THE US IS SPYING ON THE UN!

[Mylezylez]

Wow!

www.observer.co.uk/iraq/s...36,00.html

Check this article out. Pretty heavy stuff.

-Miles
________
WENDIE 99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Sassy]

......on the Drudge report. (Drudge did his own report on this story - read it, please.)
________
mflb (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/magic-flight-launch-box)

[Mylezylez]

I don't think the story has been invalidated, as of yet.
________
DC MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

[NYIndependence]

The art of clandestine operations is the second-oldest profession in history. Any nation capable of espionage should not be afraid to use it on friend and foe alike. Right now, I am sure that the CIA is monitoring happenings in Israel, Iraq, Britain, China, the Vatican, and North Korea and it does not bother me in the least.
________
vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/)

[Skeptic]

Spying is indeed the second oldest profession, having been invented to gather information on those soliciting the oldest profession.

In the old days of the Soviet Union, a US Embassy was built, with local contractors. We had to tear the damn thing down and build it again because we couldn't remove all the bugs! There are cameras in satellites that can take a photo showing if your shoe is untied. There are laser listening devices you just aim at a window, and they pick up the vibrations on the glass from conversation in the room. I'm sure that every diplomat assumes he or she is being monitored, including ours, and they take appropriate safeguards for matters that require absolute secrecy.

Of course, the French are spying too. All of their spies are lined up on one street corner, though.
________
BMW H2R (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_H2R)

[Mylezylez]

So you're saying that it's okay for America to spy on friendly countries, who haven't yet decided whether or not they will support the US' position or not?

Sounds like something Hitler or Stalin would've done.

-Miles
________
3 series (e90) (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series_(E90))

[Impressed]

Throwing in Stalin was a nice twist on the "George Bush is the moral equivalent of Hitler" schtick.

It may be more creative, but is does not make any more sense.

[Skeptic]

I'm not saying it is right because I don't have to. I would be surprised if the U.S., Russia, China, Germany, Israel, Cuba, etc., etc., were not spying on each other and on others. Of course like I said, the French are spying also, but they are still all lined up on Maginot Street.
________
hotbox vaporizers (http://www.vaporshop.com/hotbox-vaporizer.html)

[Mylezylez]

Well, I'd say spying on your allies IS something that both Hitler and Stalin did. Agree?

But you are correct, there are too many comparisons to WWII out there. From ALL sides of these issues, I might add.

-Miles
________
Ipad Cases (http://accesoriesipad.com/)

[Mylezylez]

since this IS news, I'd say the practice is less common than you believe.

In any case, I think it's quite a rationalization to say that we're justified in spying on friendly countries' diplomats.

Don't you agree that at the very least, those countries being spied on will be upset? Is the US intentionally trying to dismantle the UN?

Thoughts?

-Miles
________
BEIJING-BENZ DAIMLERCHRYSLER AUTOMOTIVE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Beijing-Benz_DaimlerChrysler_Automotive)

[Sassy]

Another story about this topic at washingtontimes.com, "Report of plans by U.S. to spy on U.N. states questioned."

I don't think the U.S. is trying to dismantle the U.N., but I WISH THEY WERE. The U.N. does way much more harm than good. They are pro-abortion and even go to countries, such as Mexico, and trick young women into having a sterilization against their will. (They think they know what's best.) The U.N. promotes evil, evil and evil and I don't like paying tax dollars to support them. Do some of your own homework about the U.N., pros and cons if you wish.

Here's one story:

Is the U.N. responsible for this war?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.N. Kept Saddam in Power in Gulf War
Wilson C. Lucom
Thursday, Feb. 20, 2003
It is the sole fault of the United Nations that Saddam Hussein of Iraq was not removed during the Gulf War in 1990-91. U.N. Resolution 80 authorized the United States only to liberate Kuwait from Hussein?s illegal war and occupation of Kuwait but not to continue into Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.

Resolution 80 should have authorized the United States during Desert Storm to continue into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, but the United Nations did not give Gen. kopf authority to do so.

If Resolution 80 had authorized Gen. kopf to continue into Iraq and remove Hussein, the world would not be faced 13 years later with removing Hussein, who is now much stronger militarily and whose military strength could result in many thousands of American casualties.

Hussein should then have been removed from office for mercilessly declaring war on Kuwait and occupying it and, when defeated, vengefully setting fire to Kuwaiti oil wells, causing great economic losses.

Why did the United Nations not have Hussein removed then? Because it contained many anti-American members and Islamic enemies of the United States. It also contained France and other nations that sold hundreds of millions of dollars in trade to Iraq. Other U.N. members also supplied Iraq with components to develop the atom bomb and develop weapons of mass destruction.

________
vapir oxygen (http://www.vaporshop.com/oxygen-vaporizer.html)

[Mylezylez]

Well, if you read the Washington Times article that you cited, you will see that it doesn't even try to dispute the validity of that story. Beyond the headline, they merely mention the spelling changes.

washingtontimes.com/world...680312.htm

But I'm not sure why there is so much animosity towards the UN. It has corruption, like ANY governmental body, but overall I think it's a positive step towards global cooperation. It seems to me though that the US wants to dismantle it in order to start a new global coalition that's "led" by the United States exclusively.

Thoughts?

-Miles
________
PRILOSEC SETTLEMENT UPDATE (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[Skeptic]

Miles: Nice replies. Regarding spies, I do agree Hitler, Stalin and others did it. In fact, every government does it to one degree or another. I do not think our allies think for one minute that we do not keep tabs on their people, just as they keep tabs on ours. So, I do not think they will be terribly upset by a statement exposing what they already know is commonplace. I disagree that since one news article appeared that it is less common. Usually it is news when the spies get caught. In this case, the directive seems to have become public.

Regarding the U.N., no I don't think the president is trying to dismantle it. I may agree with others here, though, that maybe it should be. It is being viewed too much as some superior governmental body to sovereign nations. It is not. It is a forum and a place where nations can attempt to work together and at times agree to mutual action. You even make the mistake of calling it a 'governmental body'.

I think the president is handling the Iraq situation properly, strictly from a procedural standpoint. In other words, he is working through the U.N., while maintaining that his duty is to the American people. Putting aside each of our personal views of the Iraq question, that is the proper stance for any president to take with the U.N. To me, that does not equate to dismantling it.
________
buy no2 (http://vaporizers.net/no2-vaporizer/)

[Thalif Deen]

Unilateral U.S. Undermines U.N.'s Credibility
Thalif Deen, Interpress Service

UNITED NATIONS, (IPS) - Nelson Mandela, the former South African president and one of the world's most respected political figures, thinks the United Nations is being undermined by the United States. He is not alone.

Last week, Mandela said he was disappointed that not a single world leader had publicly condemned the recent U.S. decision to grab the 12,000-page Iraqi arms dossier and spirit it to the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before the other 14 members of the U.N. Security Council could even peek at it.

''This was an act of piracy which must be condemned by everyone,'' Mandela said, criticising Washington for its ''arrogant conduct''.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would only say that the U.S. action was ''unfortunate''. ''I hope it is not going to be repeated,'' he added, while denying that his organisation was a ''puppet'' in the hands of the United States.

The accusations come at a time when the United Nations is being browbeaten and manipulated by a U.S. administration that has abandoned multilateralism in favour of unilateralism.

The implied U.S. threat to launch a military attack on Iraq without Security Council authorisation and the tacit support of the administration of President George W. Bush for Israel's continued defiance of the United Nations have jeopardised the credibility of the world body.

''The George Bush administration has no regard for the United Nations,'' says a veteran Asian diplomat here. ''The world body is deemed useful to Americans only as long as they can manipulate it to their own selfish ends.''

The feeling in U.N. circles, he added, is that the situation won't change until the U.S. administration does - not before 2004.

Last week, the United States vetoed a resolution that would have condemned the killing by Israeli military forces of several U.N. humanitarian workers.

The resolution would have also castigated the Israelis for the ''deliberate destruction'' of U.N. warehouses storing food for Palestinians.

The four other veto-wielding members of the Council - Britain, France, China and Russia - voted in favour.

''In the end, it all seems to come down to what the United States wants,'' Michael Ratner, president of the Washington-based Centre for Constitutional Rights, told IPS.

''As long as the United States gives Israel a blank cheque for weapons and continues to give (it) huge economic support, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for the United Nations to be effective in stopping violence,'' he said.

In the face of U.S. and Israeli recalcitrance, Ratner said, the United Nations can't even protect its own employees, much less Palestinians. The United States, he pointed out, has ''seriously undermined the authority and the credibility of the United Nations''.

That credibility is at its lowest level now, said Denis Halliday, the former U.N. assistant secretary-general who headed the U.N. humanitarian programme in Iraq.

