Inside the Middle East
January 5, 2010
Posted: 1340 GMT

Will the world's tallest tower be a fiscal turning point for Dubai? CNN's Mohammed Jamjoom and Susan Lisovicz discuss.

Filed under: Dubai

Share this on:
Robert   January 5th, 2010 11:41 pm ET

The rampant delirium over the proposed implementation of full-body security scanners in airports reached new heights today as a former EU minister suggested that all passengers need to have their insides scanned to make sure they are not concealing bombs.

The former European Commissioner for Justice, Freedom & Security, Franco Frattini, made the comments in an interview with European radio station Radio 24.

The scanners could detect “if a terrorist has swallowed a capsule full of explosives and could become a human bomb,” which would escape a metal detector, Frattini said.

“It is the most reliable instrument,” Frattini, now the Italian Foreign Minister said, as he defended full-body scanners, adding that security concerns outweigh privacy.

The “right to security is essential for all other freedoms,” he said, even if that means a “sacrifice” for the privacy of passengers.

In an incredibly Orwellian statement, Frattini equated liberty with security.

“Privacy is an inviolable right, but if a person does not have the confidence to take a plane because she fears that she could be sitting next to a man carrying explosives, that is a negation of liberty.”

The minister also said that despite increased security in the wake of 9/11, we “cannot define as a collective psychosis the legitimate worries of millions and millions of citizens of the world”.

Calls for across the board implementation of the machines come as the Netherlands announced that Schiphol airport in Amsterdam has acquired 60 new full-body scanners in the wake of the failed bombing incident on December 25.

Despite the fact that the machines violate child pornography laws, and would not have prevented the Christmas Day bomber from boarding Flight 253, according to their designers, the aviation industry is being strong armed by the British government into installing body scanners at every major airport terminal in the UK.

Faced with the choice between draconian security measures or massive queues and delays inside airports, the industry is opting for the scanners.

In addition to moves already taken to impose “enhanced” security on flights from 14 “terror prone” nations, as well as random checks being carried out on all planes landing at a US airport, President Barack Obama is also due to unveil an “initial series of security reforms” later today.

European representatives will meet in Brussels on Thursday to discuss a co-ordinated response across the European Union, which will most likely involve implementing the scanners in all airports.

“There has to be a clear transatlantic partnership when it comes to introducing these sorts of measures,” an EU justice official said. “We are of course observing what is going on.”

Alex Jones has called for mass resistance to the efforts to implement the body scanners, and any other technology that represents a total violation of privacy, a health risk, and the next wave of tyranny being metered out against the American people and the people of the world under the phony pretext of fighting terrorism.

miriam   January 6th, 2010 7:01 am ET


More cut and paste from conspiracy theorists and anarchy supporters.

These people believe in the right to explode and kill innocent people above the right to allow any method of protection. They are protecting the terrorist and sending everyone else to their deaths.

While the world becomes obsessed with increasing airport security and the perceived inconveniences it causes, Israel continuously develops new methods that rather than wasting 100% effort in 100% of passengers, puts 90% effort into 10% of passengers thereby saving costs, time and perceived inconvenience for the regular passenger.

For some, security is the number one concern, along with the protection of their citizens. For others, building the tallest, fanciest, most expensive spectacles to show off wealth and indulgence takes priority.

Carlos   January 6th, 2010 3:06 pm ET


If you reqally think that security measures are a violation of your privacy or of your personal liberties, you are welcome to walk or swim to your desired location.

If you prefer to take the public transportation, be prepared to conform to the required security measures deemed necessary by those responsible for assuring the publics' safety and security.

Get over it !!! Whiners like you can walk !!

eddie   January 7th, 2010 12:22 am ET

Robert more cut n paste, like Miriam I thank you for bringing these words to the blog. Keep up the great cut n paste research. Its a shame more people dont read as much or they would also find interesting cut n paste.

Good point Carlos. over the top, wet blanket . scared of your own shadow security measures are a violation of personal liberty. Your a million more times likely to be hit by a car than be attacked by a terror thingy. Whats next, will this crazy government control scan people before they can cross the road. It seems american media wants to turn americans into a nation of gutless wonders.

Oklahoman   January 7th, 2010 2:16 pm ET

Howdy Mike , watcha doin in Dubai and CNN dude ?
Nice coverage yo
Its the coldest day ever in Okie Dokie , and the tallest record ever there .
Hear from ya pal
c ya !

Carlos   January 7th, 2010 3:28 pm ET


Sorry there bud--but your personal liberties end when they are in conflict with the security and personal liberties of others !

But like I said before, feel free to walk or take any other form of private transportation you you may choose.

No one who esle should be denied the right to adequet safety precautions simply because people like you want to whine and cry about your "personal liberties".

Your " personal liberties" fails to guarantee you a seat on the bus if the bus driver perceives you as a threat to other passengers !!

miriam   January 7th, 2010 3:50 pm ET


These blogs should be for opinion, not for regurgitating articles written by libertarian extremists.
As far as I'm aware, many security precautions are taken to protect pedestrians and other drivers from the dangers on the road. It's a law to wear a seat belt in many places, there are specific crossing points, speed limits and punishments for those who violate the rules. In the world you want to create traffic casualties will increase in number, and females will be banned from driving and from even leaving their homes.

eddie   January 7th, 2010 9:33 pm ET

Miriam and Carlos, I am so pleased you now understand that Israel is the biggest threat to Middle East security and world peace. But Miriam you seem like a girl who gets easily confused over technology. Carlos please explain to Miriam that traffic lights don't scan your finger prints and seat belts don't take pictures of you naked. So her weak comparison over security issues looks bimbo-ish.

Carlos you use the word "cry" very often. Are you overwhelmingly depressed and lonely? Dont worry things will work out for you, just keep on trying. Perhaps a holiday in beautifaul Lebenon will cheer you up?

miriam   January 8th, 2010 7:39 am ET


With your conspiracy beliefs one might have thought that you would claim that the buttons you press to change the lights do in fact read your finger prints and seat belts straighten out your clothes so that the traffic camaras can get a better picture of what's underneath.
That and your other myths are as rediculous as stating that Israel is the biggest threat to ME security and world peace.
It is those who spread such lies and propaganda who are biggest threat.

Filipe   January 8th, 2010 1:22 pm ET


you appear to be totally confused about what other people believe.

And only people like you would believe that country the size of New Jersey is the biggest threat to world peace !!!


Carlos   January 8th, 2010 4:30 pm ET


Sorry for your misunderstanding of what I think. But that's nothing more than ignorance on your part, I suppose.

And by the way, I have passed holidays in Beirut. It is a beutiful and prosperous city full of culture, wonderful retaurants- It's a prime vacation spot for Europeans seeking relaxing vaction accomodations. But only an ignorant uneducated fool form the US would think otherwise.

Additionally eddie, it's spelled LEBANON !!!!

eddie   January 8th, 2010 6:02 pm ET

Miriam, Carlos and now Filipe all agree Israel should withdraw to 1967 boarders and to blame Palestine for Israelis blood thirsty military occupation is a mad conspiracy theory. I'm so pleased we are all united on this. So whats the next step. Does anyone have suggestions on how to make Israel compliant with International law and to get them to respect human rights.

Obviously there are good Israeli people as Miriam, Carlos and Filipe have demonstrated. They are Israeli and even they want to stop their government from continuing with military occupation and savage attacks against civilians.

p.s. Filipe Im pleased you enjoyed your holiday in Lebenon. We seem to have a lot in common as I also really appreciate Arabic hospitality.

miriam   January 9th, 2010 8:48 pm ET


There were no "1967 borders".
Perhaps you refer to the 1949 Armistace Lines.
But they were just the lines at which the Israeli and Arab armies were positioned when a cease-fire was called. They were never considered to be borders.

There is also no "occupation" since pre-1967 Jordan was not a recognized sovereign ruler in the West Bank.
There is not and has never been a Palestinian state to blame.

Israel does not violate International Law and she in fact does more to respect the human rights of Palestinians than is required by International Law in the situations she finds herself in.

John A   January 10th, 2010 12:07 pm ET

The only law is what a man can get away with.

The only boarder is what a man can forcefully impose.

Miriam International law is whatever Israel can get away with via America vetoes in the United Nations.

Miriam, currently Israel is where ever it wants to be in the Middle east because its army is backed by America. Thats why Jewish settlements can be planned at will and no Palestinian can stop it.

Miriam, the morality of law and boarders are totally different issues which you don't discuss.

So what would you like:
A moral world or the world you defend?

miriam   January 11th, 2010 11:50 am ET

John A,

UN resolutions are not to be confused with International Law.
A common mistake.

Israel has not "planned" any settlements for over a decade and no new legally approved communities have been built during that time.

National defence is a moral obligation.

Carlos   January 11th, 2010 5:52 pm ET


Sorry again for your confusion. But don´t agree with you and I fail to read where anyone else agrees with you.

As well, I'm not Israeli and my government refrains from getting involved. I'm sure it's becuse they realize it's none of their business.

Try agin!

Filipe   January 11th, 2010 10:08 pm ET


Not sure where you dreamed up that I took a holiday in Lebanon.

Must the alzheimer's kicking in.

But, Arab hospitality is great. 25% of my local community Arabs, primarily for Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. So you needn't be concerned about me being anti-Arab. My neighbors are Moroccan, we get along fine.

But even the local Arabs speak of the Palestinians as the if they are rubbish and are a cause of poor opinions against the rest of the Arab communities.

But you know what eddie, the Palestinians will get the respect they deserve when the the rest of the Arab community decides to welcome as true equals and brothers.

Until that happens-- they[re stuck in their self inflicted quagmire of despair and destitution.

John A   January 12th, 2010 10:47 am ET

Miriam writes, UN resolutions are not to be confused with International Law.
A common mistake.

Miriam try to stay focused!
We all know UN resolutions against Israel (Which there are many hundreds) do not become law, because America vetoes this process via the UN Security Council (the body that turns resolutions into law).
If it were not for America, the Goldstone report recommendations would have become law.

In the UN, America and the five permanent members of the security council control the process of law. So if you are kosher with America, you dont ever need to worry about law and order. Some dummies in the west ask why do some nations resort to terrorism? Well not many other choices to fight for justice are made available to them.

Miriam, I know you already know this and your comment was designed to fool the ignorant. No doubt Filipe or his imaginary friend Carlos will rush to your support

Mohit Lodha   January 12th, 2010 8:36 pm ET

Guys Check this video out , Oreo's homage to Burj Oreo

Dubai, UAE. January, 2010 – The celebrations and excitement surrounding the opening of Burj Dubai, the world’s tallest building and the pride of the nation, continue. In a tribute to the momentous occasion, Oreo has created a stunning simulation of the iconic skyscraper standing at 4meters tall. Be a part of the festivities and head over to Lulu’s Al Barsha for a glimpse and captivating photo shoot between 5pm to 10pm of the masterpiece from January 3rd to January 9th.

miriam   January 13th, 2010 12:31 pm ET

John A,

UN resolutions are documents issued by political bodies which represent the views of their supporters. They do not embody legal rules or principles.
The UN Charter states that the GA can only make non-binding recommendations. UNSC resolutions are only binding under Chapter VII. Most SC resolutions concerning Israel are under Chap. VI.

When drafting the UN Charter, governments were overwhelmingly opposed to confering legislative power to enact binding rules of International Law. This was largely due to the fact that the League of Nations' decisions had been considered law but that nations had failed to adhere to the law which led to the dissolution of the League.

Carlos   January 13th, 2010 5:59 pm ET

John A,

Please provide an explanation to us of how the UN creates laws??

Please provide an explanation to us as to how the US has the power to veto internqational laws.

You appear to be quite delusional about the powers and authority of both the US and the UN.

While you're at it, why don't prvide a link to the so called "international laws" you constantly refer to? I'm yet to find any such publication of "International laws" !!!

Quite odd, don't you think-that nothing seems to exist???? Yet so many people cite these "International Laws".

Do you think it's possible for you to provide answers to my requests- or will you simply ignore them ?

Filipe   January 13th, 2010 8:42 pm ET

John A,

Where did you learn that the UNSC turns resolutions into laws???

Neither the UNSC nor the UN nor the US have any authority to create laws.

I guess you live in very small and closed society- to think that the US has such power or that the UN is some type of legislative body that can create laws.

Your perspective of US supremacy world power is why so many of us from outside the US despise the opinions and general attitudes of Americans.

Educate yourself , just a little. You might keep up with the rest of us here on the blog. Everyone seems to be wasting way too much time repeatedly trying to explain to you about your misguided perspective of world organizations and the responsibilities and authority they have.

John A   January 14th, 2010 3:47 pm ET

Carlos and Filipe, if you learn to read and then switch off Fox news the truth is easy to find.

America's rationale for casting the first veto to protect Israel was explained by Bush at the time as a new policy to combat terrorists. The draft resolution had condemned Israel’s heavy air attacks against Lebanon and Syria, starting Sept. 6, the day after 11 Israeli athletes were killed at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games in an abortive Palestinian attempt to seize them as hostages to trade for Palestinians in Israeli prisons. Between 200 and 500 Lebanese, Syrians and Palestinians, mostly civilians, were killed in the Israeli raids.

Nonetheless, Bush complained that the resolution had failed to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel, adding: “We are implementing a new policy that is much broader than that of the question of Israel and the Jews. What is involved is the problem of terrorism, a matter that goes right to the heart of our civilized life.”

Unfortunately, this “policy” proved to be only a rationale for protecting Israel from censure for violating a broad range of international laws. This became very clear when the next U.S. veto was cast a year later, on July 26, 1973. It had nothing to do with terrorism. The draft resolution affirmed the rights of the Palestinians and established provisions for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories as embodied in previous General Assembly resolutions. Nonetheless, Washington killed this international effort to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands.

Washington used the veto four more times in 1975-76 while Henry Kissinger was secretary of state. One of these vetoes arguably may have involved terrorism, since the draft condemned Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians in response to attacks on Israel. But the three other vetoes had nothing at all to do with terrorism.

One, in fact, struck down a draft resolution that reflected U.S. policy against Israel’s alteration of the status of Jerusalem and establishment of Jewish settlements in occupied territory. Only two days earlier, U.S. Ambassador William W. Scranton had given a speech in the United Nations calling Israeli settlements illegal and rejecting Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem. Yet on March 25, 1976, the U.S. vetoed a resolution reflecting Scranton’s positions which had been passed unanimously by the other 14 members of the council.

The two other vetoes during Kissinger’s reign also were cast in 1976. One, on Jan. 26, killed a draft resolution calling for recognition of the right of self-determination for Palestinians. The other, on June 29, called for affirmation of the “inalienable rights” of the Palestinians.

The Carter administration cast only one veto. But it had nothing to do with terrorism. It came on April 30, 1980, killing a draft that endorsed self-determination for the Palestinian people.

The all-time abuser of the veto was the administration of Ronald Reagan, the most pro-Israel presidency in U.S. history, with the most pro-Israel secretary of state, George Shultz, since Kissinger. The Reagan team cynically invoked the veto 18 times to protect Israel. A record six of these vetoes were cast in 1982 alone. Nine of the Reagan vetoes resulted directly from Security Council attempts to condemn Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s refusal to surrender the territory in southern Lebanon which it still occupies today. The other nine vetoes shielded Israel from council criticism for such illicit acts as the Feb. 4, 1986, skyjacking of a Libyan plane.

Israeli warplanes forced the executive jet to land in Israel, allegedly in an effort to capture Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal. He was not aboard and, after interrogation, the passengers were allowed to leave.The U.S. delegate explained that this act of piracy was excusable “because we believe that the ability to take such action in carefully defined and limited circumstances is an aspect of the inherent right of self-defense recognized in the U.N. Charter.”

