# News Propaganda in the states

1. Mar 20, 2003

### heumpje

This week there were a number of microphones found in the conference rooms of a number of countries (france, germany etc) in a UN building. Apparantly (given the countries that were "bugged") the US government wanted to know what these countries were going to do in the security counsel voting. (it does show why the US and Britain didn't need to submit a new resolution to know what the voting would be)

My question is: are these reports known to the citizens of the US.?In other words is your government (or media) concealing these things or not. Do you think the media in the states are showing propaganda only?

Another question to answer would be: do you think that bugging is allowed in these matters.
Does the CIA (if it was the CIA) have the right to do these kind of things.

Last edited: Mar 20, 2003
2. Mar 20, 2003

### kat

This is 100% supposition. Has the U.S. come forward and claimed them? is there proof other then "it must be the evil U.S." assumptions? Otherwise, one could equally suppose that perhaps an Arabic country wanted to be sure they weren't being double dealt by France, germany etc. so please give me a break.
I don't think it took a rocket scientist or physics major to figure out that France intended to veto any resolution..under any conditions LOL I mean..really they stated it publicly

My question is: are these reports known to the citizens of the US.?In other words is your government (or media) concealing these things or not. Do you think the media in the states are showing propaganda only?These reports are known to me and I am in the U.S...It's hard to discern what is propaganda and what is not...perhaps the " bug" story is propaganda..lol, at any rate it's not concealed in the U.S.

Another question to answer would be: do you think that bugging is allowed in these matters.
Does the CIA (if it was the CIA) have the right to do these kind of things.
I don't believe it is "allowed" but it's certainly been prevelant in the past..by not only the U.S. but Russia, China etc. Do they have a right..evidently so...

3. Mar 20, 2003

### heumpje

Perhaps i should rephrase my question a bit since it is not intended as "see what the evil US are doing"

The reason i came with this question was a CNN report somewhere last week about this Al-
Qaida top person who supposedly had been tortured by American Intelligence forces (I DO NOT CLAIM HERE THEY ACTUALLY DID). It surprised me very much that they ( CNN reporters)were having a discussion about what if this were true and wheter this would be allowable under the given circumstances (i.e. in this case wheter it was allowable to torture people to get info on the current location of Bin Laden).
So forget the previous questions and please try to answer this one:

Is, in the current situation, EVERYTHING allowed to protect the interests of the US? By everything i also mean things which might be harmful for allies of the US.

4. Mar 20, 2003

### kat

Well..first of all I believe that the Al-queda (what the heck was his name?) "top person" was subjected to "sleep deprivation" I may be mistaken but I believe that was the deal.

But to answer whether "ANYTHING" is allowed ...I would reply with a definitive NO..There may be a lot of pushing against that line of "unacceptable"(which is often blurry..everywhere in the world) but I highly doubt they will cross it...if so I believe that public outrage would be loud and ominous.
I don't think much can really be hidden from the general public in this day of easy availability to international news online.

At the very least, this is my hope..I don't put anything out as "impossible" and I think that U.S. citizens should be monitoring their government at this time with the ...greatest of care.

5. Mar 20, 2003

### Njorl

Yes, we got that news here in the US.

Actually, you have some things wrong. There were no bugs found at the UN, there were wiretaps found at the EU headquarters (in Belgium I think). There is no information linking those taps to the US. It is much more likely that they are French or Russian though, not that the US wouldn't do it. It is just unlikely that the US taps would be found. The French and Russians are known for being reckless with their wiretaps, and being found out.

The business at the UN was supposed to be increased monitoring of microwave transmissions. Every nation with a consulate in NY monitors microwave transmissions from the UN. The US is just better at it than anyone else. Every large country has eavesdropping equipment in every embassy and consulate. The Russian embassy here in Washington bristles like a porcupine with antennae.

Every nation spies. Should the US be condemned for doing it well?

Njorl

6. Mar 20, 2003

### Zargawee

Re: Re: propaganda in the states

Arabic Country ?
Come On ! We never used UN for intelligince usage , But I'm almost sure that The US Do.

If we returned back in time , in about 1960 , the US Government used it's embassy in Egypt to Spy on it ( Even that most of the countries use this technique , But US What the first to use it ) , So I'm NOT surprised that Us might have Used UN To spy on It's allies ( France , Germany ...etc. ) .

He Is Osama Bin Laden ...

7. Mar 20, 2003

### Mr. Robin Parsons

Isn't the question really about propaganda in the U.S. as in do you really still have freedom of speech as per the media's ability to report on ANYTHING that they want to report on. and as per the 'Homeleand security' measures, I suspect not.

