Page 1 of 1 pages
“
Posted by wolf on Mar 12, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Hats off to the young Fulbright Scholar from New Jersey’s state university for demonstrating that those honored by this distinction can be expected to stand up to such outlandishly inept turnings as that evidenced by the assistant regional security adviser seeking identification of comparable Cuban and Venezuelan deployments in Bolivia. It is a comfort to those of us grayed and bowed by aging that a 23-year-old possesses sufficiently informed skepticism to resist becoming another of those lionized by the United Fruit Company (today’s Chiquita) legacy. The resurgence of socialism in South America is less a threat to us than an example that we would do well to follow.
Posted by Bud Wizer on Mar 12, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Excellent article and hats off indeed to the young Fulbright scholar who raised the alarm. I don’t agree at all with ‘Wolf’s’ ascertion that this is unreasonable. If Cuban or Venezuelan students were spying on US citizens, there would be an outcry, declarations of terrorism and George Bush would no doubt claim that this was proof of Chavez’s ‘evil’ socialism.
Posted by FranLast on Mar 13, 2008 at 3:07 PM
FranLast seems to make the assertion that if a foreign national were to provide *open* and freely available information back to their country of origin, the US would charge them with terrorism (or there were be an “:outcry”, whatever that means). I wonder, are there any facts (or even anecdotal stories) to back up this odd assertion? Say a foreign national provided a US municipal phone book back to their embassy with a few names circled - would that really upset anyone? If so, why?
Usually “spying”, when used in a negative sense, involves the collection of some sort of sensitive, propriety or classified data, not the gathering of open information.
Posted by wolf on Mar 14, 2008 at 7:24 AM
NACLA is involved in more ways than one in this story. Not only did Reed Lindsay break the story of U.S. democracy promotion activities in Bolivia in the NACLA Report - which lead the USAID to take down the web pages to which the article referred - but Alex van Schaick is a former NACLA intern. To learn more about NACLA, visit http://www.nacla.org.
Posted by cthornton on Mar 17, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Wolf, it
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 18, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Marshalldoc - thanks for the sympathy, very thoughtful of you. Still, i wonder if you read the same article as i did. What actions were the students asked to do that you find objectionable, in particular? If we found that other nations did the same sorts of things with their students, would you be equally appalled (its not like they are being asked to fly planes into populated buildings, now that would be crazy!). And it is not like they even have to comply with the requests. If you are able, please explain what the problem is, from your pov. Perhaps you can provide more than mere sympathy, you might be able to provide a discussion of why you feel the way you do. . .
Posted by wolf on Mar 19, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Wolf,
It’s evident you are still boggled.
Yes, we read the same article but you evidently failed to comprehend the arguments I made about why suborning espionage from those who are not government agents is wrong - i.e.; you are still boggled.
Please re-read my statement (reproduced again here):
Subverting students, healthcare workers, intellectuals, and other non-political people who are in a foreign country at the courtesy of that country
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 19, 2008 at 11:42 AM
I completely agree with your statement Marshalldoc. It seems to me that Wolf has very little understanding of the history of espionage or the CIA. The current deceitful dealings of the Bush administration, whether in the Middle East or in Latin America would make anyone with any intelligence or knowledge of current US foreign policy, suspicious of being asked to take on subversive activities whilst being a guest in another country. Such actions would not only add to the global distaste for US imperialism, but help serve the current administration’s passion for torture, renditions, and illegal incarceration without due process.
Posted by FranLast on Mar 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Hi FranLast, thanks for the support.
I
Posted by Marshalldoc on Mar 19, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Marshalldoc - Good second post. Seems you are truly an American, if not understood just repeat louder. I am surprised you did not change your original post to all caps.
PS - “Further, when at a loss for cogent argument there
Posted by wolf on Mar 19, 2008 at 3:00 PM
In commenting, we offer a personal perspective, no? We do not do so with the ulterior motive of debating, yes? It appears that Wolf and Marshalldoc would have very different takes on Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States 1492-Present,” which is not to say Professor Zinn’s book is not to be taken seriously. It can be assumed that readers of ITT are sufficiently intelligent to have their personal perspectives digested as commentary without animus. Let’s keep it intellectual, shall we. It’s not who’s red, blue or purple that matters, it’s whether ITT’s content prompts comments worthy of consideration as thoughtful rumination. We’re the readers here, not the writers. I come to the table for nourishment, not regurgitation. Fulbright Scholars should not be agents of espionage when they undertake their unofficially diplomatic travels. They need not be “ugly Americans.” There’s more than enough of those to go around. I use this reference to denote a level of literacy and historical congnizance, not to argue the merits of my or others’ opinions. Anyone who posits that a Fulbright Scholar providing Embassy intelligence liaisons with desirable information is not “ugly” is someone with whom I chose not to debate the matter. Doing so would, I’m sure, prove as degrading as masochism.
Posted by Bud Wizer on Mar 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
“
Hats off to the young Fulbright Scholar from New Jersey’s state university for demonstrating that those honored by this distinction can be expected to stand up to such outlandishly inept turnings as that evidenced by the assistant regional security adviser seeking identification of comparable Cuban and Venezuelan deployments in Bolivia. It is a comfort to those of us grayed and bowed by aging that a 23-year-old possesses sufficiently informed skepticism to resist becoming another of those lionized by the United Fruit Company (today’s Chiquita) legacy. The resurgence of socialism in South America is less a threat to us than an example that we would do well to follow.
Excellent article and hats off indeed to the young Fulbright scholar who raised the alarm. I don’t agree at all with ‘Wolf’s’ ascertion that this is unreasonable. If Cuban or Venezuelan students were spying on US citizens, there would be an outcry, declarations of terrorism and George Bush would no doubt claim that this was proof of Chavez’s ‘evil’ socialism.
FranLast seems to make the assertion that if a foreign national were to provide *open* and freely available information back to their country of origin, the US would charge them with terrorism (or there were be an “:outcry”, whatever that means). I wonder, are there any facts (or even anecdotal stories) to back up this odd assertion? Say a foreign national provided a US municipal phone book back to their embassy with a few names circled - would that really upset anyone? If so, why?
Usually “spying”, when used in a negative sense, involves the collection of some sort of sensitive, propriety or classified data, not the gathering of open information.
NACLA is involved in more ways than one in this story. Not only did Reed Lindsay break the story of U.S. democracy promotion activities in Bolivia in the NACLA Report - which lead the USAID to take down the web pages to which the article referred - but Alex van Schaick is a former NACLA intern. To learn more about NACLA, visit http://www.nacla.org.
Wolf, it
Marshalldoc - thanks for the sympathy, very thoughtful of you. Still, i wonder if you read the same article as i did. What actions were the students asked to do that you find objectionable, in particular? If we found that other nations did the same sorts of things with their students, would you be equally appalled (its not like they are being asked to fly planes into populated buildings, now that would be crazy!). And it is not like they even have to comply with the requests. If you are able, please explain what the problem is, from your pov. Perhaps you can provide more than mere sympathy, you might be able to provide a discussion of why you feel the way you do. . .
Wolf,
It’s evident you are still boggled.
Yes, we read the same article but you evidently failed to comprehend the arguments I made about why suborning espionage from those who are not government agents is wrong - i.e.; you are still boggled.
Please re-read my statement (reproduced again here):
Subverting students, healthcare workers, intellectuals, and other non-political people who are in a foreign country at the courtesy of that country
I completely agree with your statement Marshalldoc. It seems to me that Wolf has very little understanding of the history of espionage or the CIA. The current deceitful dealings of the Bush administration, whether in the Middle East or in Latin America would make anyone with any intelligence or knowledge of current US foreign policy, suspicious of being asked to take on subversive activities whilst being a guest in another country. Such actions would not only add to the global distaste for US imperialism, but help serve the current administration’s passion for torture, renditions, and illegal incarceration without due process.
Hi FranLast, thanks for the support.
I
Marshalldoc - Good second post. Seems you are truly an American, if not understood just repeat louder. I am surprised you did not change your original post to all caps.
PS - “Further, when at a loss for cogent argument there
In commenting, we offer a personal perspective, no? We do not do so with the ulterior motive of debating, yes? It appears that Wolf and Marshalldoc would have very different takes on Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States 1492-Present,” which is not to say Professor Zinn’s book is not to be taken seriously. It can be assumed that readers of ITT are sufficiently intelligent to have their personal perspectives digested as commentary without animus. Let’s keep it intellectual, shall we. It’s not who’s red, blue or purple that matters, it’s whether ITT’s content prompts comments worthy of consideration as thoughtful rumination. We’re the readers here, not the writers. I come to the table for nourishment, not regurgitation. Fulbright Scholars should not be agents of espionage when they undertake their unofficially diplomatic travels. They need not be “ugly Americans.” There’s more than enough of those to go around. I use this reference to denote a level of literacy and historical congnizance, not to argue the merits of my or others’ opinions. Anyone who posits that a Fulbright Scholar providing Embassy intelligence liaisons with desirable information is not “ugly” is someone with whom I chose not to debate the matter. Doing so would, I’m sure, prove as degrading as masochism.
register a new account »Posting Security