No Possibility-Zero-None:That Obama, Cameron, Hollande & Merkel Did NOT Know & Participate In Spying

[kpete]

“The magnitude of the eavesdropping is what shocked us,” former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said in a radio interview. “Let’s be honest, we eavesdrop too. Everyone is listening to everyone else. But we don’t have the same means as the United States, which makes us jealous.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/27/report-claims-us-had-merkel-bugged-since-2002/?intcmp=latestnews



Echelon, Frenchelon, the Technische Aufklärung, etc.

There is no possibility – zero -none, that Barack Obama, David Cameron, Hollande and Merkel did not know of the collection activities of their countries’ services.

A close inspection of the material in these Wikipedia articles will reveal that not only do "Gentlemen read others' mail" but they do it in international cooperative groups and often for decades at a time, many decades.

..............

Note that all these governments are full participants in Echelon.” No one coerced them into cooperation. They joined this SIGINT collection alliance because they believed that to do so would be advantageous to their country. Note the presence of the Netherlands in this group.

The “Technische Aufklarung” (German SIGINT) is subordinated directly to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s office. It is reported that signal intercept operations by this branch of the BND has increased markedly since she has been in office.

“Frenchelon,” the gallic equivalent of “Echelon” is particuarly large and robust.

In the case of the US/UK relationship the two services are so closely linked that might as well be one.


More:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/10/httpenwikipediaorgwikifrenchelon.html?cid=6a00d8341c72e153ef019b0067f104970b

[Drale]

1. Oh I'm sure they all engaged in spying but

on allies? I don't know, that is more of a conservative paranoid reactionary action.

[kpete]

2. you are joking

right?

peace,
kp

[malaise]

8. There are no allies or friends

There have never been allies or friends - there are interests.

[stevenleser]

3. I don't know if they knew each specific, but they knew in general, definitely.

This is all face saving, like the Yemeni and Pakistani governments complaining about our drone strikes and then it comes out they were helping select the targets or proposing their own.

Anyone who does not acknowledge that in their OPs and comments is either deluded or deliberately spreading disinformation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. I was listening to an NPR segment …

The other day, where a “Intelligence Expert” was discussing this latest SCANDAL.

I listened to him talk for about 10 minutes all about how terrible this is and all; only to have him say … at the very end of the interview … almost as a throw-away line; that every world leader knows that their communications are being monitored, both by “friends” and “foe” … he went on to say this is only a thing because it has been revealed.

[Savannahmann]

4. There is a problem with the argument that "everyone does it"

When President Clinton was caught cheating, that argument worked. Because even those who have not cheated, have entertained doubts, and perhaps fantasized about doing so, and getting away with it. It was an argument that a vast majority of those who heard it could as a hypothetical, agree with. Then there was the nitpicking legal argument. The definition given during the deposition did not include the activity that had taken place. So strictly speaking, the answer given was truthful, if dishonest in its intent.

So the argument that "everyone does it" works sometimes, when everyone does in fact either do it, or dreams of doing it. However, it doesn't work here. Because everyone does not read their neighbors mail, nor listen to their neighbors phone calls. I do not, and would be shocked to learn that my neighbors were, or were even trying to.

You see, for the "everyone does it" there would have to be an absence of laws that we take for granted, like wiretapping statutes. It is illegal for me to buy a scanner, program it to receive the digital radio signals that a cell phone puts out, put that signal through a computer, and decrypt the signal to listen to the calls. That is a felony in my state, and if I was on a Military Base, a Felony under federal law. But we're told that everyone does it.

So what can the average person accept? Well, we can accept that we would do that to our enemies. Because you obviously do not trust your enemies, and you want to keep an eye on them. OK, the average Joe and Jill can deal with that no problem. Which is why the nation was impressed with the technology of the Submarine Spying when we were caught tapping the underwater cables of the Soviets. We were listening to our enemies, and that if not exactly honorable, is at least defensible.

But when we look at the slowly dripping NSA revelations. We see that they are not just focused on our enemies, they are sucking up huge amounts of data, and focusing on anyone who catches their eye. So everyone does it is such a fatuous excuse at this point. Then we hear that the NSA didn't bother telling the President that they were doing it for five years. Now, if that is not the definition of an out of control and a serious problem of lack of oversight, I don't know what is.

So the "truth is that everyone does it" argument is falling rather flat, and it should. Because everyone does not do it. You can change it to all world leaders do it, but then you're left with the problem of the reports that nobody told the President about it for five years. So if every world leader does it, why did they keep it a secret from our leader in the world?

I said months ago that these NSA revelations would have legs, and would continue. I said at the time that it would be a game changer, and it is. Now look where we are. Appointing the guy who kept information from the President for five years to oversee the activities of the group that was keeping the President out of the loop now looks so asinine as to be charitably referred to as amateurish.

I can't even make a half assed stab at an analogy that makes sense as an example. The closest I came to is hiring the burglars that robbed your house to tell you that the security is airtight.

There was a time when people saw the KGB behind every bush. Now, they see the CIA and the NSA behind every computer screen. We have become the bogieman that hides and sneaks and does all sorts of improper things.

[stevenleser]

5. There is something you are not considering and that is, if everyone does it, why do they do it.

I think if you only consider one country whose government you consider to be too far to the right, it's easy to say "oh, they're doing this because they are bad, they're trying to keep down the 99%, etc.". When it is a good portion of western europe, many of whom operate social democracies considerably to our left on the left-right continuum, I don't think it is as easy to say that.

The question then becomes why are they doing it. I think the answer is obvious. I think all of these governments are very concerned about the threat of terrorism and believe this represents the best choice to interdict terrorism before it happens.

You can disagree with their opinion, I've seen all of the attempts at arguments that it is ineffective, but all of these governments think it is effective and that is why they do it. Claiming you know better than all of these combined governments and their officials is, well, you better have pretty strong evidence in your favor to support you if you disagree.

[randome]

6. Stopping international crime, for one reason.

If a cartel is based in one country, they are probably doing all they can to stay under the radar of that country. But an 'outsider' agency might be able to 'get the goods' on them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[stevenleser]

9. I would agree with that too. I think international crime and terror both have extrastate aspects

and thus pose additional challenges for law enforcement.

[Savannahmann]

10. PFUI

If you are telling me that we are tapping the phones of foreign leaders including the POPE! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/10415228/US-spied-on-future-Pope-Francis-during-Vatican-conclave.html because we think they might be involved in, supporting, or otherwise less than outrageously opposed to Terrorism I'm going to call BS and throw a flag on the play.

We are concerned, we are concerned that Germany might come up with some plan that catches us unawares, like the Reunification that completely caught us off guard. We are concerned that those damned foreign leaders might come up with some sort of peace proposal and spring it on us as an accomplished fact that would reduce or eliminate our ability to bomb the crap out of people for little or no justification. We are concerned that the World is perhaps growing weary of our perpetual nonsense concerning the omnipresent war. So if we hear that Germany for example, is showing signs of weariness of our war on terror, and we send in one of our spooks with ginned up evidence to show that this guy we whacked was planning on bombing a nightclub in Berlin. Oh well, we're back on board, since you're protecting us America.

In order to lie to someone convincingly, and successfully, you have to know what they know, so you are careful not to make the lie something that they know to be untrue. If you were at a Football Game, and I said I was there sitting two seats away, you would know I was a liar. But if I was on the other side of the stadium, you would probably believe me.

We aren't spying because of our fear of Terrorists. We're spying because we're terrified that we might not be in charge of world opinion anymore, and our influence is slipping.