The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Saw a snippet of a story yesterday live on Sky and the BBC about allegations that the British Government had bugged the offices of the UN Secretary General during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion.
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
And there was somebody from the UN saying if this proved to be true, then it would be considered illegal under 4 or 5 unilaterally signed agreements? (I'm a bit shaky on the details, only caught the tail end of it)
Anybody else see this or was my paranoid commie mind playing tricks on me?
Page:
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Maybe, although she's not revealed any more details than she felt
> necessary. But if it blows the cover of someone acting immorally,
> preventing those duties, again, that's more or less what Short
> wanted.
Not revealed any more details, i wasn't aware she'd released that many details in the first place.
> And I'm not convinced this is about her political gain. Heck, she'll
> almost certainly never hold a position of any importance within the
> labour cabinet again.
Perhaps not political gain, but you have to question her motives. I mean, what she said, it won't lead to mass investigations into the way the Intel guys go about their bussiness. All it does is get her into the spot light.
As i said, until she/ somebody produces some sort of evidence, i'm very sceptical about the entire thing.
> Maybe, although she's not revealed any more details than she felt
> necessary. But if it blows the cover of someone acting immorally,
> preventing those duties, again, that's more or less what Short
> wanted.
Not revealed any more details, i wasn't aware she'd released that many details in the first place.
> And I'm not convinced this is about her political gain. Heck, she'll
> almost certainly never hold a position of any importance within the
> labour cabinet again.
Perhaps not political gain, but you have to question her motives. I mean, what she said, it won't lead to mass investigations into the way the Intel guys go about their bussiness. All it does is get her into the spot light.
As i said, until she/ somebody produces some sort of evidence, i'm very sceptical about the entire thing.
Belldandy wrote:
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted
> to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
I agree with Bell here.
The OSA doesn't say, keep out secrets, unless you believe otherwise.
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted
> to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
I agree with Bell here.
The OSA doesn't say, keep out secrets, unless you believe otherwise.
Belldandy wrote:
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted
> to operate effectively.
As opposed to intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted to act morally?
If it stops intelligence agencies acting effectively at carrying out immoral tasks, well, thats what most of us lefties want!
> As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
Maybe, although she's not revealed any more details than she felt necessary. But if it blows the cover of someone acting immorally, preventing those duties, again, that's more or less what Short wanted.
And I'm not convinced this is about her political gain. Heck, she'll almost certainly never hold a position of any importance within the labour cabinet again.
> The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people
> to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where
> does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted
> to operate effectively.
As opposed to intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted to act morally?
If it stops intelligence agencies acting effectively at carrying out immoral tasks, well, thats what most of us lefties want!
> As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation
> could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her
> political gain.
Maybe, although she's not revealed any more details than she felt necessary. But if it blows the cover of someone acting immorally, preventing those duties, again, that's more or less what Short wanted.
And I'm not convinced this is about her political gain. Heck, she'll almost certainly never hold a position of any importance within the labour cabinet again.
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> Nevertheless, in this instance at least, I'm glad she revealed the
> information.
> I can't accept that it's justifiable for the British intel. to have a
> carte blanche to act in any way it chooses, with no scrutiny.
The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her political gain.
> Nevertheless, in this instance at least, I'm glad she revealed the
> information.
> I can't accept that it's justifiable for the British intel. to have a
> carte blanche to act in any way it chooses, with no scrutiny.
The OSA doesn't contain get out clauses does it? If we allow people to break it based purely on their own conscience and morality where does that leave us? With intelligence agencies that cannot be trusted to operate effectively. As it is, if this is true, Short's accusation could lead to the cover of at least on person being blown - for her political gain.
Belldandy wrote:
> Erm well if a person says he/she will do one thing, then fails to do
> that, isn't that lying?
There has to be the intention to decieve as well. That's what seperates t from simply being wrong.
> I mean, if we apply the logic of your statement, Duck (sorry for not
> using your first name but I'll never remember the spelling), to the
> claims made by some here that Bush and Blair lied about the reasons
> for war, then does that mean by the same standard they did not lie?
They chose the reasons for war, so if the reasons weren't the ones they stated, they must have known about it!
> As for being thankful for people like her? I think not! Whether she
> is lying now or not what has happened is that most of the civilised
> world knows that you cannot trust British intelligence with
> information because there is the risk that some self righteous idiot
> will decided that they are going to tell everyone about it. In the
> long term this case, and that of the GCHQ worker earlier in the week,
> could impact on our ability to recruit information sources in the
> future - after all , how could those sources trust us enough to know
> there names/activities would never be revealed eh?
It's a good point, and although you could argue that it would only apply to what was seen as 'immoral' intelligence, I doubt that argument would put many foreign agencies at ease.
Of course, those with previous dealings with the UK intel. agencies would have other experiences to base their decision on too. But yes, they still would certainly think twice.
Nevertheless, in this instance at least, I'm glad she revealed the information.
I can't accept that it's justifiable for the British intel. to have a carte blanche to act in any way it chooses, with no scrutiny.