How else could it be missed from the newscasts that it was American policy (as Per American PUBLIC legislation) that pushed the Kurds into Saddam, who then used the poison gas that he had purchased from Lu$t corp to defend himself. That is an "old bully tactic", to start a fight! No Americans the people, for the greater part are not truly evil, but what there current administration is doing, IS! (Just my opinion!) 8. Mar 20, 2003 ### FZ+ Not 100%. Maybe 30% or 40%, but there are suggestions in that direction. eg: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1256938,00.html http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,905954,00.html 9. Mar 20, 2003 ### Alias Give it a few more days and there won't be any Iraqi leadership left to bug. 10. Mar 20, 2003 ### FZ+ Er... Alias, we are talking about alleged illegal bugging of UN security council members, not survelliance of the Iraqi leadership. (Which is, I think, allowed by the UN) 11. Mar 20, 2003 ### Alias Ooops! You're right! Sorry! Here's two cents... Isn't spying(bugging) one of those things that everyone does and is sort of okay as long as you don't get caught? 12. Mar 20, 2003 ### Njorl FZ, are you aware that those links you posted were for entirely different events? No bugs were found at the UN. Give it a couple more weeks and people will "remember" that there were bugs in the UN confirmed to have been planted by the CIA. Jeesh! Njorl 13. Mar 20, 2003 ### kat oh oh oh! what's that? not ALWAYS U.S.!?!?! Actually Fz..it was the EU that was bugged, as njorl mentioned above. And as I said earlier it is indeed 100%, yeah..100% supposition. http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/new...ug20.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/20/ixworld.html OOPS! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57510-2003Mar19.html [Broken] OMG, not always the U.S.! who woulda thought?! The wonder of it all! Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 14. Mar 20, 2003 ### Njorl The US has the freest press and the most protected speech in the world. In France, a newspaper can be shut down for insulting the government. In Britain and the nations of the former British commonwealth, you can be sued for libel even if you tell the truth. In Germany, you can be imprisoned for advocating Nazism. Admittedly, that last is not a bad restriction, but it is a restriction we don't have here. Some nations may equal our freedom of speech and our freedom of the press, but none surpass it. Have you read the editorials of the New York Times? The most critical source of news (that actually has credibility) is funded by the US government, NPR. Njorl 15. Mar 20, 2003 ### FZ+ I did say it was 40% supposition... But source 2 claims to be a leaked memorandum suggesting that the US will use wiretaps and other tricks to find out about the intentions of supposedly allied security council members. It didn't say bug their UN offices, but rather a "surge" towards acquiring information about the neutral 6 and other countries regarding the Iraq debate. The EU offices clearly provide a nexus for the transmission of information, and provide a logical target. The source provides evidence (albeit unconfirmed) about the intention of the NSA. Source 1 gives evidence that wiretaps have been found and suggests they are of US origin. (edit: Though this can be disputed, it is a possibility. There is insufficient details at present, and we don't quite know what prompted the original investigators to point the finger at the US, and why this is now dismissed. Though I speculate on the doublethink of Britain or France bugging their own lines...) Now the nations alleged to have been targetted all have critical views regarding Iraq. Ok, that's circumstancial evidence, but it suggests that the US considers it policy to use such methods. The two may also be linked, and the "irregularities" were noticed only recently, suggesting that the bugs may have become recently active. From http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/5436882.htm [Broken] The sources are also quite old, and rather not thanks to sudden "remembering". Kat's assertion it is 100% supposition is not correct. And wiretaps are illegal, no matter whether they are in the UN or EU offices. heumpje's initial post was inaccurate, but the matter still stands. Finally, the idea of long standing taps do link to the snippet in the OT: Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017 16. Mar 20, 2003 ### FZ+ Njorl: I agree. Somewhat interesting that Richard Perle, the well known nationalist, is now suing for libel in the UK where the more inconvenient parts of the US constitution won't get in the way. The problem is more that of focus. Newspapers are in it for the money. That's quite simple. But the newspapers outside the US tend to represent a larger slice of views than that of the US, simply because that is the basis of the political system. Perhaps this is an effect of the old bi-partisan system? Sameness of parties means some views simply don't get expressed. Though the press are free now, certain new laws eg. patriot act threaten that. It seems the idea of free speech is at risk of becoming another peice of collateral damage. Therein lies the threat. 17. Mar 20, 2003 ### kat Oh, please. http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4621231,00.html [Broken] Just because the timing of two seperate incidents are in close proximity does not mean that one is any proof of guilt for the other. On the one hand you have a memo speaking of "stepping" up activities but also mentioned excluding U.S. and Great Britian. On the other hand you have the discovery of actual wiretaps within the EU...with accompanying statements declaring that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT for any statements blaming the U.S. Where I come from anything laying guilt for the second incident on the U.S. when statements point towards other countries is the equivelant of speaking out of your A$\$ or in other words..100% supposition.
Apparently you're enjoying your bias too much to realize this...please continue I would not want to ruin your fun.

Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
18. Mar 20, 2003

### Mr. Robin Parsons

Nice opinion Norjl, a little erroneous, but well meant.

I live in one of those nations of the "former British commonwealth", (Canada) and you cannot be sued for libel for telling the truth, as a matter of fact, as long as you can prove that what you are saying is true, you can legally libel, and defame, a public figure!

Got that one a little 'd'ackwar'b's did Ya?

As for the most credible news source, there isn't one, as in singular, as all news agencies make mistakes, ergo it must take several to get any realistic scope of the news.

But apparently that is not what you follow, hence your positions??

19. Mar 21, 2003

### Njorl

Hmm,
Did Canada change it's libel laws? New Zealand and Australia have not. I seem to recall that even as late as the 1950's they were still the same as the British laws. I admit, I did not do an extensive search on Canadien Civil law before posting. I should have posted with less certainty.

Njorl

20. Mar 21, 2003