Because they've done it. Yes or no.
EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.
and deciding to end that relationship because we are aghast at the notion that a U.S. citizen might be a bad actor would be.... well, it would be a very bad idea.
Because they've done it. Yes or no.
EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.
They are getting unfiltered data, that is data on ALL Americans, not just suspected terrorists. But please, try again with your excuses.
WASHINGTON — The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel that probably includes sensitive information about Americans, according to the latest top-secret document leaked by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden.
The 2009 document, a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart, says the U.S. government regularly hands over intercepted communications that have not first been reviewed by U.S. analysts and therefore may contain phone calls and emails of American citizens.
The agreement allows for the possibility that intercepts given to Israel might include the communications of U.S. government officials, in which case Israel is supposed to destroy them immediately. Other data on U.S. citizens who aren't in the government, however, can be kept by Israel for up to a year, according to the document, first published Wednesday by Britain's Guardian newspaper.
NSA officials declined to answer questions but issued a statement saying, "Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect U.S. person information."...
The reason that risks are taken with Israel, the second former official said, is because Israel and the U.S. have many mutual foreign policy interests, and Israel in some cases has greater expertise in Middle Eastern languages and cultures.
"Managing the intel-sharing relationship is always kind of a quid pro quo," the official said. "One country may have access to certain communications that we can't otherwise get, so there are decisions made at fairly high levels whether or not it's worth it to share."
Ah, no. That is not correct. Allow me to quote the guy whose credibility on this is questionable, but whom certain more excitable elements have decided to glorify:
probably.... maybe.... might..... some.
Snowden (again) is talking about stuff about which he knows very little. I guess either it's been too long since he's seen himself in the papers, or his new Russian friends wanted to create problems at home for the Obama administration in order to secure their Syria deal.
But please, tell me more given your vast background knowledge of U.S. defense and the intelligence community.
Because the last time you believed what the hyperventilators told you, you suggested that we were about to invade Libya with a single battalion of Marines.
Further down the article...
Hey, that's interesting. That sounds pretty much exactly like what I said.
Fine then, let's ask Americans if they are fine with the NSA handing over communications that haven't been filtered to ensure that our privacy is safe. Do you really think that they're fine with that?
Why is it that you see the government as an awful and terrible entity when it comes to social spending, but an eminent deity when it comes to the military?
I think you give Snowden too much credit in that he analyses the data and feeds the analysis to the media. The media analyses the raw data he provided. His personal credibility is a non issue.
I don't see it in either set of terms. Manichaeism is a construct for those who prefer the soothing tones of simple narratives over more complex reality. Most of our social spending is a mixture of well-intentioned and politically driven efforts by fallible human beings to do the right thing as near as they see it and most of our national security efforts are the same (Our social spending is simply currently structured to produce massive destructive and unintended consequences, which agreeably can be part and parcel of our national security efforts as well). I find the same hyperventilating against both:
"Evil shadowy no-good evil-doers in smoky rooms are gonna read my emails, find out I'm cheating on my girlfriend and give that information to the Israelis, and have me assassinated for blogging about it!"
to be equal parts ludicrous and self-destructive. These things tend to do more damage to their own side through guilt-by-association than they do good by raising public awareness of their concerns, not least because they tend to assume that those opposed to them (or who simply disagree with them) are evil rather than in a state of disagreement.
We have an intelligence sharing relationship not just with the Israelis, and also with Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, etc. so on and so forth - if we didn't, our national security posture would be severely weakened; we depend on the efforts of our partner nations just as they depend on ours. Heck, if we were tracking a transnational criminal unit that operated back and forth between ourselves and China (such as the Triads or some such) we would probably even share information on those cases with our Chinese counterparts. That doesn't mean (and you'll note he doesn't even make the claim that it means) that we give them access to everyone's email. It means we share information on these groups, and try to help with vetted collection requests when beneficial.
You know how folks are always talking about how we need to work with other countries, have a reduced presence, etc., instead of trying to be hegemon and go it alone? Welcome to the reality of that policy.
If it was all good intentions then we would have given up minimum wage and foreign aid decades ago. The carnage that the US military brings overseas cannot be denied. You're speaking nonsense.
cpwill said:to be equal parts ludicrous and self-destructive. These things tend to do more damage to their own side through guilt-by-association than they do good by raising public awareness of their concerns, not least because they tend to assume that those opposed to them (or who simply disagree with them) are evil rather than in a state of disagreement.
Ugh, give it a rest. This garbage needs to end. There is NO REASON that the US government needs all of this information. NONE. And not only are they taking it, but they're distributing it around the world?
This is loathsome, and what's worse is that you defend it.
I'd rather trade goods with them rather than teaming up on invading and toppling other nations myself.
Guess I'm just some crazy idealist, though.
hey, remember this part?
