Slashdot Mirror
Technical Glitch Lets Reporters Eavesdrop On Obama, Sarkozy
Hugh Pickens writes "BBC reports that a technical glitch allowed reporters to listen in on a private conversation between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and US President Barack Obama, made in a backroom meeting at the G20 summit, treating listeners to a rare insight into the importance of personal relationships in international politics. 'I can't stand him any more,' said Mr. Sarkozy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 'He's a liar.' Mr. Obama replied: 'You're sick of him. I have to deal with him every day!' According to Reuters, the two presidents were apparently 'unaware that the microphones in their meeting room had been switched on, enabling reporters in a separate location to listen in to a simultaneous translation.' The reporters made 'a group decision... not to report the conversation as it was considered private and off-the-record,' but Arrets Sur Images, a French website that covers current affairs, got wind of the exchange and broke the story."
Journalism becomes espionage when leaders expect privacy and technology is applied to eavesdrop.
Journalism becomes nothing but PR when journalists don't report a story because they overheard something that 'was considered private and off-the-record'.
Was this a glitch or was this done on purpose, by the way?
Also this shows the insanity - Obama says Netanyahu is a liar (as if Obama or Sarcozy are not liars), and all of these liars are up there, dealing the cards of nations.
Do you trust any of these people? If you do - you are insane.
Obama will start a war with Iran. Any other candidate will except for two: Ron Paul (and Gary Johnson probably wouldn't either).
It's tiring that all these liars are on top and making all these decisions for nations and economies, etc. Take the power back from them.
You can't handle the truth.
Other news organizations conspire to hide what happened, Fox will delight in showing what happened.
Bias all around. Did you expect anything else?
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
There is a huge difference between being anti semetic and being anti zionist. The Palestinians being ethnically cleansed by Israel are also semetic. Sarkozy was not wrong (in this case).
It's politics - we'll never know!
The BBC article suggests that reporters were told not to plug headsets into the translation reception devices and, of course, did so anyway.
Another article (Dutch) suggests that reporters were given the devices and told that they would receive headsets later - some decided to plug in their own (didn't want to wait? didn't want to use other headphones? who knows).
Regardless, it was apparent that all of the reporters were getting the French translation of the discussion that took place (according to the Dutch article).
Which of course implies that not only were the microphones in that office open, but translators were active at that time to translate that which was discussed into French.
What actually transpired? Well, who cares, really.
At least two world leaders are now somewhat on the record as to their disdain of Netanyahu. On the other hand, that disdain doesn't matter. Berlusconi is still in office (for now, announced he's leaving in 2 weeks) despite having grossly insulted world leaders of pretty much every nation. If they can't even really deal with him, what hope would they have of dealing with the Israelis? If they even wanted to.
I think it's possible to dislike their PM without wanting them destroyed. I disliked Bush, but it didn't make me unamerican.
Moreover, this is two politicians talking. Why do we assume that they were being honest with each other?
Ethnically cleansed my ass. They're jordanian, with a mix of egyptian and syrian.
Om, nomnomnom...
I'm Canadian too, and I have no idea what you mean when you say "We really hate the French".
Perhaps you shouldn't speak for a whole nation, when you're merely speaking for yourself, or your peer group?
I grew up in Southern Ontario, in a small community without a single Quebecer or French person around for hundreds of miles. I now live in Quebec, and (clearly) have no problem with "the french". I moved here because I live in the Capital region, and I can get an acre of land, 20 minutes from downtown Ottawa, surrounded by farmland, for 1/2 the price of a home on the Ontario side!
I do have issues with *some* french people, but I also have issues with *some* people from a broad spectrum of society.
I think what you really hate are 1) mostly quebec politicians and 2) dumbasses that happen to be french.
Suck it up buddy. #1 and #2 exist in every culture group, and language group, and genetic group, worldwide. ;)
It suggests that even politicians loath politicians and find their company insufferable.
When Country B is carved from the heart of Country A, and Country B is admitted to the UN, but Country A cannot because they can't learn to be civil with being deprived of their homes, property and liberty. Further, Country B builds settlements in the remaining occupied lands of Country A, despite it being viewed universally as an illegal act. So after a lot of tit for tat and really never getting anywhere with peace talks, Country A decides to press its case for recognition in the same forum which recognises Country B. Country B and its bigger mate, Country C, both get all excited and claim this would not be a good thing and not in the interests of peace talks (which haven't yielded anything in about 30 years.) Country A gets recognised by UNESCO, overwhelmingly and Country B is apoplectic, while its mate, Country C, claims this was a grave error and withdraws its tuppence of support for UNESCO. Country B strikes back by authorising even more settlements in occupied territories claimed by Country A.
Honestly. Country B and its leader would normally be shunned and subject to many and various sanctions sponsored by Country C, but only if it were any other country in the world, or so it seems. The situation is preposterous and the logic is broken. Sarkozy identified the elephant in the room. Even Obama recognised how problematic it can be. When will there be a candid talke and recognition that Israel is more often the villain and things should be set right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
The answer to that is simple. The voting bloc Israel represents is huge. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy - in fact, I'm certain that there isn't - but politics is very us-vs-them and Obama has no interest in being one of "them". He wants strategic ambiguity and anything that could be deemed a slight or an insult would break that ambiguity.
Even in this case, he was reluctant to say anything overt. His brief statement had the air of plausible denial over its meaning. It may let him claim to both camps that he's on their side. That would be very much like Obama.
Remember, when he wants to be insulting, there's no question about it. Obama has very openly insulted the British on numerous occasions and has made it clear that he sees nothing special about the Anglo-American relationship. Indeed, such was his level of gross abuse on his various visits that it's safe to say Britain ranks about on-par with Pakistan at this point in his eyes. Usable but expendable, with Britain being the more expendable of the two right now.
The tactics used in this case were much more cleverly crafted, so Obama places a far greater value on Israel and its view of the world. Just as with Britain, though, it's not out of compassion or understanding, it's a calculation. It would not surprise me if this whole stunt was a calculation. But what was he calculating and who was the broadcast really aimed at?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They have rational leadership? Is that why apparently everyone thinks he's an asshole? Wouldn't a rational leader try to gain the trust of important world leaders? Is that why he can't establish peace even with the most powerful nation on Earth on his side? And by what definition is a theocracy a form of rational leadership?
A lot of the leadership in the middle east was installed by the U.S. I mean, I think it's kind of hypocritical for the U.S. to put an insane restaurant owner in charge of Afghanistan and then complain about a lack of rational leadership.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
"What someone doesn't want you to publish is journalism; all else is publicity. "
I find that statement to be pretty naïve. Good journalism is synonymous with good judgment.
In this case, even assuming that Obama's and Sarkozy's statements were genuine, they obviously seemed to be personal opinions and had little relevance to actual foreign policy. What if Obama was simply lying about his opinion of Netanyahu to amuse and placate Sarkozy? What's the public benefit to reporting such pleasantries?
But more importantly, how can you be so sure what the administration "doesn't want you to publish"? What if the statement was meant to be overheard, and even leaked, as a red herring to put pressure on Netanyahu during some upcoming talk? Then the journalist is simply being duped into acting as an indirect mouthpiece of the administration.
Good journalists don't just print stuff because they think they overheard it. That's why they're called "journalists" and not "tattle-tales."
Breakfast served all day!
Your logic is flawed as their was never Country A. There was Empire A's mandate under the UN that included land that Country B was formed out of. When Country B was created, all the country's around it decided to try to drive them into the sea rather then work to create separate Country A and Country B. Also add in the Country A's people's traditional homeland was in the western part of Country J, not where Country A / B is. Do forget that Country B's neighbors would rather have Country A's people living without a country as it provides the dictatorships in these countries with issue to inflame their own populace away from the general crappiness of these countries.
Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....
That's right. Some of us have evolved beyond such primitive territorial quarrels. We tend to get annoyed at the societies that are still shedding blood over imaginary lines on a piece of paper.
Israel, on the other hand, is still living in the past, fighting a tired old war where the only way it could ever end is by having one side completely genocide the other. Winner gets a mound of dirt covered in the rotting dead flesh of their vanquished enemies. Israel vs Palestine, Iran vs Iraq, Sudan vs South Sudan... Brother vs brother. If they can't put in the effort to bury their grandparents' feuds for the greater good, then why should we be putting any effort into helping them ?
If I were Sarkozy, well I'd probably kill myself for being such a turd. But if I were any other UN member leader, I'd tell the Israeli PM to go fuck himself. We have enough irresponsible leaders in the developed world, we don't need to recruit the morally bankrupt ones.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Yea, trying to portray Israel as a villain only works in a vacumn....
People B left their land for a variety of reasons during Roman times. People A (The ones who stayed behind and are provably very close genetic relatives of People B) continued living there under various foreign rulers for over a thousand years during which they abandoned the religion they shared with people B in favor of Christianity and later Islam. People B come back, after over a thousand years, decide they want 'their land' back, drive people A into concentration camps where they live in squalor and misery. Meanwhile people B live a good life financed by the tax dollars from their good friend country C who also provides them with high tech weapons free of charge.
White-washing Israel works best in a right wing, christian conservative or jewish zionist delusion.
Is it real news that Obama and the Frenchman don't like an Israeli? We haven't treated enemies as badly as Netanyahu was treated when he visited the White House.
So, because they have been kicked around and harassed, they have the right to do as they please? And how convenient of you to omit the influx of jews to what now is Israel after they assisted Britain in taking control of the territory in 1917. But when the arabic population revolted against what could have been seen as an "invasion", and the brits imposed restrictions on jewish immigration, they turned on them. During the post-WWII era, the palestinian territories were flooded by holocaust survivors.
Now think about this - pick a nationality you don't like very much and/or has different values than yours, imagine that suddenly your whole neighbourhood is populated by those guys, and when you complain they tell you "god gave me this land". You call the authorities and the court decides "ok now your whole neighbourhood is a different nation where their law and values are followed - not yours". Would you accept it?
It is hard to be sympathetic to the Israeli position- they are a nuclear nation, they have as allies some of the more powerful countries in the world, and israeli jewish interests have a lot of weight in international politics - and not necessarily those of the muslim population who also are israeli citizens. Also, the hipocrisy of some Israeli allies is staggering - I'm shure the american right wing would be delighted to have a new nation forced by the UN on their territory, called for example "new new mexico", or "chinazaquistan", as a way to solve their immigration problems.
I'm not defending the extremism against Israel taken by their neighbours (and religiously I really don't care about muslim or jewish deities, or any kind of deities), but one must be blind to not see the manipulation and hipocrisy of their government, and their seemingly overwelming political and economical influence.
It's much, much more complicated than that
No this really isn't more complicated than that. If "God" hadn't awarded certain tract to a certain group of people this WOULD HAVE NEVER STARTED! Unfortunately "God" seemed to have awarded it to both and to each exclusivity. If religion wasn't fueling the difference between the sides it WOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED LONG AGO. Why doesn't this "God" take the time to end all this strife and suffering instead of dicking around superimposing himself on toast?
The main problem is religion and always has been. Lose or even greatly diminish that force multiplier and suddenly humans become reasonable. At least enough to achieve some type of relatively peaceful secular coexistence.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
"Similar culture"? Just because some of the people in the neighboring countries are of arabian descent too?
Syria has additionally to the Arabs Kurds, Cherkessians and Armenians, the president of Syria is neither muslim nor christian (like a percentage of the Palestinians), but Nusairian. Lebanon is half christian, half muslim, and in Lebanon, first several christian militias killed between 1000 and 1500 people in Karantina and then the Kata'ib (drusian militia) with the help from the israeli military police killed between 500 and 3000 palestinians in the both camps Sabra and Shatila. Jordan, where most palestinian refugees live, had several conflicts with Israel about water resources, and wishes nothing more than to get finally rid of the state-within-state refugee camps on its territory. 50% of Jordan's population are descendants from palestinian refugees, with most of them living in the both towns Amman and Zarqa (where more than 90% of the population are palestinian), and in the 10 remaining refugee camps. Basicly this means that native Jordanians and Palestinians never mixed - the native Jordanians own the land, and the Palestinians live in the towns and refugee camps.
The only place where palestinians are land owners and are also the majority are - tada! - the West Bank and Transjordan. And this is the territory Israel cuts through with its settlements, some of them legal (on "state owned" land), some of them illegal, but still protected by the Israelian army.
Really? The standing ovation of Congress was bad treatment? The Congress applauds Netanyahu more than its own president.
While you're at it, you conveniently leave out Joe Biden's visit to Israel and what a slap in the face to the US that was!
You're either extremely ignorant, or extremely biased. The end result is the same.
The big question is, why is there a dislike of Netanyahu? Nothing happens without reason.