WSJ - US Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress

[texas_ex2000]

http://www.wsj.com/article_email/u-...congress-1451425210-lMyQjAxMTA1MTM0MDgzNjA4Wj

President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.

But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/30/politics/2016-nsa-spying-israel-congress/index.html

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was one of the first 2016 candidates to use the report as opportunity to criticize what he sees as excessive surveillance from government, an issue he's championed throughout his Senate career.

So Rand Paul is being a douche once again. We're going to spy on allies. They spy on us. If you want to complain that it was driven by politics instead of national security...fine. But everyone spies on each other. They do it because knowledge makes you safer...it saves lives. There is not, to my knowledge, not a single country where external intelligence collection is illegal.

The bigger douche is you know who, who two years ago stands up and says, "We're not going to spy on you!" First, you're lying and everyone knows it and no one takes you seriously. Second, when the WSJ exposes your lie, you look incompetent.

Why...I just don't have the words.

 

[Seattle Husker]

We're going to spy on allies. They spy on us. If you want to complain that it was driven by politics instead of national security...fine. But everyone spies on each other. They do it because knowledge makes you safer...it saves lives. There is not, to my knowledge, not a single country where external intelligence collection is illegal.

I couldn't agree more. Everyone is spying on each other, the key is for it not to become public.

The bigger douche is you know who, who two years ago stands up and says, "We're not going to spy on you!" First, you're lying and everyone knows it and no one takes you seriously. Second, when the WSJ exposes your lie, you look incompetent.

Doesn't the POTUS have to sway that to quell the faux rage from the worlds leaders? The POTUS is the marketing side of International Relations. If there is someone to blame, it's whomever leaked the story to the WSJ.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Doesn't the POTUS have to sway that to quell the faux rage from the worlds leaders?

If it's faux, what difference does "quelling" it make? That would be the biggest waste of time sitting in the Oval Office with the NSC discussing how to quell something that is faux. I don't know how his "don't do stupid s%$^" doctrine fits in with all of this.

Great leaders lead. The trait most people would probably cite that is fundamental to great leadership is character. Lying is antithetical to character. And great leaders aren't marketers or politicians and they don't blame WSJ reporters for exposing their lies.

This is not hard. You say what you mean and you do exactly what you say.

 

[NJlonghorn]

This is not hard. You say what you mean and you do exactly what you say.

Are you saying we should admit that we spy on Israel? If so, that's nuts.

Of course we spy on Israel. And of course the Israeli government knows we spy on them. But the Israeli public is outraged so Israeli politicians have to express outrage. If we admitted to spying, the Israeli government would have no choice but to act on it. By denying, we make it possible for things to continue as is.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Are you saying we should admit that we spy on Israel? If so, that's nuts.

Come on NJ. I'm not writing for 4th graders here. What I typed at the very end of that post was a general principle you teach children.

Be a Man of your word.

How do you apply that principle in this case? Are we really clouded by partisanship to ask that question? It's sad. Politics today is so messed up that the responses below have to actually be itemized and detailed.

1) Don't say we're not going to spy.
2) See No. 1.
3) When it comes to specific intelligence operations make it a policy not to comment on anything.
4) If you feel compelled to say something, say that national security policies are constantly evaluated and reviewed in order to adapt to evolving threats and situations.
5) If some country's leader is still whining, have the ambassador tell him in private that we'll declassify the counterintel on a few ops they're running against us so the rest of the Senate and all those congressmen up for reelection can chew on something.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Part of the issue here also is the technology gap between our collection assets and the Israelis.

Through satellites, we collect COMMINT like a vacuum. If Netenyahu happens to make a call on his iPhone, that's collected just like the conversation of the deli owner to his wife across the street from his office. That collection is for the most part passive in nature. And you're going to analyze all the data you have the budget for.

The Israelis have a superb intelligence program, but they don't have the overhead assets we have. Their bread and butter is HUMINT...like Pollard (who btw we set free recently) and these AIPAC spies. That is an active collection operation and much more targeted and aggravating from an espionage law perspective.

 

[Seattle Husker]

If it's faux, what difference does "quelling" it make? That would be the biggest waste of time sitting in the Oval Office with the NSC discussing how to quell something that is faux. I don't know how his "don't do stupid s%$^" doctrine fits in with all of this.

Great leaders lead. The trait most people would probably cite that is fundamental to great leadership is character. Lying is antithetical to character. And great leaders aren't marketers or politicians and they don't blame WSJ reporters for exposing their lies.

This is not hard. You say what you mean and you do exactly what you say.

I'm not sure how to respond. Argue that your altruism works great in movies but wouldn't apply to any single leader in American history or go current events and remind you of the sh!tstorm that was going on at the time with the Edward Snowden leak, multiple Presidents around the world publically questioning their alliances with the US including protests in Brazil and Germany. Which would you prefer?

 

[NJlonghorn]

How do you apply that principle in this case? Are we really clouded by partisanship to ask that question? It's sad. Politics today is so messed up that the responses below have to actually be itemized and detailed.

Hearing you complain about partisanship is ironic. If Obama had not denied spying on Israel, you'd be calling him a naïve rookie who doesn't understand the first thing about espionage and diplomacy.

 

[texas_ex2000]

Hearing you complain about partisanship is ironic. If Obama had not denied spying on Israel, you'd be calling him a naïve rookie who doesn't understand the first thing about espionage and diplomacy.

???

When did I ever say he should deny spying on Israel?

I'm not sure how to respond. Argue that your altruism works great in movies but wouldn't apply to any single leader in American history or go current events and remind you of the sh!tstorm that was going on at the time with the Edward Snowden leak, multiple Presidents around the world publically questioning their alliances with the US including protests in Brazil and Germany. Which would you prefer?

They could cry me a river. The Israelis spy on us EVERY FREAKING DAY. And not this official cover diplomat stuff either. The French do the same thing. And the Germans and Brits collect COMMINT in the US also.

Are they pissed when they get the details from Snowden of what we get? Sure. But do you think that was the first time they knew we collected intel? Come on man. Talk about naive.

You get allies by being a strong competent leader that others respect. They don't have to like or agree with everything you say, but they will respect you if you do what you say you're going to do.

Strong competent leaders say what they mean and do what they say. In this world of technology where every conversation is collected by everybody...saying you don't spy is irrelevant. We're not going to stop collecting, they're not going to stop collecting either. If you don't want your conversations vaccummed up, then encrypt your communication systems.

 

[Seattle Husker]

???

When did I ever say he should deny spying on Israel?

They could cry me a river. The Israelis spy on us EVERY FREAKING DAY. And not this official cover diplomat stuff either. The French do the same thing. And the Germans and Brits collect COMMINT in the US also.

Are they pissed when they get the details from Snowden of what we get? Sure. But do you think that was the first time they knew we collected intel? Come on man. Talk about naive.

You get allies by being a strong competent leader that others respect. They don't have to like or agree with everything you say, but they will respect you if you do what you say you're going to do.

Strong competent leaders say what they mean and do what they say. In this world of technology where every conversation is collected by everybody...saying you don't spy is irrelevant. We're not going to stop collecting, they're not going to stop collecting either. If you don't want your conversations vaccummed up, then encrypt your communication systems.

You're all over the map. On one hand you are saying we are all spying each other and shouldn't be naïve to question why our allies would spy on each other then you take the altruistic route. Are you advocating that the POTUS should say "yes, we spy on our allies and will continue to"?

 

[texas_ex2000]

You're all over the map. On one hand you are saying we are all spying each other and shouldn't be naïve to question why our allies would spy on each other then you take the altruistic route. Are you advocating that the POTUS should say "yes, we spy on our allies and will continue to"?

Seattle, this question illustrates you do not understand intelligence. It's also indicative of why Obama's doesn't understand intelligence also.

We always should strive for altruism. I think very few people would disagree with that general statement. The few that disagree are mostly psychopathic. Even when it's not practical or easy we should always strive to do the high-character option. And deep down, people all know, even if they don't fully embrace it, what the most important/fundamental part of character is - your word.

But here's were yours and Obama's naiveté limits your thoughts on this incident...what is altruism amongst spies?

Let that marinate for a while.

I had a French exchange officer in my squadron (if you're wondering...no the French do not fly F/A-18s). 60% of the syllabus is NOFORN. What do you think his job was? What do you think my job was? Do you think he respected me any less, or that I respected him less? No. And what do you think his American counterparts are doing in France flying Mirages? That's our job.

Obama isn't losing allies because we're spying on them. He's losing them because he's weak. And that's primarily because his word is practically worthless.

Are you advocating that the POTUS should say "yes, we spy on our allies and will continue to"?

Husker, go ahead and read my third post again. It's very clear.

 

[NJlonghorn]

???

When did I ever say he should deny spying on Israel?

You said Obama should not deny spying on Israel, or say anything else about spying on Israel. I said that if Obama had complied with your advice, you'd be criticizing him for his failure to deny spying on Israel.

 

[texas_ex2000]

You said Obama should not deny spying on Israel, or say anything else about spying on Israel. I said that if Obama had complied with your advice, you'd be criticizing him for his failure to deny spying on Israel.

NJ...how exactly do you get that conclusion from this...specifically 3?

That's ridiculous, why would I criticize him or anyone for not denying spying on Israel? That's the literally the opposite of my thoughts.

1) Don't say we're not going to spy.
2) See No. 1.
3) When it comes to specific intelligence operations make it a policy not to comment on anything.