Dwell on that for a minute
The solutions you find so blindingly self-evident are not the conclusions that others come to, and they are not ill-intentioned simply because they have the effrontery to come to a different conclusion.
Remember that part earlier about how you accusing those with whom you disagree of being evil makes you look childish and uninformed more than it makes them look evil?
You're better than that, Phatz.
These are our allies. We do trade goods with them. We also collect on them and they on us, as otherwise our national decision-making is less informed and therefore more dangerous.
Nope, just an relatively uninformed national security hypochondriac who (as most folks do) probably means well.![]()
The conclusions are obvious to any who's intellectually honest.
Therefore we need information on every American and every call that they make. No, warrants aren't good enough anymore. Give it a rest already!
Defending everything that the military does, especially warrantless wiretaps and the demolition of the 4th amendment, is pretty tough to call anything but evil.
Seriously, can you criticize anything that the military has done?
There's a reason that the US is beligerent toward Iran and not Saudi Arabia, or is Saudi Arabia a-okay with you?
I'll remember not to question the almight cpwill next time. He knows everything about security so us minions shouldn't question him. Do you even listen to yourself?
Yeah. That's what Islamist terrorists think, too. The idea that one must be evil or lying to believe differently is a fantastic way to dehumanize the otherside and justify whatever idiotic method of of opposition you come up with.
However the number of intellectually honest people who come to different conclusions rather belies the claim, which is why those who make it are so often relegated to any consensual societies' extremes, little respected and (until they turn violent) largely ignored.
Hey look!
![]()
A Strawman!
You stated that there was NO reason to collect FISA data or share it with other states. I gave you merely two of several very good reasons to do so. When you are able to either refute those instances or admit that your earlier blanket denial was in error, let me know. Either will require more thought or maturity than you have thus far (sadly) demonstrated in discussing this topic.
1. I don't defend everything that the military does.
2. The military does not do warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. That would be a EO1233 violation, and those who did so would go to jail. I have actually seen military personnel, in fact, go to jail precisely for using their training and assets to collect on an AMCIT (in this case a SSgt who caught his wife cheating on him).
3. Calling your opposition evil because they disagree with you remains a childish and frankly totalitarian tactic. That form of dehumanization has a long, sordid, abusive history.
Yup. The decision to send home the Iraqi Army with their weapons was atrocious. The decision to let the Shia run wild after the push through Badghdad was incredibly costly. The laxity with which we handled sexual assault complaints in the late 20th century was atrocious and abusive towards our fellow Marines, soldiers, sailers, and airmen. Military leadership is often needlessly timid and willing to abandon their own because of command pressure, political pressure, or the desire to fit in well in Washington. The decision to allow deployed soldiers real-time access to social media has turned (whatever morale benefits) into an OPSEC nightmare, and it is only a matter of time before it costs lives. The military has been painfully slow to accept needed innovation, and that may very well have been responsible for us unnecessarily losing in Vietnam and possibly Afghanistan (and it almost lost Iraq). The military promotes its people by longevity (how long have you been in) at the bottom and middle, and by political connections (who do you know who will vouch for you) at the very top, thus encouraging an exodus of our top talent and the unwise needless promotion of many individuals of middling or sub-par ability beyond their capability to effectively perform. We have a healthcare/pension structure that is eating at our ability to provide a military capability to the nation at cost. The decision to start integrating women into combat units such as the infantry is a political one that is going to have deadly consequences for our young people on the back end.... and our leadership probably either doesn't care, or would care, but feels they have to do so in order to "get along", and so they pretend to themselves that it won't be a problem.
There is a reason why strips such as Terminal Lance are wildly popular within the military ranks. We are plenty self-critical of the idiocies that come along with working in a branch of the Federal Government.
Depends on how you mean A-Okay. Saudi Arabia isn't attempting to shove us out of the Persian Gulf in order to enforce regional hegemony and threaten our economy at will to force geopolitical concessions from us. Saudi Arabia is, however, an incredibly abusive and corrupt regime. Iran is a deliberate state backer of terrorists and paramilitary/covert groups that have killed thousands of Americans, Saudi Arabia is a fitful and sometimes ineffective pursuer of those same groups.
Saudi Arabia is a corrupt kingdom. However, its interest align more with ours and it is a partner nation in trying to maintain stability in the worlds least-stable center of gravity.
Dude. Have you been paying attention to the hysterics you've brought in here? You're the equivalent of a guy claiming imminent collapse of the global economy who in the next breath offers as an aside that bond prices and yields move together rather than in opposite directions - making Very Very Very Obvious Errors that demonstrate that your analysis isn't fed by anything but groupthink and paranoia. I'm no genius, but it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out things like "hey, maybe people who disagree with me think that they are in the right, too."![]()