Damning Zuma WikiLeaks cable revealed

waynegohl said:
So where too from here? What happens now that this info is out there? What is the point of wikileaks really?
Click to expand...
The opinion of a US ambassador does not a criminal case make. The technicality that let Zuma off the hook still exists and it is unlikely he'll ever get prosecuted. The hawks have promised to revisit the new evidence but they are pretty useless and will not prosecute someone as high up as Zuma.
 
gdiza said:
So he got away with it... :(
Click to expand...
Got away with what? The legal adviser says he 'believes' Zuma was guilty. The scorpions said the case against Zuma was 'unwinnable' at the time and they meddled with politics in their subsequent pursuit of the man. A court of law has not found him guilty so he's presumed innocent as per the laws of the land.
 
killadoob said:
Gary i thought you were against wikileaks leaking stuff like this? why have you made a thread when you are so anti wiki?

Mila you don't recall Mbeki withholding aids drugs and announcing crime is not a problem in SA?
Click to expand...

Not that much into politics at that time.

Zuma said take a shower. And I recall Mbeki saying he does not know one person that has died from AIDS. Me neither. They all died of TB or something. My thoughts on the subject on that stage was that the media likes to only reports on what they want to hear ( I might be totally wrong as I said not that much into politics) and not on what was actually said.

And Zuma's administration has also said that crime is not as bad as people make it. Only after police officers were shot they changed their tune.

Yes Mbeki was out of the country. Zuma is not in the country just as much. The media just has not made the comparison.

I still do not get why people thought Mbeki was such a bad guy. He and his minister of health said stupid things about HIV. The transmission rate is till increasing with Shower Zuma in office, and his sock puppet saying things like Having babies is revolutionary.

I know from the people at work they recon people did not like him because he did not have an African family, and that spoke of his values.

I ask because I would like to know. If he was bad, then good riddance. MAybe he was just better at hiding things. :D
 
Last edited:
R13... said:
Got away with what? The legal adviser says he 'believes' Zuma was guilty. The scorpions said the case against Zuma was 'unwinnable' at the time and they meddled with politics in their subsequent pursuit of the man. A court of law has not found him guilty so he's presumed innocent as per the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

The advisor said he believes there is enough evidence for a court to find him guilty.
 
and when you can control the law of the land and change a constitution to suit you, rest assured you will be a safe man.
 
R13... said:
A court of law has not found him guilty so he's presumed innocent as per the laws of the land.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not the case... a court of law found that there was a "generally corrupt" relationship between him and Schabir Shair. Zuma was never tried yet, so he was never found "not guilty". But according to the courts there is sufficient reason that he should be tried.
 
Garyvdh said:
Actually, that is not the case... a court of law found that there was a "generally corrupt" relationship between him and Schabir Shair. Zuma was never tried yet, so he was never found "not guilty". But according to the courts there is sufficient reason that he should be tried.
Click to expand...

I see you're regurgitating that incorrect corrupt relationship that newspapers got wrong. The judge never said that.
 
waynegohl said:
That's my point. You not gonna sing like a canary and mention people who have done nothing wrong, you gonna mention people who HAVE done something wrong. Someone should have pushed him on that point. who are these people he was going to mention?
Click to expand...

Mandela... remember he was president when the arms deal happened.

Sent from my HTC Desire using MyBroadband Android App
 
they had to get their startup capital from somewhere ... where do u think the ANC got the money for luthuli house and all those mansions for their cadres ..... I do not think we will ever get the full truth as they will never want to tarnish the mandela name ... at least not for a good few years after his death ...
I still think mandela is a great man ... and I would be willing to forgive him this transgression ... however JZ and the rest have not shown anything that warrants forgiveness or a free pass
 
R13... said:
I see you're regurgitating that incorrect corrupt relationship that newspapers got wrong. The judge never said that.
Click to expand...

I never said that Judge Squires said that. I said "a court of law" said that.

The three words appear in the ruling by Judge President of the SCA Craig Howie on the forfeiture of Shaikh's assets to the state, as cited in Business Day:

"Between 1996 and 2002 Shaikh and Mr. Jacob Zuma engaged in what the trial court (Squires) appropriately called `a generally corrupt relationship' which involved frequent payments by Shaikh to or on behalf of Zuma and a reciprocation by Zuma in the form of the bringing to bear of political influence on behalf of Shaikh's business interests when requested to do so."

"The trial court's view of the `symbiosis' between Mr. Zuma and Mr. Shaikh was confirmed by the SCA in various parts of its judgment, which ultimately conveyed that on the evidence in this case an overall corrupt relationship existed.
Click to expand...

The quote is to be found only in the introduction to the court's subsidiary civil judgment on the forfeiture of Shaikh's assets. But it is there nonetheless.

Judge Squires further said that... There was a "mutually beneficial symbiosis" between the two. He said that "The case is convincing and really overwhelming."
The actual words of Judge Squires were that "said payments made to Zuma by Shaik constituted a benefit under the definition of corruption."

So get your own facts straight! :p
 
And he never paid tax on the "benefits", and these "benefits" would be defined as taxable income under the Tax Act.
 
waynegohl said:
What is the point of wikileaks really?
Click to expand...

Reveal truths? Reveal hypocrisy? When what is piously said belies actions? An anti-propaganda tool? A method of informing an electorate of stuff governments would rather keep them ignorant of?
 
Palimino said:
Reveal truths? Reveal hypocrisy? When what is piously said belies actions? An anti-propaganda tool? A method of informing an electorate of stuff governments would rather keep them ignorant of?
Click to expand...

Makes for a nice coffee table reading book but what we do with that information is another thing.
 
waynegohl said:
Makes for a nice coffee table reading book but what we do with that information is another thing.
Click to expand...

Whatever. The point is people are informed about covert crap even if they can’t do anything. It may impact election campaigns if huge tissues of lies have been told and are then exposed as BS.
 
Palimino said:
Reveal truths? Reveal hypocrisy? When what is piously said belies actions? An anti-propaganda tool? A method of informing an electorate of stuff governments would rather keep them ignorant of?
Click to expand...

Wikileaks may become very important in the future South Africa where all inconvenient information will be suppressed !!!
 
Oh please.

The politicians' hands are all dirty and none of them can point a finger at the next one. They very often keep secrets, waiting for the right time to use it as blackmail against each other.

If you see a story in the papers, chances are it was leaked by a politican against his enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X