4 ms·

The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state, and is presented in a way th

The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state, and is presented in a way that seems designed to popularise the idea of surveillance economies exchanging with one another, without civilian oversight. I don't think this is a good thing. We have seen that the USA has, essentially, co=opted the intelligence-gathering communities of the peer states in its coalition - and only seems to be 'acceptable' because its being done by 'our side'. But I think the state issue is such a large problem that such circumstances can only lead to further catastrophes in the future, when these extra-sovereign entities, not bounded by any local state laws, decide that they need to justify their continued existence by exerting that covert power in order to create conditions conducive to the prosperity of the secret apparatus, itself. Are Australians okay with not being spied on by their own intelligence agencies, while being spied on by the CIA, which then shares that information with Australian spy agencies as an extra-sovereign economic exchange? Perhaps they are - but I hope this is not the case elsewhere in the 5-eyes world. What it indicates to me is that we civilians will always have to work hard to get ahead of the military sovereign and lessen the dependencies they put in place to continually justify their existence - i.e. we need to make peace faster than they can make war. Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process...

chrisseaton 6y ago
> The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping each other is what allies do. You make it sound like it's some bizarre underhand agreement. They're just allies. I'm sure the UK would return the favour to the Dutch if Aruba were invaded (don't actually know about their defence agreements but you get the idea.) > without civilian oversight This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? > Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process... The pop singer?
- fit2rule 6y ago
  >Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping allies route around local legislation designed to protect the rights of citizens in one state, by using another states surveillance apparatus to violate those rights, as is the case with the 5-eyes war coalition: this is the end of sovereign state-hood and the beginning of a new world order where the 'intelligence' community ends up having more rights than the citizens they're "sworn"^Wsupposed to protect... I don't think we should be so easily swayed into accepting this state of affairs. >This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? That's the state of affairs now, but it was not the case in 1982, during the conflict, and it was a long road until we, the citizens who paid for these actions, found out just how it all went down. >The pop singer? Yes, he was a pop singer, and he also was the founder of one of the most effective Peace Movements, which deflated with his assassination. We need more individuals like him, now more than ever.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > That's the state of affairs now, but it was not the case in 1982 Maybe you know more than me here, but I think GCHQ, CIA, AIVD, BND, were all civilian in 1982 as well.
C1sc0cat 6y ago
Argentina invaded the Falklands here.
- fit2rule 6y ago
  Okay, edited my comment to reflect this fact. Nevertheless, the point still stands: should we be so willing to allow our intelligence apparatus, as citizens, to be sold on an open market of economy for subterfuge and covert action? I would argue, definitely not. To allow this to occur, creates a super-state - as we have seen - which answers to nobody but itself, and is thus an usurpation of democracy.
- unixhero 6y ago
  Yes, this was no clear cut case of war. Argentina got invaded.
  - C1sc0cat 6y ago
    What by the Spanish "colonisers :-) The Falklanders certainly considered themselves part of the UK
  - pjc50 6y ago
    Er, no - Argentina invaded first; the islands were British from colonization onwards.
    - dep_b 6y ago
      First the Dutch, then the Spanish, who got kicked out by the British around the Argentine independence. Most of the time that the islands were inhabited the people that lived there were British. While the Spanish hold no colonies in South America anymore, the British do. The Argentines would have been the logical successors to the Spanish and Britain invaded Argentina as well. It’s hard to find the good guys in this story but it would be really hard to the people that currently live on the islands to become part of Argentina
      - 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

> The subtext is one state using another states spying activities in order to gain an advantage in its own war against a third state Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping each other is what allies do. You make it sound like it's some bizarre underhand agreement. They're just allies. I'm sure the UK would return the favour to the Dutch if Aruba were invaded (don't actually know about their defence agreements but you get the idea.) > without civilian oversight This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? > Would that we had another Lennon around to assist that process... The pop singer?

fit2rule 6y ago
>Do you understand what an 'ally' is? They're allies. Helping allies route around local legislation designed to protect the rights of citizens in one state, by using another states surveillance apparatus to violate those rights, as is the case with the 5-eyes war coalition: this is the end of sovereign state-hood and the beginning of a new world order where the 'intelligence' community ends up having more rights than the citizens they're "sworn"^Wsupposed to protect... I don't think we should be so easily swayed into accepting this state of affairs. >This article is about civilian agencies, and discusses civilian politicians talking about them. Talking about civilian oversight doesn't make any sense here. What were you trying to mean? That's the state of affairs now, but it was not the case in 1982, during the conflict, and it was a long road until we, the citizens who paid for these actions, found out just how it all went down. >The pop singer? Yes, he was a pop singer, and he also was the founder of one of the most effective Peace Movements, which deflated with his assassination. We need more individuals like him, now more than ever.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > That's the state of affairs now, but it was not the case in 1982 Maybe you know more than me here, but I think GCHQ, CIA, AIVD, BND, were all civilian in 1982 as well.

C1sc0cat 6y ago

Argentina invaded the Falklands here.

fit2rule 6y ago
Okay, edited my comment to reflect this fact. Nevertheless, the point still stands: should we be so willing to allow our intelligence apparatus, as citizens, to be sold on an open market of economy for subterfuge and covert action? I would argue, definitely not. To allow this to occur, creates a super-state - as we have seen - which answers to nobody but itself, and is thus an usurpation of democracy.
unixhero 6y ago
Yes, this was no clear cut case of war. Argentina got invaded.
- C1sc0cat 6y ago
  What by the Spanish "colonisers :-) The Falklanders certainly considered themselves part of the UK
- pjc50 6y ago
  Er, no - Argentina invaded first; the islands were British from colonization onwards.
  - dep_b 6y ago
    First the Dutch, then the Spanish, who got kicked out by the British around the Argentine independence. Most of the time that the islands were inhabited the people that lived there were British. While the Spanish hold no colonies in South America anymore, the British do. The Argentines would have been the logical successors to the Spanish and Britain invaded Argentina as well. It’s hard to find the good guys in this story but it would be really hard to the people that currently live on the islands to become part of Argentina
    - 6y ago