The world body is ''conspicuously absent and is seen to be shut out by Israel backed by the United States''.

''This is most damaging to the United Nations since Israel is the production of a U.N. resolution, and of course the United Nations should be fully involved (there).''

''Without U.N. peacekeepers protecting the Palestinians under Israeli military attack, the United Nations looks negligent and guilty of turning its back on a situation that some consider to be genocidal and state terror on the part of Israel,'' Halliday told IPS.

The inability of the United Nations to carry out an investigation of the Israeli ''massacre'' in the Jenin refugee camp in April marked an all-time low point in U.N. effectiveness, he added.

''To fail to condemn the Israeli killing of U.N. workers is almost unbelievable. The world must be asking (as in the case of the Jenin failure): where is Kofi Annan? What does it take for him to stand up and protect the United Nations and its credibility?''

Ali Abunimah, vice-president of the Arab-American Action Network, told IPS that the United Nations has allowed itself to be made totally irrelevant by the Bush administration.

The Security Council is the correct forum to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in particular, Israel's ''material breach'' of dozens of resolutions outlawing its practices in the occupied territories, he said.

But Annan has allowed the entire United Nations to be reduced to the role of a member of the so-called ''Quartet'' (the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations) drawing up a 'roadmap' for resolving the Israel-Palestine question.

That body, said Abunimah, is ''an unofficial U.S.-sponsored grouping whose only role is to give the impression of diplomatic action while in reality blocking any effort to hold Israel accountable for its utter refusal to stop its repression''.

In such a situation, he argued, the latest U.S. veto, to protect Israel from censure for the killing of three U.N. officials is no surprise.

''Consider the irony: the U.S. threatens war against Iraq for so much as lying to a U.N. official, while Israel is allowed to kill U.N. officials with total U.S. approval,'' he added.

The U.S. approach to the United Nations is simple: any resolution on Iraq that the U.S. supports must be treated as holy scripture and upheld with war.

And any resolution that the U.S. opposes is proof of the ''irrelevance'' of the United Nations and is a license for the United States to disregard the U.N. charter and do as it pleases, Abunimah said.

[NYIndependence]

"Well, I'd say spying on your allies IS something that both Hitler and Stalin did. Agree?"
Your point is legitimate, but flawed. When the United States spies on nations, it is normally to know what the senior members of a government as well as its people think of the US and their future plans.

Any viable power spies on both friends and foes. If you do not, it is impossible to remain one.
________
Ford Freda picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Freda)

[Mylezylez]

well, I forgot that the US only spies with GOOD intentions.

Why are so many people so quick to defend this? It obviously (to me) is a breach of trust with those countries involved, and illustrates how the US government is driven by fear and paranoia.

Really, the lengths that some people go to, to prove that the government can do no wrong is insane!

Thoughts?

-Miles
________
Dodge Phoenix (Australia) (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Dodge_Phoenix_(Australia))

[Mylezylez]

A Reich and a Wrong Way to Protect the U.S.
March 3, 2003
By Nick Garafola and Leif Utne,
Utne.com


Shortly after the news broke recently that the Justice Department was quietly preparing a new, improved Patriot Act, we received a fascinating e-mail from a reader. The new bill, the reader points out, bears a scary resemblance to Hitler?s Enabling Act. Passed by the German Parliament on March 23, 1933, the ?Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich? effectively meant ?the end of democracy in Germany and establish[ed] the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler,? according to an article on The History Place.



Officially titled ?The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003,? John Ashcroft?s new bill would allow the government to strip the citizenship of Americans suspected of being a member of a ?terrorist? group, and would nullify an array of court-ordered restrictions on police spying. Plus, just when the public is crying for more corporate and government transparency, the bill guts the Freedom of Information Act, enabling officials to suppress any information they feel might compromise national security.



While Patriot II doesn?t go quite as far as the German bill did 70 years ago, Bush and Ashcroft?s assurances that the government will exercise its expanded powers with restraint ring hollow when viewed through the lens of history.



?Just before the vote,? says the History Place article, ?Hitler made a speech to the Reichstag in which he pledged to use restraint: ?The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures. . . . The number of cases in which an internal necessity exists for having recourse to such a law is in itself a limited one,? Hitler told the Reichstag.?
?Nick Garafola and Leif Utne

________
HotRachel (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/HotRachel/)