Add to that Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The CIA's and NSA's charters--as I'm sure you know--prohibit them from spying on any UK-USA Pact nation. IIRC, the NSA, in large part, depends on our closest allies for cooperation in SIGINT. ~String
Yes of course, but its a watchdog of sorts and the publication is well regarded. The main point of course is the visible concern by a respected panel of scientists. OK. Does the US spy on Israel? :m:
I'd bet dollars to donuts that we do. In any case, it's a certainty that Israel spies on the US (and we've imprisoned people for doing so), so we'd be fools not to return the favor.
We do spy on Israel, and the most obvious example is the U.S.S. Liberty, which was destroyed by the Israelis for doing so. The one difference is that the US avoids HUMINT in Israel. It's too difficult and the potential for a flap to high. Our technical collections against Israel are quite advanced, though.
I'd draw the line at whether we consider their spies dangerous. How likely would we prosecute a British spy for the crime of espionage? It also depends what kind of intel they are after. People who spy for China these days are certainly prosecuted. Chinese espionage focuses a lot on trying to steal technology, like jet engines, or guidance systems.
To take a branch off Sam's main line, I wonder if terrorists in Iraq go through this much introspection.
That is indeed what this discussion is about. But I was just wondering if Iraqi and foreign terrorists go through the same soul-searching or oversight before quite deliberately blowing the hell out of civilians. I expect not.
No, they wouldn't. And that's where Sam and her ilk's cheap relativism falls apart. The US has ROE in place, the soldiers are trained in it and can be disciplined if they fail to abide by it. Does this mean that "shit" doesn't happen? Of course not. But pretending this incident, about which much ado about nothing is being made (in my opinion), somehow equates US forces to "terrorists" is absolutely ridiculous.
We don't. In fact, I'm comfortable in saying that it is unlikely that the CIA spies on any of the UK/US pact at all. While the CIA and NSA operates in these nations, when one is caught crossing the line, they are quietly sent packing and apologies are sent through quiet channels. Indeed. Nothing looks better than prosecuting a spy from China. ~String
So does Al Qaida, the Shining Path, and Hamas. So did the organizations under Stalin and Pol Pot, Castro and Pinochet. The Gestapo was famous for their discipline and accountability. The "interrogation" program set up in the prison chain that included Bagram and Gitmo and Abu Ghraib was clearly not designed just to gather intelligence - it's debatable whether intelligence was even the primary focus. "Shock and Awe" is about one step removed from "Stun and Terrorize". How long a step is that, in practice, when designing the aerial bombardment of water systems and power plants in the middle of large cities? When do you think they stopped? Sometime in the 1980s, or later?
I see no point in responding to another batch of exactly the sort of silly equivocations I was already criticizing. In my opinion, if a person is incapable of seeing the obvious difference between the contemporary American soldier and their ROE and the bodies you just referenced, then that person is either a kooky Leftist, an idiot or some combination of the two. "Clearly," based on what? Your expert opinion as an intelligence analyst and interrogation expert? Or media accounts you have read? Don't make me laugh. I happen to be against most coercive interrogation, but unlike you, I am not going to sit here and make specious claims about the motives of the people who put those programs in place... The official agreement stretches back to the late 1940s and has largely been observed.
As a rule, around WWII. Has the treaty been violated in all directions? Probably. But, as I said, when it happens, everybody blushes, apologies are issued, and the agent is quietly sent packing home. ~String
indeed despite the mind numbing pain, i console myself with the comforting thought...."it could have been worse". being tortured by americans or ice's referenced bodies? nobrainer, ja? a brilliant and well constructed point, dear counte /bows
On the established - in documents and court findings and published material evidence - circumstances of its setup. It incorporated "brainwashing" techniques and various modern torture procedures used for political oppression, state terrorism, the generation of false confessions and other outcomes of psychological breakdown. The existence of ROEs and accountability is not one of those differences. If you want to argue that the US ROEs and policies have been effective at preventing the bad stuff the US is accused of, then go ahead. But the mere existence of ROEs, uniforms, the occasional scapegoat prosecution, etc, leaves the questions open. Caught redhanded in Australia in the 1970s, not only spying but manipulating politics. So sometime after 1975, would be your target guess date. btw: That's not what happened, in the case of the Pine Gap centered political efforts in the 1970s. The question is how one describes the intelligence efforts after that scandal, such as the continuing operations in Australia: http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/2/2889/1.html
Did I not say there were possibly exceptions? As a matter of practice, however, the CIA doesn't focus on those within the US/UK pact and hasn't since the end of WWII. No, Ice. Around WWII is my target date. 1975 would be yours. Echelon is a UK/US pact initiative. All five nations are a part of it. In fact, each nation is specifically responsible for monitoring a portion of the globe. I'm okay with that. ~String
Anyone who thinks the UK/AUS/NZ/Canada desk is the place to be at either CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO or any of the other agencies has their head up their ass and knows nothing about the intelligence community. Anyone who thinks any of those powers is wasting precious time and money worrying about the other also has their head up their ass. Is some spying going on? Sure, probably. But nothing like what approaches what Britain did during the world wars in the US. Post some evidence then. I would love to see something that proves your claim that "it's debatable whether intelligence was even the primary focus." I can post primary sources from the men involved who say that was exactly the focus -- and have done so in the past. The fact there is a debate about whether the methods adopted were legal, and ultimately, productive shows there is no black or white conclusion about the issue. Hence, the debate. But you, of course, know everyone's intentions, know the results (largely classified) and are perfectly willing to nail your colors to the mast -- all of which, in my opinion, just exposes your foolish ideology. But go ahead. Embarrass yourself. It's funny. Sure, it is. What's Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia's ROE, Ice? Do they have one? Does it include be-headings? Shit, you're talking about people so brutal, their own turned against them. But yeah, keep making dumb fuck comparisons. Again, I enjoy it when you embarrass yourself. There will always be cases when rules are broken and people cross lines. Citing those examples is not some magic wand that lets you wave away the time, attention and care American forces utilize in the field and condemn the whole. Nor does give you fertile ground for making the sort of stupid comparisons you've blessed us all with here.
And we can stack those claims against the physical circumstances and actual course of events, to estimate their validity. Especially in a situation in which serious crimes and great moral guilt ride on not only what people believe, but what they should have known and done. In the face of collateral murder, of a particularly foul variety, no? W&Co's gulag interrogation program did not resemble a genuine intelligence gathering operation - the paying of bounties and the accepting of hundreds of more or less randomly captured interrogation targets merely the most obvious and undeniably visible difference. The techniques employed a close second. At any rate, the "debatable" claim is secure - regardless of how the debate turns out. The question was about when those "exceptions" stopped happening. 1975 is the earliest possible date. Which was set up and used to spy on Australia, and apparently Britain etc, as well.
Your appreciation of reality is notoriously crooked and unclear, so you will need to give me more than your opinion about "the physical circumstances and actual course of events." But I'm not holding my breath. You long ago demonstrated that anything beyond your appreciation of reality and your opinions is patently beyond the level of participation you are willing to engage in, which is fine with me. I'm in no rush to follow more kooky links either. Meanwhile, your comparisons on this page remain a remarkable car-crash of absurdity and stupidity for all to see...
