President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know how delegates were going to vote.
I can hardly wait to hear what the defense of this is going to be. Do you think they will use the tactic of total denial or that 9-11 changed everything and that the old rules no longer apply?
How can we possibly go to these people and ask them to support our national policies when we betray their trust by wiretapping them? Who is advising this president? Perhaps he has a medium in the White House who keeps Richard Nixon on tap for Georgie to go to for advice.
I have to believe that the rift between he and his father will be irreperable after this. I thought that I could not be surprised anymore but I am absolutely amazed!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm a first-time visitor to your blog (indirectly via Tim Blair I guess). When I read your post I had two quick reactions:
ReplyDelete1 - SOURCES - I did a quick search on Google News and (at the time of writing this comment) only ONE website is talking about this story. One. It's the same rawstory.com site you link to - have you seen the rest of their site? Not exactly a sober unbiased news source. I always plug snippets of hot/suspect/too-good-to-be-true stories into Google and seeing what kind of sites are distributing the story - seeing the number of and type of sites that repeat a story can reveal a lot about the quality of a story. I'm going to wait until a more reputable news service talks about this one before I consider getting excited about it. I suggest you do the same.
2 - YAWN - on the other hand, if it's true it's not really that surprising. You don't really think the US is the only government that spies on the UN security council do you? I would be ASTONISHED if all members of the UNSC (and other non-UNSC countries) don't try to find out what goes on behind closed doors at the UN, or any other transnational body. Spying on foreign diplomats is basic statecraft, whether at the UN or at embassies etc. What part of this story genuinely shocks or displeases you? Would you be just as appalled if it was revealed that the French spied on UN diplomats too? You can bet they do. Anyone involved in government knows this sort of thing goes on all the time - why should the UN be exempt?
So given those two reactions, my response to your rhetorical question:
Do you think they will use the tactic of total denial or that 9-11 changed everything and that the old rules no longer apply?
Spying on diplomats IS the old rules, I for one would be much more surprised and shocked by a story that revealed that the US (or any other major power) was NOT spying on foreign (even allied) diplomats. I personally would regard such a policy of not-spying-on-diplomats as bordering on dereliction of duty, but feel free to argue the case for a change to the way things are done. Maybe the UN should be somehow exempt from being spied on - but don't just assume this, argue it.
All the best,
Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com
(can't be bothered registering with blogger) :-)
Didn't we hear like a year ago that Kofi Annan was tapped- but that it had to do with the Food For Oil Program?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the UN is going to be too happy about this- I bet they already knew...
Spying on the UN is the OLD rules ? WHAT? I am sorry but I have to say that sounds very interesting and well, rather Russian ? I am puzzled..but as far as I know ...no spying on UN Diplomats is not okay, or diplomatic, and sorry but I don't know how Legal...perhaps there are some folks in Geneva we should present this to....they might not be thrilled...( and there are some folks in geneva that are not thrilled with George and his actions at home and abroad..sorry)...oh and here's a thought that the UN was set up to improve Relations and I don't think spying helps ANY diplomatic relationships...( now what do I know jus' a dum american...but ...)
ReplyDeleteDamn, Iwas going to make the two obvious points, and seee that I've been beaten to it.
ReplyDelete1. This story is probably false; Raw Story's hit rate is about 20 percent; and
2. It's funny how people get all bent out of shape when a country gets caught sping. EVERYBODY SPIES ON EVERYBODY ALL THE TIME. And everybody in the international community understands that. You speak of old rules. The OLDEST rule is that THERE ARE NO RULES. The #1 priority of the American government is to protect the interests of the American people. They had damn well better be out there spying their asses off!
OK enough of that. Nice to see an Alaskan blogger!
- Alaska Jack
How can we possibly go to these people and ask them to support our national policies when we betray their trust by wiretapping them?
ReplyDeleteGiven the complete moral and political bankruptcy of the U.N., a better question is why we should go hat-in-hand for their support for our national policies at all. The U.N. is the most venal, corrupt, arrogant, incompetent, and outright cowardly organization on earth. Oil for Palaces? 'Peacekeepers' raping children? The 'Conference on Racism?' The refusal to call the genocide in Sudan genocide, let alone lift a finger to stop it?
It never ceases to amaze me how the left can go into paroxysms of righteous fury about Haliburton picking up a reconstruction contract while the U.N.'s most egregious misbehavior puts nary a dent in their awed reverence for Turtle Bay.
Hey I am not an apologist for the U.N.!
ReplyDeleteI just think that treating them like an adversary might end up biting using the ass. And it is morally repugnant. And I don't care if everybody does it.
There may come a time when our allies in the U.N. become very important to us.
I just think that treating them like an adversary might end up biting using the ass.
ReplyDeleteWhy? How?
And it is morally repugnant.
Why? How? Seriously - how is it morally repugnant to spy on the UN? Nations spy on allies all the time. Feel free to argue that this shouldn't happen anymore, but right now you're not arguing this position, you're merely asserting it. This is unconvincing to those of us that accept spying as not just a fact of life but a necessary one (for example, without spying the Cuban missile crisis would have been a LOT worse).
And I don't care if everybody does it.
You seriously want the US to be the first to give up spying? Why? How would that work? What is it about spying that makes you want to hand such an advantage to US enemies and competitors?
You do know that it was inadequate spying was responsible for both September 11 and the whole no-WMD-in-Iraq issue, right? Most people are calling for BETTER intelligence, not for the scrapping of spying! Why should the UN be exempt? Explain it to me as if I don't already agree with you.
There may come a time when our allies in the U.N. become very important to us.
They are important to the US now. That's WHY the US spies on them! These allies "spy" (or at least keep tabs) on the US as well - it's just the way it is. Obviously the more close and trusted the ally is the less spying is required. But the UN hardly qualifies as a close and trusted ally of the US.
I can't decide if your shock at the US spying on the UN is either phony indignation out of political bias or you really had no idea such things happen. I'm not sure which possibility is more... shocking! :-)
All the best,
Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com