Other vetoes employed on Israel’s exclusive behalf included the Jan. 20, 1982 killing of a demand that Israel withdraw from the Golan Heights it had occupied in 1967; the April 20, 1982 condemnation of an Israeli soldier who shot 11 Muslim worshippers at the Haram Al-Sharif in the Old City of Jerusalem; the Feb. 1, 1988 call for Israel to stop violating Palestinian human rights in the occupied territories, abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and formalize a leading role for the United Nations in future peace negotiations; the April 15, 1988 resolution requesting that Israel permit the return of expelled Palestinians, condemning Israel’s shooting of civilians, calling on Israel to uphold the Fourth Geneva Convention and calling for a peace settlement under U.N. auspices.

The Bush [Sr.] administration used the veto four times to protect Israel: on Feb. 17, 1989, to kill a draft strongly deploring Israel’s repression of the Palestinian uprising and calling on Israel to respect the human rights of the Palestinians; on June 9, 1989, deploring Israel’s violation of the human rights of the Palestinians19; on Nov. 7, 1989, demanding Israel return property confiscated from Palestinians during a tax protest and calling on Israel to allow a fact-finding mission to observe Israel’s suppression tactics against the Palestinian uprising; and, finally, on May 31, 1990, calling for a fact-finding mission on abuses against Palestinians in Israeli-occupied lands.

The May 31, 1990 veto was the last, presumably, as the result of a secret understanding, if not an official agreement, with Russia and the three other Security Council members with veto power. By then it had become obvious that the council could not be effective in a post-Cold War world if Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States recklessly invoked their vetoes.

Moreover, the international alliances sought by Washington to repel Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August, 1990 made it necessary for the Bush administration to retain unity in the Security Council. As a result, instead of abstaining on or vetoing resolutions critical of Israel, as it did in 1989 and the first half of 1990, the Bush administration abruptly joined other members in late 1990, 1991 and 1992 in passing six resolutions deploring or strongly condemning Israel’s conduct against the Palestinians.

These resolutions brought the total passed by the council against Israel since its birth to 68. If the United States had not invoked its veto, the record against Israel would total 100 resolutions condemning or otherwise criticizing its behavior or supporting the rights of Palestinians.

The agreement on vetoes held until March, 1995, when President Clinton invoked the veto after all 14 other members approved a U.N. Security Council resolution calling on Israel to rescind a decision to expropriate 130 acres of land in Arab East Jerusalem. The Clinton administration exercised two more vetoes in 1997, both of them on resolutions otherwise unanimously supported by the 14 other Security Council members. The draft resolution was critical of Israel’s plans to establish a new settlement at Har Homa ⁄ Jabal Abu Ghneim in East Jerusalem in the midst of Palestinian housing.

The three Clinton vetoes brought to 32 the number Washington has cast to protect Israel.

Filipe   January 16th, 2010 3:16 pm ET

John A,

Where did you learn that the UNSC turns resolutions into laws???

Neither the UNSC nor the UN nor the US have any authority to create laws.

You're sorry a$$ed cut n paste job still failed to answer a simple question.

But why should I expect any different-- from someone who has no answers.

miriam   January 17th, 2010 8:52 am ET

John A,

When the Arab bloc together with its alliance of non-alligned states propose a disproportionate number of politically motivated, anti-Israel resolutions, there will be a disproportionate number of US vetos.

Even if not vetoed, the resolutions are mostly under Chap.VI and thereby non-binding.
Even if under Chap.VII they are merely recommendations.

Carlos   January 18th, 2010 12:09 pm ET

John A,

Truth about what??? The Burj Kalifa???

Or the truth about how the UN, the UNSC and the US have no authority to create International Laws ??

Are you still looking for the elusive doctrine that designates this authority to the UN, UNSC and the US ??

Please post it when you find it !!

You appear to quite astute at Cut N Paste tasks.

subscribe RSS Icon
About this blog

This blog has now been archived and commenting has been switched off. Visit the Inside the Middle East site for news, views and video from across the region.

Read more about CNN's special reports policy