• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are You Fine with the NSA Sharing Data with Israel?

Are You Fine with the NSA Sharing Data with Israel?


  • Total voters
    36
Because they've done it. Yes or no.

EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.

I think if the US is somehow "paying" for that data in some way, it is illegal because at that point Israel (or another country) is acting as an agent of the US (working for the US) and that would violate the 4th amendment. If Israel is volunteering that information without being compensated in some way, then it maintains its foreign government status independent of the US.

Edit: With the caveat contained in that amendment
 
We've been exchanging data with Israel and vice-versa for as long as Israel has existed. This is not a revelation.

EDIT: To clarify, nobody in Israel is interested in my personal information. If I start getting spam from Tel Aviv trying to sell me property in the West Bank, then I'll be concerned. Otherwise, not so much.

Ha! If you only knew how infamous you are. ;)
 
Tell me who, among the intellectually honest, still supports giving foreign aid to Egypt?

People who prefer not to see a country that sits on one of the worlds' economic arteries (the Suez) fall into the camp of Iran, Russia, or (maybe worse) chaos?

You have not made the case why everyone needs to be spied upon and why warrants based on reasonable suspicion are too much to ask.

You stated that there was NO reason for the U.S. to collect FISA data and NO reason for it to be shared with other governments. I gave you two very good reasons, and your continued inability to address them is noted.

Criticize something that the military has done, and make it substantial. Come on, I beg of you.

Yawn, like I thought, technical criticisms and issues with the bureaucracy. I figured you wouldn't criticize something like the use of Agent Orange, the bombing of innocent civilians during WWII, the use of drones to kill innocent civilians, or any abhorrent practice.

:shrug: I wouldn't criticize the use of bombing in WWII; we lacked the ability to strike at industrial centers with any more accuracy than we had. It was a total war effort for both sides. I would criticize the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, along with most of our strategy in Vietnam (until Abrams took over), as needlessly destructive and counterproductive. That criticism is included in the paragraph you so blithely skipped over. Collateral Damage is supposed to be relative to the military advantage gained in order to be lawful under the Geneva Conventions, and I continue to support applying that standard.

However, the bombing targets in Vietnam, the use of large-scale aerial power in WWII, and event the use of drone-strikes in Pakistan now are not military decisions - they are political decisions taken by our civilian leadership. If you wanted me to criticize something that our political leadership has done with regards to its' control over the military, you should have asked for that instead. The military does not decide when or where or to an extent how to go to war.

We get their oil, so anything that they do gets a pass from us. Yet, take a look at how we have had sanctions against Iran and Iraq. Look at how the US installs dictators across the globe who are friendly to trade with the US. Trade prevents wars. If goods aren't crossing borders, armies will.

an easy argument that is given the lie by history. there was plenty of trade between the north and the south before our Civil War, and between Germany and Britain before WWI. Trade reduces the chances of conflict, it nowhere near ensures its absence.

Except you're not in the right and you've made no coherent case as to why all Americans should be spied upon. Most people are extremely uncomfortable with it, yet you defend it as necessary. Is it just that you trust the US government, because I assure you that if this was some foreign dictator you'd have major problems with the policy.

Of course you believe that. Because you hate America.


(see how stupid the ad hominem is?)
 
Because they've done it. Yes or no.

EDIT: To clarify, this is your personal data that is being shared with Israel.

Our country has ALWAYS shared information and data with its allies. And they have ALWAYS shared information and data with us. Remember that another country warned us about one of the Boston bombers from that country's intel? They provided his name and other personal information. This is normal, as far as I can tell.
 
Our country has ALWAYS shared information and data with its allies. And they have ALWAYS shared information and data with us. Remember that another country warned us about one of the Boston bombers from that country's intel? They provided his name and other personal information. This is normal, as far as I can tell.

Precisely. The NSA is even directly tasked to perform this duty in Executive Order 12333, which has been in effect (and public knowledge) since Reagan.
 
People who prefer not to see a country that sits on one of the worlds' economic arteries (the Suez) fall into the camp of Iran, Russia, or (maybe worse) chaos?

That's the same thing that the government said about Iran when they initiated a coup. Look at what happened thereafter.

You stated that there was NO reason for the U.S. to collect FISA data and NO reason for it to be shared with other governments. I gave you two very good reasons, and your continued inability to address them is noted.

Your amazing reasons didn't even come close to proving why we need data on everyone. Why could it not be done with standard warrants? Why must everyone be spied on?

:shrug: I wouldn't criticize the use of bombing in WWII; we lacked the ability to strike at industrial centers with any more accuracy than we had. It was a total war effort for both sides. I would criticize the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, along with most of our strategy in Vietnam (until Abrams took over), as needlessly destructive and counterproductive. That criticism is included in the paragraph you so blithely skipped over. Collateral Damage is supposed to be relative to the military advantage gained in order to be lawful under the Geneva Conventions, and I continue to support applying that standard.

Collateral damage is supposed to be relative? So then you're fine with innocent lives being taken. Noted.

However, the bombing targets in Vietnam, the use of large-scale aerial power in WWII, and event the use of drone-strikes in Pakistan now are not military decisions - they are political decisions taken by our civilian leadership. If you wanted me to criticize something that our political leadership has done with regards to its' control over the military, you should have asked for that instead. The military does not decide when or where or to an extent how to go to war.

The military carries out the actions. It's like blaming the mob boss for the crime and not the hitman.

an easy argument that is given the lie by history. there was plenty of trade between the north and the south before our Civil War, and between Germany and Britain before WWI. Trade reduces the chances of conflict, it nowhere near ensures its absence.

Your history is wrong. There was massive increase in protectionism prior to WWI. As for the Civil War, that is a little bit different, don't you think? Lincoln felt that the South had betrayed him and so invaded. That and consider the lost tax revenue.

Of course you believe that. Because you hate America.

(see how stupid the ad hominem is?)

It's tough for me to defend a guy who sees the loss of innocent lives as worth it and the spying on all Americans as necessary and good.

Tell me, was the loss of 100,000 lives in Iraq because of the embargo, as Susan Rice put it, worth it?
 
Our country has ALWAYS shared information and data with its allies. And they have ALWAYS shared information and data with us. Remember that another country warned us about one of the Boston bombers from that country's intel? They provided his name and other personal information. This is normal, as far as I can tell.

I'm not talking about leads, I'm talking about the mass data that the US collects from us.
 
Precisely. The NSA is even directly tasked to perform this duty in Executive Order 12333, which has been in effect (and public knowledge) since Reagan.

Though since Reagan the NSA collects now just a little bit more data.
 
Anything to help stop terrorism
 
If it includes personal info on American citizens who are NOT suspected terrorists, I have a problem with that. From what I heard, this is the case.

Why would they share personal data about citizens? Why would anyone care about my boring day? :lol: I don't get it.
 
That wasn't just a lead. That was specific information about an individual....his travel, his phone number, his address, his name, his friends, his family. I suppose you mean a large amount of data. Hmmmm. I'm not sure I believe that the US is dumping a large amount of data regarding unimportant people on other countries, who wouldn't even care about such data. Or vice versa. For one thing, that would interfere with zeroing in on important people. It would be just noise. It's possible. But it doesn't make sense. And like Judge Judy says...."If it doesn't make sense, it's not true.":lamo
 
Do I get some hummus out of it?
 
Though since Reagan the NSA collects now just a little bit more data.

:shrug: there is much more data to collect, and our means of collection are far superior.

As far as statutory limitations on the ability of the executive to collect foreign intelligence in U.S. territory, the restrictions are actually greater now than they were back in the pre-Reagan era.
 
That's the same thing that the government said about Iran when they initiated a coup

Uh, no. The worry with Iran was that it would fall under the umbrella of the USSR, not that it would fall into chaos.

Look at what happened thereafter.

A successful coup enabled by the CIA that stabilized the thing for over a decade before we failed to pay attention and Islamists took advantage?

Your amazing reasons didn't even come close to proving why we need data on everyone.

