The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
unknown kernel wrote:
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Now that is an interesting question.
My answer would be no, but there is a huge element of trust involved, and a trust that could so easily be abused.
>
> This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability.
> You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up
> to in our name?
Now that is an interesting question.
My answer would be no, but there is a huge element of trust involved, and a trust that could so easily be abused.
Skarra wrote:
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability. You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up to in our name?
> One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he did,
> every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
This is the kind of an odd approach to democratic accountability. You don't think we have a right to know what the government gets up to in our name?
Don't forget, she's offered no proof of any kind.
And, she didn't say if it was actually British Intel.
Also, even the tabliods that usually jump on this type of story have said there are any number of possible explanations. One may be that it was a conversation between Tariq Aziz(sp?) and Mr. Anan. If thats the case, theres every reason Tariq might have been bugged.
If she can provide some sort of proof, fine. Until then, my opinions are clear.
And, she didn't say if it was actually British Intel.
Also, even the tabliods that usually jump on this type of story have said there are any number of possible explanations. One may be that it was a conversation between Tariq Aziz(sp?) and Mr. Anan. If thats the case, theres every reason Tariq might have been bugged.
If she can provide some sort of proof, fine. Until then, my opinions are clear.
unknown kernel wrote:
> I was just reading about this on the Guardian and BBC websites.
> Shocking stuff if it's true. The funniest thing was Tony Blair's
> defence: no denials, just the ridiculous claim that such an
> accusation endangered British national security.
One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he did, every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
> I was just reading about this on the Guardian and BBC websites.
> Shocking stuff if it's true. The funniest thing was Tony Blair's
> defence: no denials, just the ridiculous claim that such an
> accusation endangered British national security.
One of his primary reasons for the lack of denial was that if he did, every alegation made from now on might require an answer.
Personally I think she might just be a bit gullable. Thinking her resignation claim might make a difference and inferring illegal bugging from a transcripted document.
To: [email protected]
From: some sort of intern
Subject: Transcript of communications to North Pole
S.Claus "Hello"
T.Fairy "It's me, is Mary there"
S.Claus "She's sleeping"
T.Fairy "What about the elves?"
S.Claus "I sacked them. I've got cheaper immigrant labour now."
T.Fairy "Can we meet up tonight?"
S.Claus "I dunno, It's risky"
T.Fairy "Pweeeaasse Santy Wanty, Toothy Woothy will sit on you lappy wappy."
S.Claus "Okay, meet you at little red riding house in ten."
T.Fairy "See you then."
S.Claus "Watch out, I hear there are wolves in the woods."
T.Fairy "MMmmm, What big teeth they have"
S.Claus "What are you implying, I thought you said size didn't matter to you!"
etc etc
Imagine the headlines!
To: [email protected]
From: some sort of intern
Subject: Transcript of communications to North Pole
S.Claus "Hello"
T.Fairy "It's me, is Mary there"
S.Claus "She's sleeping"
T.Fairy "What about the elves?"
S.Claus "I sacked them. I've got cheaper immigrant labour now."
T.Fairy "Can we meet up tonight?"
S.Claus "I dunno, It's risky"
T.Fairy "Pweeeaasse Santy Wanty, Toothy Woothy will sit on you lappy wappy."
S.Claus "Okay, meet you at little red riding house in ten."
T.Fairy "See you then."
S.Claus "Watch out, I hear there are wolves in the woods."
T.Fairy "MMmmm, What big teeth they have"
S.Claus "What are you implying, I thought you said size didn't matter to you!"
etc etc
Imagine the headlines!
So I supposed I was the only one yesterday who saw the UN statement that Annan's office was routinely swept for bugs and none were ever detected?
Face it, this is Claire Short going for the headlines again, just like her "if we go to war I'll resign" claim, notably the moment we went to war she didn't, er, resign.
Not surprising which publications and organisations are pushing the story though...same old, same old.
Face it, this is Claire Short going for the headlines again, just like her "if we go to war I'll resign" claim, notably the moment we went to war she didn't, er, resign.
Not surprising which publications and organisations are pushing the story though...same old, same old.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world?
>
>
> It might stop us doing it again. It might stop us undemining
> international institutions and international law. It might lead to
> the 'intelligence' services being held accountable for their actions.
true, but don't you think that there could be other ways to achieve these goals without embarrassing the country and endangered British national security? Perhaps all other methods had already been exhausted, but I still think that this could have been handled better.
> Simon Says wrote:
> What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world?
>
>
> It might stop us doing it again. It might stop us undemining
> international institutions and international law. It might lead to
> the 'intelligence' services being held accountable for their actions.
true, but don't you think that there could be other ways to achieve these goals without embarrassing the country and endangered British national security? Perhaps all other methods had already been exhausted, but I still think that this could have been handled better.
Simon Says wrote:
> What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world?
It might stop us doing it again. It might stop us undemining international institutions and international law. It might lead to the 'intelligence' services being held accountable for their actions.
> What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world?
It might stop us doing it again. It might stop us undemining international institutions and international law. It might lead to the 'intelligence' services being held accountable for their actions.
I'm not sure of the reprecussions of our bugging the UN, but it was Clare Short who blew the whistle on us again.
My question is why did she do it? What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world? Despite the fact that when she read transcripts of conversations collected by the intelligence services she was a member of the government and as such was bounds by the official secrets act I doubt she will see any legal reprecussions for her own actions because that might make her a martyr.
boo her. BOO !
My question is why did she do it? What good will it do the country to announce this to the whole world? Despite the fact that when she read transcripts of conversations collected by the intelligence services she was a member of the government and as such was bounds by the official secrets act I doubt she will see any legal reprecussions for her own actions because that might make her a martyr.
boo her. BOO !
I was just reading about this on the Guardian and BBC websites. Shocking stuff if it's true. The funniest thing was Tony Blair's defence: no denials, just the ridiculous claim that such an accusation endangered British national security.
Page: