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.
“Iceland is a NATO country’ I thought of that, Dreoilin. What really pisses me off is the lawyer/journo campaign to lynch him. The young man’s life is essentially at an end. Where can he go and feel safe. GG moved to Brazil because it’s more friendly to his sexual preference and his partner. I don’t know how he can be safe there. I don’t know of any place Snowden can truly feel safe.
“Indeed, there is a telling irony surrounding Snowden’s adventure, which is that at the same time he was turning 30, a well-known Iraqi war veteran, Dan Somers, also 30, committed suicide.
In his detailed note, he explained how years of trying to cope with and make amends for having participated in the killings of numerous Iraqis, many of them (according to him) involving war crimes, the guilt and the psychic pain of the violence he committed proved too much. As he wrote, commenting on his relatively privileged life upon returning from his last Iraqi tour of duty:
“The fact is that any kind of ordinary life is an insult to those who died at my hand. How can I possibly go around like everyone else while the widows and orphans I created continue to struggle? If they could see me sitting here in suburbia, in my comfortable home working on some music project they would be outraged, and rightfully so.”
There is a clear line between the activities in which Snowden participated as an NSA analyst and contractor, which ultimately drove him from a life of even greater luxury than Somers into self-imposed exile, and that of the Iraqi war vet. Snowden understands that whatever the claims of protecting America, the surveillance and spying activities in which he either participated or learned about ultimately produce injustice and, almost assuredly, the spilling of innocent blood.”
http://thebricspost.com/the-questions-no-one-is-asking-the-nsa/#.UcnWzuDTKFJ
“Edward Snowden is still at the transit area of Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport, Putin stressed. He said that any accusations against Russia are “nonsense and rubbish,” as the former NSA contractor “has not crossed” the Russian border.
The President also pointed out that there is no extradition treaty between Russia and the US, which makes it impossible to extradite people like Snowden.”
http://rt.com/news/putin-snowden-moscow-extradition-220/
Ben, your point taken in the right spirit.
Re your point about duplicate souls, i’m surprised that you are only the second person to have commented on Kibo/Sofia’s sock puppeting. Its indicative of the lack of objectivity here.
I do believe that Kibo should continue to post (though am surprised of the lack of notice by the moderator, Jon), but she may have volunteered an apology. Hence, a lack of grace here is taken for granted. And imho that includes as Technicolour put it “‘the person I disagree with’s brother in law is Jewish’’ stuff and the sheer relentless volume of it.
I’ve stopped being romantic about like-minded souls, especially when certain people feel they have the prerogative to own the compassion towards injustice in the world space. Moreover are suspicious of other people’s motives. Its a divisive world and i observe exactly the same conflicts here. We are not superior. Not by a long shot.
But that does not mean that there can be more civility, objectivity and grace. Only each of us can take responsibility.
Villager; Thanks. I’m not condemning people who rise to the bait, I’ve done it myself. Times are stressful and nerves are raw. Just like nicking a finger when working in your garden; salve it and move on. Keep gardening.
“As for the jokes, if they happen to come by-and-by woven into civilised conversation, i’m all for it!”
Villager, way back, (before Mary, before Habbabkuk, and I think before Komodo) we had some good laughs here. MJ and Glenn_Uk and Vronksy and Suhayl, and various others, were occasionally very witty, and then Suhayl would go off and make tea for us all. The laughs didn’t in any way take from the seriousness of the various topics that came up. But I remember often going to bed with a silly grin on my face.
Yes, the laughs are welcome. 🙂
————–
“What really pisses me off is the lawyer/journo campaign to lynch him. The young man’s life is essentially at an end. Where can he go and feel safe. GG moved to Brazil because it’s more friendly to his sexual preference and his partner. I don’t know how he can be safe there. I don’t know of any place Snowden can truly feel safe.”
Agreed, Ben. And even if he felt safe for a little while, he’ll always be looking over his shoulder. I don’t think I could live like that. And some idiots in the media are now suggesting that Greenwald should be arrested for “aiding and abetting”??
But Greenwald is well able for them.
I’m sure you’ll have seen the David Gregory/Glenn Greenwald altercation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xObacZAPk8w&feature=youtu.be
The Doughnut cost £337m. It was yet another PFI project with a life of 30 years and an ultimate cost of £1.2bn.
‘Post Cold War
Since 1994, GCHQ activities have been subject to scrutiny by Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee. Post-Cold War, the aims of GCHQ were set out by the Intelligence Services Act 1994.[26]
At the end of 2003, GCHQ moved to a new circular HQ (popularly known as ‘the Doughnut’): at the time, it was the second-largest public-sector building project in Europe, with an estimated cost of £337 million.[27] The new building, which was designed by Gensler and constructed by Carillion,[28] is the base for all of GCHQ’s Cheltenham operations.
The public spotlight fell on GCHQ in late 2003 and early 2004 following the sacking of Katharine Gun after she leaked to The Observer a confidential email from agents at the American National Security Agency addressed to GCHQ agents about the wire-tapping of UN delegates in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.[29]’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters
~~
http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/gchq/
Dreoilin; I was watching MTP and when Gregory asked that question i audibly cried OMG !. GG must have anticipated the question, because he threw it right back in the hack’s face.
It was an archetypal moment in journoolism.(sic)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23045790
The rope-a-dope continues. Will we ever hear from him again?
Interesting video in which a former manager at HSBC provides evidence which he claims shows that they’re a criminal organization:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35408.htm
We know that they were convicted of money laundering last year and there are further allegations now emerging in Argentina:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21840052
What of states. We see increasing activity by states that undermine the view they wish to present of themselves, everything from lying to mass slaughter of innocents purely for financial profit.
If states, like banks, were little more than fronts for criminal activity, where would be be then?
What’s the appropriate response to that situation?
Is it, as Habby so regularly exhorts, Conservatively grin and bear it or is a more active role demanded?
‘Grin and bear it’ has worked so well for us, so far.
Hymn in Praise of Laughs on this Blog
I’m all for the laughs.
And not for trivial reasons. Laughter is a response to the cruelty of this universe that shows that, despite everything, you are not beaten. Laughter is subversive, the last act of rebellion. That’s why humour flourishes in despotic and repressive regimes. It’s an act of defiance. Anyone notice how a tyrannical boss cannot abide it when the staff start to make jokes in the boardroom? It’s because you can’t laugh and be scared at the same time and if you are not scared the boss’s power evaporates. Earlier on the thread there was discussion about the film Life is Beautiful, which essentially tried to make a comedy set in a concentration camp. Despite the critical success it enjoyed, I thought it was rubbish, and failed in its aim because it had to depict the camps in a watered down version in order to even attempt jokes. But in the real camps they did make jokes. The blackest imaginable. But they did. I find that fact profound. This country comes in for a lot of stick on this blog, and almost all of it richly deserved, but one thing I do like about Britain and Ireland is how people don’t take themselves too seriously, are able to laugh at themselves, their country and institutions. Frankly this is pretty rare elsewhere on this globe. Apart from Oz and NZ I don’t think I’ve been anywhere where it is safe to joke about the country. I don’t believe for a second the jokes undermine or detract from the seriousness of the issues discussed here. They demonstrate that we are human and we are still fighting. That we are, as the Gestapo wrote across the mug shot of Einstein in their catalogue of wanted criminals, ‘Not hanged yet.’ That’s funny too.
Insurance –
Snowden hid copies of secret NSA documents in case something happens to him
http://rt.com/usa/snowden-greenwald-encrypted-copies-227/
“Greenwald, the Guardian reporter who first began publishing National Security Agency documents earlier this month after meeting with the former intelligence contractor, told journalist Eli Lake that Snowden made arrangements to ensure others around the world have encrypted copies of that information should any circumstances allow the data or its source to be compromised …
“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said. “I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”
King, thank you for that very eloquent Hymn.
Hi all – ceasefire please!
As I may have mentioned in the past, moderation here is very light, at Craig’s request. However the dynamic has changed over the last year or so, and the genesis of why is quite often hard to untangle. Could I put in a request for people to accept that, in the past, some discussions have gotten out of hand, and harsh words have been spoken. That need not provoke a tit-for-tat exchange, since that will only keep it going.
Reluctantly, I will have to zap posts that are for the exclusive purpose of provocation. I should be most grateful if on old threads someone would pick a topic and invite civil discussion, or offer their thoughts on newer ones. I am sure we can get back to the old, enquiring, liberal spirit that we used to have here!
Best wishes to all.
Kibo, if you’re around and want to raise your questions again, i’ll be around sometime tomorrow and will endeavour to answer them, I did sense that you were genuine in your request and i’ll answer in the same spirit. I was about to answer earlier, just when you hanged your self/cover. Are you curious how i figured it out?
Meantime pleasant evening all, let the younger generation: Snowden, Assange, Manning (SAM) inspire a positive influence on Uncle Sam.
Timely intervention Jon. I would have been biting my tongue all the way to bed, in an attempt to stick to what I said to Technicolour.
“I am sure we can get back to the old, enquiring, liberal spirit that we used to have here!”
Absolutely.
Jon, thank you for your best wishes and they are reciprocated.