That is not the threshold you demanded. You stated that there was NO reason to collect FISA information and NO reason to share FISA intelligence with other nations. Once you are willing to address the failure of that claim, I'd be happy to move on to a discussion of Big Data. But what you are doing here is an attempt to change the subject - and you are more intellectually honest than that, phatz.

Why could it not be done with standard warrants? Why must everyone be spied on?

Easy answer; everyone isn't.

Collateral damage is supposed to be relative? So then you're fine with innocent lives being taken. Noted.

Naturally. You aren't going to be able to wage war without it. For that matter, you're not going to be able to have a police force, or have a citizenry that exercises its' right to self-defense, or have people drive without innocent lives being taken. If we instituted a blanket "no strikes if it might ever cost an innocent life" rule, all that would happen is that the enemy would immediately begin to use human shields as he carried out attacks. More innocent people would die under such a foolish regulation. That is why the Geneva Conventions wisely state that the collateral damage must be relative to the military advantage gained.

The military carries out the actions. It's like blaming the mob boss for the crime and not the hitman.

Not at all. You are referencing political decisions - decisions which, in our government, the military does not have a choice over. We have civilian control over the military in this country for Very, Very, Good Reason. The military does not have the right to usurp the authority of the President or the Congress.

Your history is wrong. There was massive increase in protectionism prior to WWI.

I believe you are thinking of the period roughly a decade before the outbreak of WWII, when there was indeed a massive increase in protectionism, much to the global detriment.

As for the Civil War, that is a little bit different, don't you think?

Not for purposes of the thesis you have put forth.

It's tough for me to defend a guy who sees the loss of innocent lives as worth it and the spying on all Americans as necessary and good.

The loss of innocent lives can be worth it, and spying on all Americans isn't currently performed.

Tell me, was the loss of 100,000 lives in Iraq because of the embargo, as Susan Rice put it, worth it?

It's a good question, considering that sanctions do not tend to change the behavior of complete autocracies (they may have effect on autocratic / representative mixtures, such as in South Africa and Iran), and tend to harm the populace rather than the leadership. The best argument is that it is the only way short of actual invasion to keep a regime at a certain level of capability. I would tend to look with jaundice at the claim of 100,000, since I have mostly seen it in the hands of those with a political ax to grind, but certainly many more than that suffered.
 
I don't see the US sharing personal information about a citizen with another country unless there is a good reason. It just doesn't make any sense.
 
I say definitely... Israel is our best ally in the middle east.
 
People who prefer not to see a country that sits on one of the worlds' economic arteries (the Suez) fall into the camp of Iran, Russia, or (maybe worse) chaos?

Ye-up.

Egypt turns to Russia as relations with Washington sour

The Russian foreign and defence ministers will travel to Egypt next week on a visit seen as signalling a growing rapprochement between the two countries as the military-backed authorities in Cairo reach out for new allies and seek to lessen dependence on Washington.

A Russian official spokesman said that Sergei Lavrov, the foreign minister, and Sergei Shoigu, the defence minister, would discuss issues touching on “military and technical co-operation” – seen as a Russian euphemism for arms sales.

High quality global journalism requires investment.

Cairo’s relations with Washington, its primary aid donor and military supplier for four decades, have frayed since the coup in July that ousted the Islamist Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first elected president.

As tensions with Washington increased over the summer, culminating in a US decision to withhold part of its annual $1.3bn in military aid, Egyptian officials started to hint that their country would seek a realignment in foreign relations....
 
We've been exchanging data with Israel and vice-versa for as long as Israel has existed. This is not a revelation.

EDIT: To clarify, nobody in Israel is interested in my personal information. If I start getting spam from Tel Aviv trying to sell me property in the West Bank, then I'll be concerned. Otherwise, not so much.
Well I'm already getting lots of spam from China in their language, so I am VERY concerned. not just spam, but offers of things I looked elsewhere for on internet to buy from American companies. but some people are only concerned when it hits them directly.
 
Depends, things on terrorists or Intel on country's threatening them like Iran and Iraq, that i would be OK with, but not our personal info.
 
Back
Top Bottom