Panama Papers Investigation Compromised

Submitted by Meteor Man on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 2:16am

Holy shit! :

This makes it all the more important that the leaked documents are properly investigated — and has contributed to mounting criticism of ICIJ, which vets the journalists and media who are allowed to access the files pertaining to each country, and has adopted an exclusive trickle-down approach to the investigation.

Both journalists and governments eager to expose potential tax evaders and other white-collar criminals have complained. Some have even accused ICIJ of “censoring” the leak.

“If you censor more than 99% of the documents you are engaged in 1% journalism by definition,” tweeted Wikileaks.

Sounds right to me.

ICIJ has countered that journalistic ethics oblige them to protect the privacy of the source and of the many innocent people whose sensitive data may also be included in the leak. They have sought to reassure the public that they are doing their best to investigate every case of wrongdoing in the most ethical and thorough way possible.

I'm calling bullshIt!

Check it out: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/06/20/investigating-investigators-panama-papers/

Tags:

#Panama Papers

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Thaumlord-Exelbirth on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 9:34am

So they have to ethically protect the criminals

from being revealed as criminals. Bullshit.

Submitted by terriertribe on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 11:42am

I disagree

I think they have to protect those who would wrongly be thought criminals. That might be an exceedingly small group, true, but if you were in that group would you just shrug and say "oh well, collateral damage"?

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

Submitted by Meteor Man on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 12:00pm

The "innocent" can be protected

Here is an example from the article of a previous failure by the ICIJ :

“I confronted ICIJ during their presentation at the Global Investigative Journalism Conference in Lillehammer last October and publicly told them that in the case of Bulgaria, they gave [exclusive] access to the Swiss Leaks files to a former state security agent and a newspaper linked to the Bulgarian mafia,” said Atanas Tchobanov (alternatively spelled: Chobanov), the editor-in-chief of the maverick investigative reporting outlet Bivol, which has a partnership agreement with Wikileaks and has broken a number of stories over the past few years that mainstream Bulgarian media wouldn’t touch.

“ICIJ has been ignoring us ever since, though we also alerted them that they were making the same mistake with the Panama Papers leak. Though our application for access to the files was backed by OCCRP, [ICIJ]rejected us, claiming they already had a partner in Bulgaria.”

Anyone with the resources to make the list also has the resources to protect their reputation.

—

"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn

Submitted by terriertribe on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:28pm

So,without seeing the complete papers

You seem to be confident that everyone whose name appears is guilty of something. What, for example, if your name appeared?

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.

Submitted by Thaumlord-Exelbirth on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 8:25pm

This kind of protection

is only ever available to the rich and their associates. Why give them yet another special privilege? You already know that nobody involved will likely ever see jail time, and most likely their careers won't experience much more than a slight bump.

And if I was in that group, wouldn't that mean I was engaged in some kind of criminal activity myself? I would either have been A: helping criminals, or B: a criminal myself. What other people do you think would be listed in the papers? A towel boy? Flight attendant? Waiters? Sure is hard to know that if the information in the papers isn't being released.

Submitted by GreatLakeSailor on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:36pm

And there's this if you haven't seen it.....

Panama Papers are available, but why hasn’t US asked to see them?
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/panama-papers-are-available-but-why-hasn...

WASHINGTON — Nearly three months after the revelations from the Panama Papers exposed politicians, drug cartels and the wealthy hiding millions behind offshore companies, the U.S. Justice Department has yet to ask its Panamanian counterpart for access to seized records.

The inaction raises questions about the response by Congress and the Obama administration to the unprecedented leak that rocked governments in Iceland, Pakistan and the United Kingdom and prompted investigations worldwide.

"The biggest financial scandal involving offshores is greeted with a yawn by U.S. law enforcement officials?" said Charles Intriago, a former federal prosecutor and money-laundering expert in Miami. "It doesn't make any sense that a pot of evidentiary gold is going unpursued by the U.S. Department of Justice."

—

Compensated Spokes Model for Big Poor.

Submitted by Scott Crowder on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:42pm

These crooks have been in charge of the drug cartels

I first wrote about their heroin connections ten years ago.

There are many roots out there connecting The Usual Suspects to heroin, Al Queda and terrorism. The FBI was actually busily pursuing links to Turkish drug traffickers and the buying out of American politicians when Bush came into office and immediately squashed the investigation.

“One counter-intelligence official familiar with Edmonds’s case has told Vanity Fair that the F.B.I. opened an investigation into covert activities by Turkish nationals in the late 1990’s. That inquiry found evidence, mainly via wiretaps, of attempts to corrupt senior American politicians in at least two major cities—Washington and Chicago.

Now...who do we know from Chicago?

Submitted by Deja on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 6:44pm

Imagine if Hairball AND $Hillary are named in them!

The Foundation, and the son-in-law too. Gawd, that would be delicious!

We can't have something like that or even just one of them being proven to be slimy crooks. So, maybe that's why none of the criminals running the country have asked to see them. Then again, the ones with authority to ask might not want to out themselves.

Nothing is unbelievable or out of the question anymore.

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 3:43pm

I tend to agree somewhat with terriertribe.

I am a retired U. S. CPA and something of an expert on international taxation and multinational corporations. A lot of stuff that nobody would believe is legal is not only legal, but in some cases damn near encouraged. Tossing out lists of those with this, that or the other type of offshore accounts or assets could very well lead to a great many persons and entities being falsely judged to be engaged in criminal wrongdoing because the general assumption is that all such accounts are criminal and are used solely by criminals.

While the situation sucks, you have to remember that in our country, and in many others, laws, especially tax laws, are written to favor large corporations and wealthy elites, so that the real crime is the legislation enabling these things, and not the ownership thereof.

The big question is the degree of required discretion and protection and the quality of advance investigations. Why such a narrow field of recipients, more than anything, should be one of the real issues.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by edg on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 4:39pm

I disagree with terrietribe and enhydra.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is moral or ethical. If we don't apply a moral compass to our corporations and wealthy elites, they will write the laws in such a way that whatever they want to do is "legal". Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so the more exposure of shady but legal practices, the better.

Submitted by Deja on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 7:21pm

Not only that,

We use taxes for things everyone needs and uses, as well as helping those with less. If anyone putting their money offshore to avoid paying taxes uses roads, calls 911, flies, expects running water that's actually potable, etc., then they damn well SHOULD be putting their share into the kitty!

I guess that's actually along the lines of morality. Expecting poor people and people who aren't obscenely wealthy to pay for the infrastructure of civilization for the obscenely wealthy is immoral.

Who at TOP had(s) the sig line?

"I love paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization!"

It's a good one.

Submitted by terriertribe on Mon, 06/27/2016 - 5:50pm

I agree

Not everything that is legal is moral or ethical. Be glad that I am not in charge of deciding for everyone what is moral and what is ethical; I am a poor decider.

I also agree that sunshine is the best disinfectant. Government activities, corporate actions, especially those affecting the public health and safety, should all be open to scrutiny. Where I begin to get nervous is when it starts sounding like "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear." We should know better.

—

Now interviewing signature candidates. Apply within.