GCHQ and the NSA between them employ tens of thousands of people. I am bemused by the shock at the “revelation” they have been spying. What on Earth did journalists think that spies do all day? That includes electronics spies.
Since Katherine Gun revealed that we spy on other delegations – and the secretariat – within the UN building, it is hardly a shock that we spy on other governments at summits in the UK. For once, the government cannot pretend that the object is to save us all from terrorism, which is the usual catch all excuse. Nor in the real world is any of the G20 nations a military threat to the UK. The real truth of the matter is that our spies – GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 – are themselves a large and highly influential interest block within the state. Lots of people make a great deal of money out of the security state, and this kind of activity is actually simply an excuse for taking money from taxpayers – which is from everyone who has ever bought anything – and giving that money to the “security industry”.
I do not view spying on other governments as quite as despicable as spying on ordinary citizens, which is an unspeakable betrayal of the purpose of government. Spying on other governments is a game they all play to extort money each to their own security elites. But I will say that spying on the South African government seems pretty low. Why?
Interception of diplomatic communications is plainly a gross breach of the Vienna Conventions, even if the forms of communication have changed since they were drafted. I have never studied the particulars of international law as they relate to spying, but it seems to me an area that in the modern world needs regulation. There must be room here for the UN to be involved in preparing a Convention to outlaw the interception of international communications, with recourse to the International Court of Justice for those victim of it.
There is more work for the UN on Syria. We should all be grateful that Russia is holding out against the very dubious western claims that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. But while Obama can declare all the red lines he wishes, they do not give any country a right to take action on Syrian soil without UN authority. That needs to be restated, strongly. There is no basis at all for the continued and massive Israeli attacks on Syria – they are absolutely illegal. Israeli strikes have definitely killed more people than the alleged deaths from chemical weapons. Can someone explain to me why that is not a red line?
The UN Secretary General should be speaking out, and the UN Security Council should be meeting, to discuss the Israeli attacks on Syria. The system of international law has broken down irretrievably.
I think he’s a dissident, but will leave that judgement to others.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/23/boat-race-protester-trenton-oldfield-ordered-leave-uk
Now here’s a Breath of Fresh air. Spoken the Chambers of powers that be
Leaves the u.s yes men Speechless. They KNOW they are Guilty of ALL her Charges
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QIMucHfUMyg
“…the UN Security Council should be meeting, to discuss the Israeli attacks on Syria. The system of international law has broken down irretrievably.”
Is it surprising[
“Tzipi Livni, when serving as Israel’s foreign minister, had declared: “I’m a lawyer – and I’m against the law, international law in particular.”
Of course there are certain International laws which she would want to keep, especially the ones which are enabling Jews to receive billions in compensation from the Holocaust, however, she wouldn’t want those same International laws extended to the Palestinians as that would mean compensation FROM Israel TO Palestinians but of course that isn’t the same thing, is it !
Barrak Obamas visit to Ireland discussed in Irish Parliament and openly critised for Leading USAs’ foreign policy.
For those with serious cognitive bias issues, please have you no imagination for your know how?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=CnJCvKA-oEU&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DCnJCvKA-oEU
Brian and Jay. Yes I agree that Clare Daly is a breath of fresh air. I did put a link on two days ago saying:
‘Three cheers for Clare Daly. Must listen. On the Obama visit to Ireland. She calls him a war criminal. Can you see Bercow allowing similar in our ‘House of Commons’?
http://xrepublic.tv/node/3893
Here is the smooth Enda Kenny with the aforementioned war criminal.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama_and_Enda_Kenny_at_Farmleigh.jpg ‘
This is for the supporters of the Torah Party as Agent Cameron once referred to the Tory party.
June 23, 2013
“Outspoken Israel supporter” gets UK minister post
Imagine if British Prime Minister David Cameron had appointed a Muslim and self-confessed “outspoken supporter of Palestine” to a ministerial post and then went on to joke that there are so many Muslims in his ruling Conservative Party that it might as well be called “the Party of Muhammad”.
One doesn’t need to live in the UK to predict with confidence that there would be public outrage, with the media leading the charge.
Yet this is precisely what has happened, except that no Muslims are involved and there’s not a murmur from the British media.
/..
http://www.redressonline.com/2013/06/outspoken-supporter-of-israel-gets-uk-ministerial-post/
Ben Franklin, on Trenton Oldfield, I have to say your are right. He is a dissident. We need more of them in this country. I blogged about his courageous act against privilege last year likening him to Emily Davison.
“What is more distasteful from my perspective is the lack of competition in the annual university boat-race. There have been no elimination heats. Only two crews compete. It is a final without semi-finals. It is the ultimate in privilege from universities which promote and perpetuate privilege. Which brings me to the Aussie, Trenton Oldfield, currently serving a six months’ prison sentence for bringing last year’s boat race to a halt, at least for a while.”
http://johngossip.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/sinking-boat-race.html
@ Alec
“Of course there are certain International laws which she would want to keep, especially the ones which are enabling Jews to receive billions in compensation from the Holocaust,”
___________
On a point of information, do Holocaust reparations flow from international law as I believe most people would define the term – ie, UN sponsored law or international multilateral conventions or agreements to which states are free to adhere (or not) – or from bilateral agreements (an example of the latter being, in the case in point, the bilateral agreement between the FRG and Israel?
@ John Goss (and Ben Franklin)
Do your comments not again raise the question of the extent to which the legitimate right to dissent and protest encompasses the ‘right’ to disrupt?
As a side comment, I don’t see the relevance of pointing out that the boat race is a ‘bilateral’ affair between Oxford and Cambridge which by definition does not involves preliminary heats.
Tá gach duine ag labhairt Gaeilge ar an snáithe seo. Hmm Níl mé ádh go leor chun an teanga a labhairt, mar sin beidh mé cheat agus a úsáid Google aistriú. Is mian liom ar maidin maith a Dreoilín agus gach mo chairde na hÉireann 🙂 Agus Hooray do Clare Daly!
Habbabkuk, thanks for pointing Craig’s readers and comment-makers to my blog. I am sure they have the common-sense to agree or disagree without your directive skills, but if you missed it, the relevance is privilege. Imprisoning somebody for protesting against privilege is bad enough, but then trying to get the poor man deported, shows how regressive we have become as a nation. My latest blog might be of interest, since that too mentions the wrongful imprisonment of Professor Noli for taking an anti-fascist stance against the dictator Pinochet.
@ Mary (07h53)
Your post appears to conflate two seperate points , ie the desirability of one or several members of the Cabinet being self-declared ‘supporters of Israel (or for that matter any other nation or grouping or belief) and the reaction or lack of reaction to any such appointments or presence; the latter point itself consist of two subpoints, ie the lack of reaction to Cameron’s quip and the presence of Jewish ministers on the one hand and the predicted reaction of the UK media were the Cabinet to contain Muslim equivalents to Lord Livingstone.
On the first, it’s certainly proper that the facts should be known and they usually are: this is the case with Lord Livingstone and the other friends of Israel from whichever political party. I’m not sure however that the mere fact that someone is a supporter of another state should be enough to disbar him or her from public office or membership of the Cabinet; the real question is whether or not such support can be held as likely to divert the govt from its primary responsibility of upholding the interests of the state.
On the second, well, perhaps the media simply don’t think it’s much of a story. After all, the presence of people of the Jewish faith in the upper reaches of UK government is hardly a new phenomenon (and btw might have given rise to negative comment in the past when the phenomenon was newer), whereas the presence of Muslims is/would be. On the second sub-point, you may well be right, but the fact remains that you are hypothesising as the case has not arisen. On such evidence as is available, however – Keith Vaz, Baroness Warsi (Muslims both, but slender evidence, I’ll admit)- I don’t recall any negative comment.
The ‘profile’ of the tweeter says it all.
Steven Rattner @SteveRattner
Former head of Obama Auto Task Force. Wall Street financier. Contributing Writer to NY Times Op-ED. Morning Joe Economic Analyst.
New York · stevenrattner.com
@SteveRattner 17h
@ggreenwald is an advocate, not a journalist. Snowden is a criminal, not a whistleblower
My word. That was a fast response to my Torah party post from Redress. Hasbara calling.
The author was describing the make up of a political party of the United Kingdom, based in London, not the Knesset based in Jerusalem.
Union with evil is rewarded.
@ John Goss
That was a quick reply!
Is that what the man was protesting about – priviledge?
If so, what is priviledged about the Oxford-Cambridge boat race? The event is exclusive (in that it is between two univerities and two only), but does exclusiveness always equate with priviledge?
In any case, I think that my question about the extent to which protest and dissent can or should include the ‘right’ to disrupt has remained unanswered.
Re. deportation, yes that might well be seen as excessive punishment. But perhaps the state – as all states – see giving foreigners the right of abode on its territory as a priviledge, abuse of which renders the offender liable to having his priviledge withdrawn.
@ Flaming June
“The author was describing the make up of a political party of the United Kingdom, based in London, not the Knesset based in Jerusalem.”
________
I think my reply to your first post makes it clear that I understood that.
Do feel free to respond to my points in a more substantive manner if you feel up to it.
Lord Livingston of split loyalties, minister for the United Kingdom of Israel, unelected and without a mandate he should do well with his little helpers represented in every political party presently available to those few dependants and party addicts who still vote.
Vorwaerts mit den vereinigten British isles of Israel.