But don’t don’t you think you could have the common decency to respond to my questions about recent sock-puppeting? I am not deliberately trying to provoke you, even when one of those nyms was set up deliberately to provoke another commenter. I’d like to see clarity in your light touch and also see you walk the talk.
@ JON (Moderator)
1.”However the dynamic has changed over the last year or so, and the genesis of why is quite often hard to untangle.”
The dynamic may have changed because of the arrival of commenters who refuse to be corralled into whatever the groupthink of the moment is. And commenters who raise their voice to question the substance, tone or relevance of others’ comments. Or even commmenters who object to the notion – subtly propagated by certain posters – that every Israeli (and even every Jew) has horns and a forked tail.
If you want this blog to consist solely of a closed circle of people with the same takes on everything, in other words, if you wish to exclude the dissidents from the dissidents’ circle, then please come out in the open and say so. And also run it past Craig, please.
2.”Reluctantly, I will have to zap posts that are for the exclusive purpose of provocation.”
That would be an easy excuse for imposing a pensée unique if you’re so inclined.
I imagine you have neither the time nor the inclination to follow in detail each and every ‘exchange’ (understandable).
You’ll forgive me for questioning your motives and for suspecting that you’re looking for an easy fix.
Reflect a little, in the light of numerous recent examples on how a typical ‘exchange’ gathers momentum: Person A – self-indulgently posts a snide little piece (usually a quotation) about what Kate Middleton is wearing or on the latest turpitude of one of the great and the good or on the business connections of someone in a thread on something entirely different and unconnected. Person B – let’s say me – asks for the relevance of Person A’s post or points to one or more elements of silliness in that post. What then happens is that Person A refuses to answer – which is equivalent to declining all responsibility for what he /she has posted, but that Persons C, D and E immediately rush in to pour a bucket of shit over Person B (and often in the crudest possible way – cf “Habbacunt” or “Habbakyke” – “kike”(=Yid), got it??). Person B – that’s me, in this example – will then naturally be tempted to respond once again.
If you accept this description, you would do better to focus your efforts at censorship on ensuring that people stay on topic and/or censoring Persons C, D and E. One way of doing that might be to create – as a couple of people have already suggested – an omnium thread which you can call whatever you like (I suggest ‘Miscellaneous’ or, perhaps more appropriately, ‘Ragbag’) where people can post whatever comes into their heads; and if they fail to do so you can transfer their posts from elsewhere to that thread.
That might be a better way of recovering the ‘old, enquiring, liberal spirit’ you remind us of. Assuming, of course, that you really believe in “enquiry” (which includes asking questions, I think) and the “liberal spirit” (which is the opposite of the pensée unique unless I’m mistaken).
Now that was a clear statement, without sensationalism or snark. If you employed that style more often, I’m sure it would be rewarded with some feedback. That doesn’t mean everyone will respond to your comment. If you feel ignored it may not have anything to do with the content, as many of my comments seem to go unnoticed, as do those of others. If you want to be accepted into a community there is a non-verbal social contract; the same one you encounter when having a face-to-face discussion. We are not here to be entertained or to have our egos massaged. I would like to see more humour and light-heartedness because it provides some solace to the sad times in which we live. But I am not going to demand it, as though this were my personal escape mechanism. But to end on a positive note, I will repeat; Keep it up Old Chap. See if we can have disagreement without inciting to riot.
Habbabkuk,
Long before you arrived here this blog featured many different and opposing views,so dont assume your arrival suddenly challenged what you denote as ‘groupthink’.The blog was always open to a wide body of opinion.
If you object to offensive terms such as ‘Habbabkyke’-which i fully agree is unacceptable-then why do you refer to Mary as Old Biddy? You cant have it both ways,unless hypocrisy serves your aims here.
Secondly,you have recently complained of some posters patronising you.Now thats a bit rich from someone who is frequently gloating about their self-declared intellectual superiority.
So my points are simple.Abide by the same standards that you demand of others or you just end up looking like a hypocrite
I don’t say this lightly, but I believe a banning is going to be as necessary as fumigation to a household rife with pests.
I find myself in complete agreement with Ben Franklin, in his comment at 1:05am. He puts the case ( unusually for him 😉 ) so comprehensibly, powerfully and succinctly, that his earnest plea from the colonies surely cannot easily be ignored. What puzzles me is how it has been allowed to go on for so long -there is light laid-back moderation and then there is abdication, bordering on culpable nonchalant insouciance, as defined in the Factories Act (amended). Events have been useful in identifying the ringleader’s overt and the more subtle allied disruptors and disinfo practitioners and similarly misguided parrots of bogus holoow mainstream narratives, tools and fools bought in return for some tawdry baubles, the rpice their humanity, but it has gone on for so long and has passed beyond tedious, we know them now by their many hallmarks and signs and can spot them a country-mile off. I cannot help being reminded of late comedienne Linda Smith’s quip on the subject of Norman Stanley (Jeffrey) Archer: “I’m not happy with him having the oxygen of oxygen”. And it bears saying that it goes without saying that I, I would never stoop to coarse insults, not even slipping weaky obfuscated ones in under the watchful ears and ever alert listening eyes of the mods or for that matter any rockers minding the shop. Failure to ban them can only be seen as arming them, fortifying them, there is still another way to stop this rot:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/DNFTT#unoonqhx-fhpxf-qbaxrl-qvpx
For the old-fogeys, the creaky jointed over-thirties, rather than DNFTT the expression ‘sent to Coventry’ might be more comprehensible to you than these new fangled so-called acronyms – introduced only as an emergency measure, during the printing ink shortages that characterised the winter of discontent – and never yet repealed AFAIK.
ATTENTION JON-MOD
On sub-topic.
With Snowden on the run and Assange holed up in the Ecuadorean embassy for daring to shed light on how power is wielded by those in control, I am disappointed to observe the profound irony at what I am witnessing on the comments section of this blog.
It appears that you have “zapped” my comment at 7.50pm. By zapped, I believe you mean deleted as a form of censorship. No particular explanation required, apparently.
The comment was addressed to the most active commentator and her bodyguards on this blog, and it contained no offensive words but a relevant link to wikipedia that describes a psychological phenomenon – enlightening, I thought. For that, you have selectively brought down the heavy hand of censorship that I thought was once the exclusive practice of The Guardian, and other noble publications. Will this post survive its first 24 hours before being ‘droned’? Voltaire might have hoped that it does. And given our prior exchanges, I can’t help but wonder if this is a dish belatedly served cold to me.
Certainly, standards should be upheld on this blog to maintain a productive activity and to that extent I once entertained an idea that I had yet to share – one involving setting up a permanently open page titled ‘Code of Conduct’ with comments serving to guide its construction and improvement. It was to contain an enumerated list of principles and dos-and-don’ts that could be tersely quoted by commentators for self-regulation. Given the nature of how things have transpired, I doubt it could ever see the back light of your monitor.
Some relevant reading for those interested in group dynamics as they often appear on web forums :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_narcissism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory#Ingroup_favoritism
Hopefully, not to be “zapped” (arbitrarily censored without reference to any code).
@ JON (moderator) and all others who believe on free expression:
My post of last night, in which I defend myself against Jives’s accusations (cf 23h28) in a most reasonable manner, appears to have been deleted.
I note however that Cryptonym’s message of support to Jives is still on the board. I assume that that message will now also be deleted?
_________
If the moderator must delete posts, it would be helpful if he left notice of said deletion on the thread and gave a brief reason for why he deleted. This would ensure transparency and enable readers to verify his impartiality.
PS – I also wonder how damaging to Craig’s reputation the selective censorship and suggested banning will be. It will not be without foundation that his critics can describe his blog as one that deletes comments and bans posters that do not meet the purpose of its agenda. What do you think Karimov’s PR flunkies will make of it?
And if there really is to be any banning of commentators, please let me be the first one. I will wear it as a badge of honour.
@ JON (MOD) and all those who believe in free speech (DREOILIN etc)
Unless I’m greatly mistaken (and I would be happy to be corrected), a post yesterday from DREOILIN, in which she refers to my “filetting” of our friend Komodo (see my post at 13h22 yesterday), also appears to have been deleted (without any indication and without a reason having been given).
Confirmation, please.
@ Jemand
I very much hope to be proved wrong, but the process will be more subtle.
No-one will be banned, but all comments from certain posters who question the line taken by a number of select and favorite commenters (first and foremost, Mary) will simply be deleted withyh greater or lesser speed. In other words, after a certain time (which may be minutes or hours) those comments will be as if they had never been.
Much more subtle and effective. Cf. Orwell’s “1984” and how history is dealt with in Oceania.
Error in the 2nd line, which should have read :
“…all comments from certain posters WHICH question the line taken…”
(In other words, comments which echo the party line will of course be allowed to stand.)
Here’s some advice for volunteers:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/53789685/Hasbara-Handbook-Promoting-Israel-on-Campus
From page 9.
“How To Score Points Whilst Avoiding Debate”
“Central to point scoring is the ability to disguise point scoring by giving the impression of genuine debate …whilst attacking…attempting to cultivate a dignified appearance.”
There’s another 122 pages but I have a life to lead..
Can anyone post a link for advice to professionals. If possible short.
Thanks.