That's how things like the Chile fiasco happen.
> Erm well if a person says he/she will do one thing, then fails to do
> that, isn't that lying?
There has to be the intention to decieve as well. That's what seperates t from simply being wrong.
> I mean, if we apply the logic of your statement, Duck (sorry for not
> using your first name but I'll never remember the spelling), to the
> claims made by some here that Bush and Blair lied about the reasons
> for war, then does that mean by the same standard they did not lie?
They chose the reasons for war, so if the reasons weren't the ones they stated, they must have known about it!
> As for being thankful for people like her? I think not! Whether she
> is lying now or not what has happened is that most of the civilised
> world knows that you cannot trust British intelligence with
> information because there is the risk that some self righteous idiot
> will decided that they are going to tell everyone about it. In the
> long term this case, and that of the GCHQ worker earlier in the week,
> could impact on our ability to recruit information sources in the
> future - after all , how could those sources trust us enough to know
> there names/activities would never be revealed eh?
It's a good point, and although you could argue that it would only apply to what was seen as 'immoral' intelligence, I doubt that argument would put many foreign agencies at ease.
Of course, those with previous dealings with the UK intel. agencies would have other experiences to base their decision on too. But yes, they still would certainly think twice.
Nevertheless, in this instance at least, I'm glad she revealed the information.
I can't accept that it's justifiable for the British intel. to have a carte blanche to act in any way it chooses, with no scrutiny.
That's how things like the Chile fiasco happen.
I wouldn't have a hard time believing the story, although it was said this morning I think that Russia, the U.S. and another European country were in on it too.
In this day and age, very little shocks or surprises me when it comes to politics.
In this day and age, very little shocks or surprises me when it comes to politics.
Erm well if a person says he/she will do one thing, then fails to do that, isn't that lying?
I mean, if we apply the logic of your statement, Duck (sorry for not using your first name but I'll never remember the spelling), to the claims made by some here that Bush and Blair lied about the reasons for war, then does that mean by the same standard they did not lie?
As for being thankful for people like her? I think not! Whether she is lying now or not what has happened is that most of the civilised world knows that you cannot trust British intelligence with information because there is the risk that some self righteous idiot will decided that they are going to tell everyone about it. In the long term this case, and that of the GCHQ worker earlier in the week, could impact on our ability to recruit information sources in the future - after all , how could those sources trust us enough to know there names/activities would never be revealed eh?
I mean, if we apply the logic of your statement, Duck (sorry for not using your first name but I'll never remember the spelling), to the claims made by some here that Bush and Blair lied about the reasons for war, then does that mean by the same standard they did not lie?
As for being thankful for people like her? I think not! Whether she is lying now or not what has happened is that most of the civilised world knows that you cannot trust British intelligence with information because there is the risk that some self righteous idiot will decided that they are going to tell everyone about it. In the long term this case, and that of the GCHQ worker earlier in the week, could impact on our ability to recruit information sources in the future - after all , how could those sources trust us enough to know there names/activities would never be revealed eh?
Changed her mind? Bottled it? Yes. And I'm not claiming she's perfect.
But I think 'lied' is a bit of a leap. Probably on a par with some reasonably outlandish lefty theories...
But I think 'lied' is a bit of a leap. Probably on a par with some reasonably outlandish lefty theories...
Also, just heard the Blix's allegation is different - apparently he claims to have been bugged whilst in Iraq.
I'd actually say it was possible Blix was bugged, but if it was in Iraq then there is no problem at all with that.
I'd actually say it was possible Blix was bugged, but if it was in Iraq then there is no problem at all with that.
You want proof Short is a liar, Duck?
No problem.
She publically, and vocally, states pre Iraq war "if we got to war I will resign".
We got to war.
Resignation strangely missing. Garbled apology and backtracking follows.
You'll note also that Short has been unable to provide any actual proof of her allegations or to provide any real detail on the alleged operation. Notably, claims that similar was done to Blix by the Australians is being based on a journalists un-named source, again with no actual evidence. Butler has accused all but China of doing the same, again with no actual evidence.
Strange state of affairs. Two major elected leaders say Iraq is a threat, provide ample evidence, and about 40% do not believe them. One ex minister who has lied before makes one claim - which if true is still in breach of the OSA no matter what - with no evidence, and people are willing to believe.
No problem.
She publically, and vocally, states pre Iraq war "if we got to war I will resign".
We got to war.
Resignation strangely missing. Garbled apology and backtracking follows.
You'll note also that Short has been unable to provide any actual proof of her allegations or to provide any real detail on the alleged operation. Notably, claims that similar was done to Blix by the Australians is being based on a journalists un-named source, again with no actual evidence. Butler has accused all but China of doing the same, again with no actual evidence.
Strange state of affairs. Two major elected leaders say Iraq is a threat, provide ample evidence, and about 40% do not believe them. One ex minister who has lied before makes one claim - which if true is still in breach of the OSA no matter what - with no evidence, and people are willing to believe.
Page: