UNITED
NATIONS, April
23 -- Why did
UN Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon
condemn
the 9/11
comments of
UN Special
Rapporteur
Richard Falk,
but today
refuse to
comment on Falk's
comments on
the Boston
bombings?
Inner
City Press
asked Ban's
deputy
spokesman
Eduardo Del
Buey this
question on
April 23, and
once
Del Buey twice
didn't answer
it,
the Press
posited one
explanation
(to see if it
might shake
free some
clarification.)
Is the
difference to
Ban the
relative level
of
casualties? Or
has Falk
fatigue set
in?
After
that, Del Buey
told Inner
City Press it
could ask only
one more
question.
Since the UN,
as it
happened, paid
27,000 pounds
for a 3
pound UK golf
ball detector,
to offer false
protection to
its
peacekeepers
in Lebanon,
that question
has to be
asked even
though,
again, there
was no answer.
But
there was and
is another UN
Special
Rapporteur question:
Bahrain
has
delayed or
Banned the
rapporteuer on
torture, Juan
Mendez.
Will Ban
have a comment
on that? We'll
see.
Ban's
reticence at
least for now
to comment on
Falk's theory
of the Boston
bombings is at
odds with his
Department
of Public
Information's
“urgent”
request to
Inner City
Press on April
18 to clarify
a
single tweet
that it sent,
click here for
that.
The tweet mentioning
World War 2
and the new
(German,
male) police
adviser to
Peacekeeping
chief Herve
Ladsous, who
has
the job
because of
France's veto
power in the
Security
Council, which
was won along
with... World
War Two.
Inner
City Press was
told, by DPI
official
Stephane
Dujarric, that
this
tweet was
offensive to
millions of
people, and
crossed “all
bounds;” Inner
City Press was
told that it
was being
“given the
chance” to
explain it.
So
the UN was
threatening an
independent
media, over
which is has
no
control at all
other than
accreditation
-- which it at
times seems to
misuse to
control
content --
while Ban
Ki-moon
through his
Associate
Spokesman
Farhan Haq
says he is
“not
responsible”
for Falk's
views, and
will not
respond for or
to them.
Strange. Watch
this site.
, 
