FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S • Hacker News Board

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#211

Post by notsony » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:20 PM UTC

mullingitover wrote: post #117

protomyth wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the same boat. I get prosecuting the US citizens who paid bribes (long history there), but I don't get how the US can go after foreign nationals not on US soil for something that was done outside the US and not an attack on the US. I really don't understand why a country would extradite them in the first place. We can get FIFA, but we cannot get Roman Polanski?

> ...but I don't get how the US can go after foreign nationals not on US soil for something that was done outside the US and not an attack on the US. Some combination of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (where a company can be prosecuted in the US for bribing officials abroad) mixed with RICO. The RICO part might not even be necessary, but it would allow them to go after anyone in the organization if they felt like…

The details don't actually matter. The impression is that doing business in the US is risky for your personal safety. Look at Bitcoin start-ups. Look at Silent Circle who have moved to Switzerland. The uncertainty of the rule of law and perception of draconian punishment will hurt the US economy in the long-run.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#212

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:21 PM UTC

_nedR wrote: post #191

austenallred wrote: post #22

It seems like the DOJ is doing the same thing they would do against a gang; get a few lower-level people to take a plea deal and hand over the kingpin. There's no way Blatter gets through this unscathed. It will be interesting to see if the World Cup will be moved now; it never made sense to have it in Qatar in the first place (no infrastructure, incredibly hot during the summer, hundreds of migrant workers dying and…

Funny, that everyone seems to miss the fact that the current indictments actually relate to corruption w.r.t. the previous tournaments and world cups hosted in USA, South America and South Africa. Nobody in /r/soccer seems to care about that. Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of all the Qatar/Russia bashing.

> Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of all the Qatar/Russia bashing.

I think the fact that the charges indicate a massive pattern of corruption by FIFA and subordinate organization executives in a wide variety of decisions is quite relevant to the FIFA-bashing over the decisions regarding the way that the Qatar and Russia decisions, given the factual conditions surrounding hosting the cup in those countries, seem inexplicable on any basis other than corruption at FIFA.

Even if the charges don't include charges specific to corruption around those decisions.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#213

Post by maskd » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:24 PM UTC

mbreese wrote: post #153

motoboi wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should remember that Brazil built (or rebuilt from scratch) all stadiums used on the world cup. Qatar would build them on less time and less money, I suppose.

Brazil also has an Olympics coming up and a healthy national soccer league. I'm fairly certain they will be able to reuse a lot of those stadiums, so the benefit of that construction will extend for quite a while longer.

That has not happened, though:

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/05/11/405955547/b...

Besides the issues with building stadiums in states without a football tradition, Brazil is facing the problem that people just don't go to the stadium much. For example, the national league, which finished its third round last week, has had only 3 games with more than 20000 spectators so far.

That was already a big problem before the World Cup, and only became bigger after it since the cost of maintaining the stadiums is much higher now, and so are ticket prices.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#214

Post by _nedR » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:25 PM UTC

hvs wrote: post #143

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #111

White House makes the first step towards enforcing mass boycott of the Russian World Cup as punishment for flexing its muscles in its old spheres of influence. I'm all for dismantling and/or restructuring FIFA, but the timing is rather opportune.

"Flexing its muscles in its old spheres of influence" is an interesting way to say, "invading and taking over another country."

You mean like what the US, UK and Australia did to Iraq. What punitive action did these countries face for their actions?

Yes, really the whole thing makes perfect sense when viewed from an "Old Order" vs "New Order" perspective.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#215

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:27 PM UTC

_nedR wrote: post #214

hvs wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Flexing its muscles in its old spheres of influence" is an interesting way to say, "invading and taking over another country."

You mean like what the US, UK and Australia did to Iraq. What punitive action did these countries face for their actions? Yes, really the whole thing makes perfect sense when viewed from an "Old Order" vs "New Order" perspective.

A lot of the same people (including in the US) who aren't happy with what Russia did in Ukraine at the time it occurred also opposed what the US did in Iraq at the time that occurred.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#216

Post by supergirl » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #205

supergirl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out something is not slander, of course. But, what's the difference between slander and allegations? They both entail the same action: saying something bad without proving, no? Only in the end we will know.

In one case (slander) you say it as if its true. In the other its qualified. They are very different! Be fair.

Then I can just say "I think someone can prove that [slander statement]" and I'm safe? Without seeing any evidence how can you tell if it's slander or not?

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#217

Post by mike_hearn » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:29 PM UTC

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #67

sschueller wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disgusted that the Swiss let this thing go on for so long and still give FIFA non-profit status.

What would the Swiss do without the shady business brought by corrupt foreigners? The extremely high standard of living is directly related to money laundering and "asset protection" schemes.

They would do fine. The idea that Switzerland is only successful because of banking privacy is a common myth. The entire financial sector including things like pensions, insurance and corporate banking is only somewhere between 6-10% of the Swiss GDP, depending on how you precisely account for the risk premium. The construction industry alone is about 6% of the GDP. Switzerland does a lot of things beyond finance.

Also, though Switzerland has a big financial sector it's not massively larger than other countries. If you use the "output method" then 10% of the Swiss GDP is finance. The next biggest is Ireland with 7%. So that's a 3% difference, yet I don't see anyone claiming that Ireland would be hosed without finance.

If you actually spend any time in Switzerland you'll rapidly figure out why it does well - things are just remarkably well run there, and Swiss people are rather industrious and skilled. Their government stays out of expensive foreign wars and other boondoggles. Unemployment is extremely low. The regions compete on tax rates, which keeps them low, and that in turn attracts wealthy people (who are then taxed on their global wealth, not just assets in Switzerland). It's very democratic.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#218

Post by abandonliberty » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

xasos wrote: post #94

iwwr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, hosting a World Cup has become a net negative to a country. The costs (significant and increasing) go to the government and the profits go to FIFA and the sponsors.

Yep, its really sad. It also applies for events like the Olympics, where infrastructure improvements are mandatory, and costs far outweigh any profit they may receive.

The taxpayer cost of the Vancouver Winter Olympics distributed over the number of taxpayers in the workforce was around $8000/pp.

Best 8000$ party I ever threw.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#219

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:32 PM UTC

supergirl wrote: post #216

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In one case (slander) you say it as if its true. In the other its qualified. They are very different! Be fair.

Then I can just say "I think someone can prove that [slander statement]" and I'm safe? Without seeing any evidence how can you tell if it's slander or not?

Hm. The definition is "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation." So really, if it injures someone then its slander. Sounds like your initial idea was right - even implying wrongdoing could be slander.

Re: FIFA Officials Arrested on Corruption Charges; Face Extradition to U.S

#220

Post by austenallred » Wed, May 27, 2015, 6:41 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #219

supergirl wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then I can just say "I think someone can prove that [slander statement]" and I'm safe? Without seeing any evidence how can you tell if it's slander or not?

Hm. The definition is "Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation." So really, if it injures someone then its slander. Sounds like your initial idea was right - even implying wrongdoing could be slander.

The key word here is "false." Saying "X is being accused of" is or "X allegedly" is not a false statement, and that's why the qualification matters. Nothing said in the post(s) above was false, and therefore none of it is slander.