.
> I’m not arguing either way but would point out:
> 1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
People still get paid when companies don't turn a profit.
> 1/ Drawing a salary is profit sharing.
People still get paid when companies don't turn a profit.
Salary is a maximally derisked profit sharing scheme. You get much less money that you could've earned in times of company's success, in exchange for a stable income even if the company is not successful.
It feels like we’re splitting hairs a little. In the context of my comment on the parent, profit and revenue are the same thing. After all, if you share 100% of your profit in another sense your company makes no profit at the end of the year.
The point is: once your livelihood depends on being part of an organisation, your judgement about that org can’t be completely impartial.
The point is: once your livelihood depends on being part of an organisation, your judgement about that org can’t be completely impartial.
That's a pretty narrow definition of loyalty. You are assuming that it's just a thing bought with money.
You can be loyal to the values that your company represent or the values you expect it to hold.
A company that behaves callously doesn't reflect well on the employees that represent it.
These employees may have higher expectations of what their company behaviour should be.
You don't need to reward people with money for them to defend that.
You can be loyal to the values that your company represent or the values you expect it to hold.
A company that behaves callously doesn't reflect well on the employees that represent it.
These employees may have higher expectations of what their company behaviour should be.
You don't need to reward people with money for them to defend that.
Another way to reward loyalty to ethically challenged manager: promotion, more interesting projects, public praise, not abusing you like the others and so on.
This is a very, very HN comment.
(2018)
Daphne Caruana Galizia is among my personal heroes -- an extraordinary professional who worked tirelessly to publish the truth about power, corruption, and lies. Her work on the Panama Papers directly affected one of my consulting projects, and inspired my whole team to work better together.
Another one that should never be forgotten along with Daphne Caruana Galizia is Anna Politkovskaya.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
Sadly the list of journalists killed because they didn't want to sell out is long and growing steadily.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya
Sadly the list of journalists killed because they didn't want to sell out is long and growing steadily.
I just got done reading "Is Journalism Worth Dying For?"
https://www.amazon.com/Journalism-Worth-Dying-Final-Dispatch...
One thing that struck me about the book was how everyone in the Russian system felt like they had to lie, because no one knew who was in charge.
Members of the Russian government beat, tortured and occasionally killed other members of the Russian government. Prosecutors eventually became terrified that if they went after anyone who was well connected, they could end up dead. Yet it was impossible to know who was well connected. Putin benefitted from the chaos, he was able to make it work for him. We see this a lot with the current wave of authoritarianism; leaders are rarely setting themselves up as absolute rulers like Stalin or Hitler, instead, they are making themselves invisible, and relying on chaos so they can maintain power. Right now Putin is fighting for a new Constitution which will make the formal leader of Russia extremely weak -- but he's planning on handing that role to someone else. Putin will continue to control things from the background.
Kaczynski, in Poland, is not a rational individual, but he has very much fine tuned what seems to be the modern model for authoritarian rule. I suspect 25 years from now we will look back and see that Kaczynski's style of rule has become more frequent than Orban's style of rule. Orban is setting himself up to be shot down. Kaczynski hides in the background.
https://www.amazon.com/Journalism-Worth-Dying-Final-Dispatch...
One thing that struck me about the book was how everyone in the Russian system felt like they had to lie, because no one knew who was in charge.
Members of the Russian government beat, tortured and occasionally killed other members of the Russian government. Prosecutors eventually became terrified that if they went after anyone who was well connected, they could end up dead. Yet it was impossible to know who was well connected. Putin benefitted from the chaos, he was able to make it work for him. We see this a lot with the current wave of authoritarianism; leaders are rarely setting themselves up as absolute rulers like Stalin or Hitler, instead, they are making themselves invisible, and relying on chaos so they can maintain power. Right now Putin is fighting for a new Constitution which will make the formal leader of Russia extremely weak -- but he's planning on handing that role to someone else. Putin will continue to control things from the background.
Kaczynski, in Poland, is not a rational individual, but he has very much fine tuned what seems to be the modern model for authoritarian rule. I suspect 25 years from now we will look back and see that Kaczynski's style of rule has become more frequent than Orban's style of rule. Orban is setting himself up to be shot down. Kaczynski hides in the background.
I live under the Orban-regime, but not sure I agree with your analysis. His style of government does not exactly provokes violence -- it incites apathy.
The absolute lack of sophistication in their messaging[0] is turning large demographics away from politics, and in many cases, the country.
[0]: They explain COVID-19 as an evil plan by George Soros, of course. The opportunity didn't occur to them for a long time, but the brilliance prevailed.
The absolute lack of sophistication in their messaging[0] is turning large demographics away from politics, and in many cases, the country.
[0]: They explain COVID-19 as an evil plan by George Soros, of course. The opportunity didn't occur to them for a long time, but the brilliance prevailed.
Very interesting. Invisible control in Russia from the background... this 2019 BBC radio documentary on Vladislav Surkov is extremely good:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005h7c
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005h7c
Idea that Putin is going into background popped up when he decided to rewrite the constitution but not the part that forbid him to go on to his third term (he is in his second term now, again). Since then it was rulled by the constitutional court that any change to the constitution would turn the counter of his terms to zero. Now Putin plan is clear - he is not going anywhere.
Edit: Found link to report on it in english. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-idUSKBN20...
Edit: Found link to report on it in english. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-idUSKBN20...
Those who tell the truth shall die,
those who tell the truth shall live forever.
(name of an album by postrock band Explosions in the Sky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3H8y4ohO-s)
(name of an album by postrock band Explosions in the Sky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3H8y4ohO-s)
This journalist’s death occurred well before I arrived but one does not need to look hard to the marks she left: there’s graffiti and stickers mentioning ‘Daphne’ all over the place. The prime minister Joseph Muscat was eventually forced to resign in January of this year over her death.
And yet, there’s a general sense that this case will never be satisfactorily closed, that the full story will never come to the surface, that the truth will never be known.