Yom Tov to you all.
For those of you who have not clicked on the links provided above and enjoyed the deep joy of Clare Daly in the Irish Parliament, I submit the following transcription of the highlight of a barnstorming speech:
…but is it not a reality that you have showcased us as a nation of pimps prostituting ourselves in return for a pat on the head? To be honest with you, we were really speculating this morning whether you were going to deck the cabinet out in leprechaun hats decorated with a bit of Stars and Stripes to really mark abject humiliation here…
The disgusting attempt to smear the Lawrence family took place in 1993 and onwards. The Prime Minister at the time was John Major and the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was Paul Condon from 1993 – 2000.
Did Condon know about it and sanction it? Most probably.
Will the investigation that Cameron has ‘demanded’ reveal any truths? Probably not.
Condon is deputy chairman of G4S according to Wikipedia but not on his register of interests. Perhaps he got out after the Limp Ics debacle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Condon,_Baron_Condon
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-condon/2171
Lawrence police smear claims: Cameron demands investigation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23026324
The spelling police will be after the chief troll. Separate not separate and privilege not priviledge AFAIK.
Oops separate and not seperate
Whenever certain commentators become particularly active, I always have a look to see what’s going on in the former British Mandate territory, now occupied by a demented theocracy…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23025865
Nothing changes, does it?
Oh,and Ian Livingston – thanks, Mary. There’s Cameron telling us how terribly strict he wants to be with tax evaders, and there’s Livingston….
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ian-livingston-new-fatcat-trade-1977086
As ex-CEO of BT, he may have been completely unaware of BT’s partnership with Bezeq.
British Telecom is partner to Israeli company Bezeq through the BT Alliance. Bezeq owns over 200 mobile phone coverage antenna (sic) for settlements throughout the West Bank. Through its subsidiary company Pelephone, Bezeq provides cellular and landline coverage to the army, check points and settlers through theoccupied Palestinian territories.
http://www.quaker.org.uk/files/Trade-with-Israeli-settlements-Updated-April-2013.pdf
But I doubt it.
Habbabkuk, as you have been more polite towards me recently I will answer your question.
If somebody breaks into RAF Waddington and smashes up the computers and electronic equipment that direct drones on behalf of the murderous USA, it is a criminal act of sabotage. It is also a highly moral act in that it stops people being unnecessarily killed. Sometimes morality is more important than the law. So the answer is yes. In certain circumstances it is moral to oppose the law and if disruption brings attention to a cause all the better.
65% of Guardian readership thinks that the Home Office is wrong in trying to have him deported. If he was a Muslim they would want him rendered, tortured and indefinitely imprisoned.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2013/jun/24/trenton-oldfield-boat-race-protest-visa
Off topic but topical:
Wimbledon tennis upon us again if you have £800 (cheapest) you can get a seat inside.
“Andy Murray hopes his success has helped the healing in Dunblane, his home town, after a shooting 17 years ago”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/
16 children and one teacher massacred but never mind – Andy Murray has been a success!
What a prat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/24/stephen-lawrence-family-smear-met
“Brian and Jay. Yes I agree that Clare Daly is a breath of fresh air.”
I don’t think so.
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/09/daly-s17.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/06/irel-j21.html
The Scourge a buffon as ever as I see.
I’m off to Wimbers next week and got my tickets for a reasonable £70. Tickets for this week were available for less than £50, but hey, you’re never one to let the facts get in the way of a misinformed rant.
John Goss 24 Jun, 2013 – 10:12 am
“65% of Guardian readership thinks that the Home Office is wrong in trying to have him deported”
It is shocking that, apparently, 35% of the readers who voted do agree with his deportation.
Perhaps it is an indication of how illiberal the guardian and it’s readership has become. Or perhaps it’s down to the ip switching software used by the propagandist trolls. Some of the guardian comments are so idiotic they could have been written by Havakak or Villager (may their souls rot in the dark).
On the dog walk I was thinking up titles for the new Lord Livingston when he dons his ermine.
Lord Livingston of Lod or Lydda (aka Ben Gurion airport) perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod
The crowing piece in the Times of Israel that prompted the Redress piece.
Surprise new UK trade minister is committed Jew, thinks Israel’s ‘amazing’
Ian Livingston, who revived telecom giant BT, handpicked by Cameron for unpaid ministerial position, seat in House of Lords
http://www.timesofisrael.com/surprise-new-uk-trade-minister-is-committed-jew-thinks-israels-amazing/
The Times of Israel, an oeuvre of UK born and Israel based David Horovitz and funded by US citizen Seth Klarman.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/about/
@ Phil
“..they could have been written by Havakak or Villager (may their souls rot in the dark).”
_________
You mean like the people rotting away in Gitmo, like?
Chump!