Exclusive: Germany, Brazil Turn to U.N. to Restrain American Spies

Obama violated the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not get caught.

At his level there is no excuse, this isn't third grade kickball.

Hatuey said:

I too would back off if I had made an outrageously ridiculous claim that would be proven wrong the minute I qualified it with a standard. I ignored the rest of your long diatribe about how evil and doo-doo headed Obama is. It's irrelevant to the claim you made. Only wait...



That's the standard you've set for being more transparent than Obama? Fine.

Nixon:

Nixon plot against newspaper columnist detailed - politics | NBC News



Bush:

Bush's War On The Press - CBS News



There you have two administrations who have done worse things. They weren't engaging in some action you subjectively thought as being "going after journalists". They blocked out and harassed journalists. Which makes this:



False. Now, run along. This is way above your skill level.

Click to expand...

Well good, now that I've got you to put in some effort instead of writing lazy one liners, we can continue. For some reason you think his war on journalism has been the only thing making his administration the least transparent in history, when in reality it involves a culmination of things:

- The Obama administration has charged more would-be whistleblowers with violating state secrecy laws than all previous administrations combined.
- The Obama administration has been frequently caught in the act illegally monitoring journalists
- The Obama administration not only won't tell us how many detainees they're holding, why, or even where, and they've made their trials top secret and under a matter of national security, something Senator Obama heavily criticized.
- They won't even acknowledge the existence of a drone program, nor the types of killings or reasons they have for using them.
- The Obama administration has had more freedom of information act lawsuits than any president in history (Though FOIA has only existed for about 40 years, that's still quite a few presidents)


So let's take a look at his promises:
- Obama said he would end the wars LIE
- Obama said he would have the most transparent in history LIE (even if he's not the least transparent, he's 100% not the most transparent)
- Obama said he would close guantanomo LIE
- Obama said he rejected the use of NSL's to spy on citizens not suspected of crime LIE
- Obama said he would enforce habeus corpus LIE
- etc. I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Fact is, even if he weren't in charge of the least transparent administration in our history, he's definitely far, far, far from the most, which was his promise. But by all means, why don't you tell me about how informed you feel about your government and how transparent everything is.

Sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6]

Hatuey said:

Yep and then he was elected, some national security advisers showed up gave him a briefing - and he had to realize that the goals of some promises are simply inconsistent with how the real world works. If you think this wouldn't happen with any president, you're out of your noggin', my friend.

Click to expand...

Another rationalization for Obamalies. :yawn:

joG said:

First of all, Germany and Brazil have not been acting as a friends for many years and it is an absolutely necessity to keep an eye on such dangerous players.
Second, it is silly to assume a nation can be a "friend" in the first place. Countries can have similar cultures and closely aligned national interests and these can be stable for extended periods such as between the US, Canada, England or Australia possibly Mexico and in a somewhat other form with Taiwan, Japan or South Korea. But with Germany? They hate us. And anyone that tells you differently is either performing a public policy lip service, lying or ignorant.
I am a German specialist, know Thousands of Germans and have a lot of personal friends, follow the public Media closely and read a good number of German papers regularly. Believe me: They are not friends. Do not ever rely on them for anything.

Click to expand...

Put any rational you want to excuse it.

Defending this has no excuse. Its pathetic and shameful.

We aught to be damn embarrassed on how our government is doing whatever it can to ruin what little credibility and trust we have left in the world.

RabidAlpaca said:

- The Obama administration has charged more would-be whistleblowers with violating state secrecy laws than all previous administrations combined.

Click to expand...

Prove it. Show a link with all previous administrations and their charging of "whistleblowers" and not people charged under the Espionage Act, which is what you're referring to as whistleblowers are protected by the Whistleblower_Protection_Act. Here is the grand total for the Obama administration so far:

8 Whistleblowers Charged With Violating the Espionage Act Under Obama - PolicyMic

That is the total 8. Show that ALL previous administrations combined have charged less people with the Espionage Act or similar laws... wait... your claim is ridiculous:

Here are the fourteenpeople I found disproving your claim:

Aldrich Ames - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milestones: Dec. 13, 1963 - TIME

Elizabeth Turrill Bentley, 55, onetime Communist whose disclosures of wartime Soviet espionage led to the conviction of more than a dozen top Reds between 1948 and 1951


That's 14 people by my count charged under the same type of laws.

- The Obama administration has been frequently caught in the act illegally monitoring journalists

Click to expand...

Show that they were caught more than other administrations. Thanks.

- The Obama administration not only won't tell us how many detainees they're holding, why, or even where, and they've made their trials top secret and under a matter of national security, something Senator Obama heavily criticized.

Click to expand...

Show that previous administrations did tell people how many detainees they were holding. Thanks.

- They won't even acknowledge the existence of a drone program, nor the types of killings or reasons they have for using them.

Click to expand...

Utterly false: U.S. pre-emptively refuses Sharif's challenge on drones - The Hindu

- The Obama administration has had more freedom of information act lawsuits than any president in history (Though FOIA has only existed for about 40 years, that's still quite a few presidents)

Click to expand...

Lol - oh alright, so now we're measuring by a standard that only the last 40 years can be measured by. Good to know you're not moving goal posts, otherwise I'd be shaking in my booties.

Hatuey said:

Prove it. Show a link with all previous administrations and their charging of "whistleblowers" and not people charged under the Espionage Act, which is what you're referring to as whistleblowers are protected by the Whistleblower_Protection_Act. Here is the grand total for the Obama administration so far:

8 Whistleblowers Charged With Violating the Espionage Act Under Obama - PolicyMic

That is the total 8. Show that ALL previous administrations combined have charged less people with the Espionage Act or similar laws... wait... your claim is ridiculous:

Here are the fourteenpeople I found disproving your claim:

Aldrich Ames - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Milestones: Dec. 13, 1963 - TIME

Elizabeth Turrill Bentley, 55, onetime Communist whose disclosures of wartime Soviet espionage led to the conviction of more than a dozen top Reds between 1948 and 1951


That's 14 people by my count charged under the same type of laws.



Show that they were caught more than other administrations. Thanks.



Show that previous administrations did tell people how many detainees they were holding. Thanks.



Utterly false: U.S. pre-emptively refuses Sharif's challenge on drones - The Hindu



Lol - oh alright, so now we're measuring by a standard that only the last 40 years can be measured by. Good to know you're not moving goal posts, otherwise I'd be shaking in my booties.

Click to expand...

Ha, I think it's funny that you're trying so hard to prove the "it's the least transparent administration in history" statement, which in and of itself is subjective, instead of my original statement which was:

RabidAlpaca said:

I don't think we should be saying things like "Look at how bad he is compared to XXXX", we should be making objective statements about how bad he is. Simple fact is, Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history, to stop the wars, and to rebuild international relations. His actions have been the exact opposite of all 3.

At some point you have to blame the current administration for the way things are being run, and I think 5 years in is more than enough time.

Click to expand...

Even if it's not the 44th least transparent administration, it's not even in the top 40, and his promise was to be #1. My original statement was a statement of fact. He's simply a ****ing liar, and has no intention of making his administration transparent.

You're so god damn preoccupied trying to defend your hero that you refuse to recognize the horrible things he's done.
I've asked this once and I'll ask it again. Are you happy with the transparency of our government right now?

RabidAlpaca said:

Ha, I think it's funny that you're trying so hard to prove the "it's the least transparent administration in history" statement, which in and of itself is subjective, instead of my original statement which was:

Click to expand...

So you can't prove it? Good.

Even if it's not the 44th least transparent administration, it's not even in the top 40, and his promise was to be #1.

Click to expand...

The founders wrote that all men were equal, if one examines "equality" according to them, it is proven to be the time where men were the LEAST equal. Hey, reality is a bitch. Get used to it.

Hatuey said:

So you can't prove it? Good.



The founders wrote that all men were equal, if one examines "equality" according to them, it is proven to be the time where men were the LEAST equal. Hey, reality is a bitch. Get used to it.

Click to expand...

I did prove it, you're not satisfied with the evidence, even after you derailing this thread into your own bull****.

And I asked you a question twice and you ignored it both times. Not surprising, so I guess we're done here.

RabidAlpaca said:

I did prove it,

Click to expand...

Nope, you sir made claims. Saying " The Obama administration has charged more would-be whistleblowers with violating state secrecy laws than all previous administrations combined." is not proof. It's a claim. You essentially made claims to back up your first unproven claim. :shrug: That's not proof of anything. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide any evidence for the claims you made to support your first claim. You seem to have trouble understanding the standard of proof you keep setting for yourself.

Hatuey said:

Nope, you sir made claims. Saying " The Obama administration has charged more would-be whistleblowers with violating state secrecy laws than all previous administrations combined." is not proof. It's a claim. You essentially made claims to back up your first unproven claim. :shrug: That's not proof of anything. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to provide any evidence for the claims you made to support your first claim. You seem to have trouble understanding the standard of proof you keep setting for yourself.

Click to expand...

If you're too lazy to read my sources or even google it yourself, then too lazy to answer one question after being asked several times, I can't help you. Good day.

RabidAlpaca said:

If you're too lazy to read my sources or even google it yourself, then too lazy to answer one question after being asked several times, I can't help you. Good day.

Click to expand...

Your sources and claims aren't consistent. Which is why you refuse to actually cite the part of your sources which allegedly support your claims. As I said, I too would back off if I had made some outrageous claim. Tell us, was Edward Snowden charged with whistle blowing or theft of government property?

joG said:

First of all, Germany and Brazil have not been acting as a friends for many years and it is an absolutely necessity to keep an eye on such dangerous players.
Second, it is silly to assume a nation can be a "friend" in the first place. Countries can have similar cultures and closely aligned national interests and these can be stable for extended periods such as between the US, Canada, England or Australia possibly Mexico and in a somewhat other form with Taiwan, Japan or South Korea. But with Germany? They hate us. And anyone that tells you differently is either performing a public policy lip service, lying or ignorant.
I am a German specialist, know Thousands of Germans and have a lot of personal friends, follow the public Media closely and read a good number of German papers regularly. Believe me: They are not friends. Do not ever rely on them for anything.

Click to expand...

You're mistaking the political and diplomatic reality for, well, reality. Since we're talking about the interactions of national governments (and this goes double for national governments acting on the world stage), who it is appropriate to call "friend" is very different than it would be on the street, just as what it is appropriate to be angry about is also very different. These governments could've privately invited the USA in to surveil each and every one of their citizens down to the regularity of their poops, but if that activity gets exposed to the public then they have to respond as if they had no idea. They could've been actively opposing our national interests at every turn, but unless it is straightforward enough to explain in a blunt headline ("GERMANY DROPS 10 TONS OF KITTENS ON WHITE HOUSE"), they still get to act outraged when we get caught sneaking around inside their borders.

We can debate the necessity and legality and so on of what the US government has been doing all day long, but the fact we can't escape is that this is the inevitable conclusion of any human endeavor as far-reaching and/or complex as our signals intelligence gathering. Couple that with the diplomatic reality, and this international kerfluffle wasn't a question of "if" but "when."

You can't oversimplify your perspective on something like this by saying it was absolutely necessary, because no matter how necessary it is there are going to be consequences. These consequences must be factored in before we get caught, but it's a bit late for that now. At this point, how expensive and enduring those consequences are depends entirely on how we as a nation respond to this recent exposure of our activities. International outrage only becomes irrelevant if you can supply all of your own economic needs and secure your interests without anyone else's cooperation.

Imnukingfutz said:

Put any rational you want to excuse it.

Defending this has no excuse. Its pathetic and shameful.

We aught to be damn embarrassed on how our government is doing whatever it can to ruin what little credibility and trust we have left in the world.

Click to expand...

That we should be embarrassed is true. We have not explained well and widely, why we do what we do. That would have been Obama's job.

But it would be silly to be ashamed of our government's having done, what we mandated it by law pay them to do. If it had nor been looking to know, what dangerous countries' leaders are doing, I for my part would be pretty angry.

Hatuey said:

Your sources and claims aren't consistent. Which is why you refuse to actually cite the part of your sources which allegedly support your claims. As I said, I too would back off if I had made some outrageous claim. Tell us, was Edward Snowden charged with whistle blowing or theft of government property?

Click to expand...

Still waiting for the answer to that question. Are you happy with our government's current level of transparency?

TacticalEvilDan said:

You're mistaking the political and diplomatic reality for, well, reality. Since we're talking about the interactions of national governments (and this goes double for national governments acting on the world stage), who it is appropriate to call "friend" is very different than it would be on the street, just as what it is appropriate to be angry about is also very different. These governments could've privately invited the USA in to surveil each and every one of their citizens down to the regularity of their poops, but if that activity gets exposed to the public then they have to respond as if they had no idea. They could've been actively opposing our national interests at every turn, but unless it is straightforward enough to explain in a blunt headline ("GERMANY DROPS 10 TONS OF KITTENS ON WHITE HOUSE"), they still get to act outraged when we get caught sneaking around inside their borders.

We can debate the necessity and legality and so on of what the US government has been doing all day long, but the fact we can't escape is that this is the inevitable conclusion of any human endeavor as far-reaching and/or complex as our signals intelligence gathering. Couple that with the diplomatic reality, and this international kerfluffle wasn't a question of "if" but "when."

You can't oversimplify your perspective on something like this by saying it was absolutely necessary, because no matter how necessary it is there are going to be consequences. These consequences must be factored in before we get caught, but it's a bit late for that now. At this point, how expensive and enduring those consequences are depends entirely on how we as a nation respond to this recent exposure of our activities. International outrage only becomes irrelevant if you can supply all of your own economic needs and secure your interests without anyone else's cooperation.

Click to expand...

You are right. That is why it was such poor judgement by the government not to explain much more forcefully, what we do and why. It was not enough that the governments around the world understood and helped in many of the operations and even have contracts with the US that allow many of the things now being decried. Our government should have been out there explaining loud and clear what they were doing.

Possobly we can gain an advantage out of this, however. If the thing goes to the UN Obama can make clear that the US is a supporter of stopping all spying and will do so as soon as the UN believably, robustly and generally guarantees international security
of all people and peoples.

joG said:

You are right. That is why it was such poor judgement by the government not to explain much more forcefully, what we do and why. It was not enough that the governments around the world understood and helped in many of the operations and even have contracts with the US that allow many of the things now being decried. Our government should have been out there explaining loud and clear what they were doing.

Possobly we can gain an advantage out of this, however. If the thing goes to the UN Obama can make clear that the US is a supporter of stopping all spying and will do so as soon as the UN believably, robustly and generally guarantees international security
of all people and peoples.

Click to expand...

The problem with your argument is the word "many." That is a word that implies one thing but can in fact mean many things due to its ambiguity. I would take your perspective more seriously if you were better able to quantify how much of our overseas activities had been explicitly authorized or contracted for versus how many had not.

Aside from that, the UN will never be given the kind of power needed to make any such guarantees.

joG said:

That we should be embarrassed is true. We have not explained well and widely, why we do what we do. That would have been Obama's job.

But it would be silly to be ashamed of our government's having done, what we mandated it by law pay them to do. If it had nor been looking to know, what dangerous countries' leaders are doing, I for my part would be pretty angry.

Click to expand...

To spy on another country, especially one that is not considered an enemy state but an ally and trade partner is something to be embarrassed about. Further more spying on them on their personal cell phone is even worse.

Our governments authority ends where our shore line ends.

Yes, I am embarrassed, that my government would stoop so low. Actually embarrassed is a soft word...I am ashamed of my governments actions.

TacticalEvilDan said:

The problem with your argument is the word "many." That is a word that implies one thing but can in fact mean many things due to its ambiguity. I would take your perspective more seriously if you were better able to quantify how much of our overseas activities had been explicitly authorized or contracted for versus how many had not.

Aside from that, the UN will never be given the kind of power needed to make any such guarantees.

Click to expand...

Problem with exact quantification is, that a lot of the things going on are secret. We do know, however, that Dr Steinmeier head of the Chancellery under Schröder signed a paper allowing American services to carry out any spying on German territory necessary to the security of the troops. I do not have a copy of the document, but Steinmeier has admitted to its existence and refused to quantify its breadth of application. Whether there were further contracts is difficult to know. But concludent behavior by the bureaucracies of the countries there was certainly, which for a foreign interest is very similar to legality, as the government of the other assumes responsibility.
The German and French security services exchanged data on individual suspects derived from the data mining each was carrying out. This means the people knew what the capabilities of the others were. The BND worked with NSA at Bad Aibling and now has taken over the sight. As far as the wire tapping and data mining are concerned, it may have been illegal for the local government to mine data (which is certainly the case in Germany) and the governments had deceived their people in respect to it being done, but it had been allowed by the government and there Bureaucrats had used the mined data and participated in some of the activity. This is one reason, it has not been taken up by the government till this point.

Whether or not tapping the Chancellor phone is necessary for the security of troops stationed in Germany or not is debatable. I could probably make the point rather decisively. The same is true for German embassy or the ministries.

Where concludent behavior is not given I would say, that we are talking about a totally different area. And do not let this silly chatter about trust and friendship and all trick you. After all, Germany, France or Russia have been a rather ambiguous and often destructive players in the last 20 years and have cost a lot of US treasure and many American lives. I would be horrified, if the US did not spy on these countries and do everything possible to know what the Heads of government are thinking, doing messaging on their phones. And I would be very disappointed in the Russians, French or Germans if they are not spying on the US. After all, they would be neglecting the security of their people. This is old fashioned spying albeit with new tools. And to that I would say that it is expected national behavior. Every country does it and if they do not, they are irresponsible.

My advise to Merkel, Schultz and Holland would be to fire the guys on their own security that allowed it to happen. They were not doing their jobs.

Imnukingfutz said:

To spy on another country, especially one that is not considered an enemy state but an ally and trade partner is something to be embarrassed about. Further more spying on them on their personal cell phone is even worse.

Our governments authority ends where our shore line ends.

Yes, I am embarrassed, that my government would stoop so low. Actually embarrassed is a soft word...I am ashamed of my governments actions.

Click to expand...

I think you would find it not a low art but a high art to spy at that level.

And to speak truth. I would be horrified it the government did not practice spying as long as the world is organized as a free for all and winner takes all jungle. When the UN or some other international Organization is willing, able and legitimized to guaranty international security for all populations, we can talk again. But until that time comes I personally think it is dangerous naiveté to demand spying and many other activities to be discontinued. And Game Theory as well as historical evidence seems to bear this out.

Imnukingfutz said:

Exclusive: Germany, Brazil Turn to U.N. to Restrain American Spies | The Cable







Its bad when you spy on your allies and loose even more credibility to the world.

This administration has done more harm in this world than the Bush Administration ever did...and we have a little over 3 years left of this administrations debacles left to deal with.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's your opinion, which you are entitled to and which I will ignore because I do not find it credible.




"

Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, runni9ng out of time, GO

Click to expand...

P.

joG said:

Problem with exact quantification is, that a lot of the things going on are secret. We do know, however, that Dr Steinmeier head of the Chancellery under Schröder signed a paper allowing American services to carry out any spying on German territory necessary to the security of the troops. I do not have a copy of the document, but Steinmeier has admitted to its existence and refused to quantify its breadth of application. Whether there were further contracts is difficult to know. But concludent behavior by the bureaucracies of the countries there was certainly, which for a foreign interest is very similar to legality, as the government of the other assumes responsibility.

The German and French security services exchanged data on individual suspects derived from the data mining each was carrying out. This means the people knew what the capabilities of the others were. The BND worked with NSA at Bad Aibling and now has taken over the sight. As far as the wire tapping and data mining are concerned, it may have been illegal for the local government to mine data (which is certainly the case in Germany) and the governments had deceived their people in respect to it being done, but it had been allowed by the government and there Bureaucrats had used the mined data and participated in some of the activity. This is one reason, it has not been taken up by the government till this point.

Click to expand...

So in other words, you've got rumors, innuendo and indefinite phrasing.

joG said:

Whether or not tapping the Chancellor phone is necessary for the security of troops stationed in Germany or not is debatable. I could probably make the point rather decisively. The same is true for German embassy or the ministries.

Click to expand...

You can make the argument all day long, but you then have to pay the tab when they find out about it and react with the predictable (and entirely appropriate) outrage. If we caught them spying on us, we'd make them pay.

joG said:

Where concludent behavior is not given I would say, that we are talking about a totally different area. And do not let this silly chatter about trust and friendship and all trick you. After all, Germany, France or Russia have been a rather ambiguous and often destructive players in the last 20 years and have cost a lot of US treasure and many American lives.

Click to expand...

Forget Russia, this is the first time Russia has come up in the thread. I do not believe that, beyond competition in matters of trade and so forth, that your accusations regarding Germany and France are accurate. I'd ask for illustrations of what you meant, but you've already proven that being ... definitive ... isn't your strong suit.

joG said:

I would be horrified, if the US did not spy on these countries and do everything possible to know what the Heads of government are thinking, doing messaging on their phones. And I would be very disappointed in the Russians, French or Germans if they are not spying on the US. After all, they would be neglecting the security of their people. This is old fashioned spying albeit with new tools. And to that I would say that it is expected national behavior. Every country does it and if they do not, they are irresponsible.

My advise to Merkel, Schultz and Holland would be to fire the guys on their own security that allowed it to happen. They were not doing their jobs.

Click to expand...

Again, reality versus diplomatic reality. It doesn't matter that everybody does it, we were going to get caught eventually and this is the inevitable response to our exposure.

TacticalEvilDan said:

So in other words, you've got rumors, innuendo and indefinite phrasing.

Click to expand...

Not really. Some of the stuff I mentioned was published and I have known and know a number of the players very well. And anyone who understands intelligence and the reasons spying is a necessity that actually reduces the probability of making wrong decisions up to the point of war would realize how crazy it is to demand unilateral cessation.

joG said:

Not really. Some of the stuff I mentioned was published and I have known and know a number of the players very well. And anyone who understands intelligence and the reasons spying is a necessity that actually reduces the probability of making wrong decisions up to the point of war would realize how crazy it is to demand unilateral cessation.

Click to expand...

Whatever you say, seeing as how whatever you say is all you've given me to go on.

TacticalEvilDan said:

Whatever you say, seeing as how whatever you say is all you've given me to go on.

Click to expand...

Sure. All you need to do is read up. The German press and media are full up right now and if you take your time, you will decern the cracks.
If you go back in time you will understand that the enmity is old and well nourished by the public media and a very large part of the private media.
If you talk with politicians you will find they accept the anti American card as a valuable instrument.
If you read a little Game Theory you will quickly understand why spying is a necessity in a world structured as our's is and actually reduces the probability of war.

Bur I doubt you will be willing to do the necessary work.

joG said:

Bur I doubt you will be willing to do the necessary work.

Click to expand...

You made some grandiose claims, and when called upon to illustrate them with more than your own imprecise description, you failed to deliver. That's not a lack of anything on my part.