4 ms·

It gets a bit complicated with the whole 5-eyes mutual back scratching thing though.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
Exactly. The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is treason against the people of the United States. There is no such thing as an “allied intelligence agency”, by their very nature all non-US intelligence agencies are hostile to American citizens. Thus, our domestic agencies conspiring with hostile foreign entities to defraud and undermine the citizens of the United States is treason.
- George83728 4y ago
  You're wrong, it's not treason. This is meant to be a legalistic society where crimes are defined by laws, not by how the word for the crime is popularly perceived by laypeople. The US Constitution defines treason. In America, treason is when an American levies war against the United States, or adhering to the Enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort. To characterize the UK as an enemy of the US simply isn't true, the US and the UK are not at war; the UK government is not openly hostile to America. If an American gives classified information to the UK they could be convicted of espionage, but treason specifically would not stick. Not even close. Even attempting it would be a complete farce. Treason charges couldn't even stick during the Cold War, when America and the Soviet Union were engaged in numerous proxy wars but weren't officially at war with each other. Many Americans sold secrets to the Soviet Union, got caught, and were convicted of espionage. But not treason. The Rosenbergs, who gave American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? Convicted and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not treason. John Walker and his son, US Navy officers who helped the Soviets decrypt millions of messages? Convicted of espionage, but not treason. Jerry Whitworth, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen.. the list goes on. Convicted of espionage but not treason. The last treason convictions to ever happen in America were for acts committed during WW2.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    In that case, would you agree if we modified the GP's statement to say: "The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is espionage against the people of the United States." If so, then presumably all the arguments against it are still valid, no? Assuming we can agree that "treason against the people of the United States" and "espionage against the people of the United States" are at least in the same ballpark of badness?
    - George83728 4y ago
      > "The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is espionage against the people of the United States." If so, then presumably all the arguments against it are still valid, no? No, because again, these crimes have meanings defined by law which you can't simply replace with a meaning derived from the layperson understanding of the word. To argue that Five Eyes is the illegal kind of espionage, you'd have to argue that it actually violates the Espionage Act. Merely fitting it to the colloquial meaning of 'espionage' isn't sufficient.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  FVEY is an intelligence cooperation agreement that is invaluable to the security of the world. I don't see how any reasonable person could view it as anything negative. What exactly is the objection to classifying some information as SECRET//US,UK,CAN,AUS,NZ instead of SECRET//NOFORN ?
lern_too_spel 4y ago
What mutual backscratching? No such program was in the Snowden leaks. If you're claiming that the US gets other countries to spy on its citizens, that would be utterly illegal.
- newZWhoDis 4y ago
  You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) Essentially what they’ve done is commit treason by colluding with hostile foreign powers to mutually spy on each others citizens, bypassing the pesky constitutional/charter limitations in the process. In the right political climate we could Nuremberg trial 5 levels deep into the organizations responsible, I’m hopeful for that outcome. Reminder: “I was just following orders/policy” wasn’t a defense then and it won’t be this time either.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) If they are doing it, where's your evidence? You don't have it because otherwise, Klayman would have filed a lawsuit.
    - imwillofficial 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - lern_too_spel 4y ago
        I did. I read the actual documents Snowden leaked instead of relying on wild conspiracy theories people conjured up out of thin air at the time the documents leaked. If you have evidence, you can file a lawsuit. You don't. You're just repeating conspiracy theories that anybody who understands the law easily spots as nonsense.
        mixmastamyk 4y ago
bombolo 4y ago
> I don't understand why people who make this argument think it's OK for the US government to spy on the private communications of all Chinese citizens but not for it to spy on those of American citizens. Is it OK for China to spy on American citizen's private communications, then? Because USA is good, so if they are the ones doing the spying, it's just for pretty legit reasons, while chinese people don't speak english so they clearly are up to no good /s
- kelnos 4y ago
  You're being sarcastic, but in a generalized sense that's exactly what it is: of course spying is ok/good when it's your country doing it to someone else! Obviously that spying will enrich your country, and might even make you safer. But duh, of course it's bad when someone else spies on you! That can only make you less safe. It's not about "ok", it's about winning the "war".
  - bombolo 4y ago
    But I'm not in USA, I'm in sweden. For me, USA is the more imminent danger, so I don't understand why people aren't equally appalled.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
      > so I don't understand why people aren't equally appalled the answer here is the difference between "me" and "people"
      - bombolo 4y ago
        "people in the same country as me, who are in the same set of risks as me". Don't pretend you didn't understand just to comment pointless nitpicking.
        ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        what makes you think they view things that way, rather than just you viewing things that way? after all, humans have a tendency to think other people think the same way they do

Exactly. The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is treason against the people of the United States. There is no such thing as an “allied intelligence agency”, by their very nature all non-US intelligence agencies are hostile to American citizens. Thus, our domestic agencies conspiring with hostile foreign entities to defraud and undermine the citizens of the United States is treason.

George83728 4y ago
You're wrong, it's not treason. This is meant to be a legalistic society where crimes are defined by laws, not by how the word for the crime is popularly perceived by laypeople. The US Constitution defines treason. In America, treason is when an American levies war against the United States, or adhering to the Enemies of the US, giving them aid and comfort. To characterize the UK as an enemy of the US simply isn't true, the US and the UK are not at war; the UK government is not openly hostile to America. If an American gives classified information to the UK they could be convicted of espionage, but treason specifically would not stick. Not even close. Even attempting it would be a complete farce. Treason charges couldn't even stick during the Cold War, when America and the Soviet Union were engaged in numerous proxy wars but weren't officially at war with each other. Many Americans sold secrets to the Soviet Union, got caught, and were convicted of espionage. But not treason. The Rosenbergs, who gave American nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? Convicted and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, not treason. John Walker and his son, US Navy officers who helped the Soviets decrypt millions of messages? Convicted of espionage, but not treason. Jerry Whitworth, Aldrich Ames, Robert Hanssen.. the list goes on. Convicted of espionage but not treason. The last treason convictions to ever happen in America were for acts committed during WW2.
- kelnos 4y ago
  In that case, would you agree if we modified the GP's statement to say: "The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is espionage against the people of the United States." If so, then presumably all the arguments against it are still valid, no? Assuming we can agree that "treason against the people of the United States" and "espionage against the people of the United States" are at least in the same ballpark of badness?
  - George83728 4y ago
    > "The existence of, and participation in, FVEY is espionage against the people of the United States." If so, then presumably all the arguments against it are still valid, no? No, because again, these crimes have meanings defined by law which you can't simply replace with a meaning derived from the layperson understanding of the word. To argue that Five Eyes is the illegal kind of espionage, you'd have to argue that it actually violates the Espionage Act. Merely fitting it to the colloquial meaning of 'espionage' isn't sufficient.
torstenvl 4y ago
FVEY is an intelligence cooperation agreement that is invaluable to the security of the world. I don't see how any reasonable person could view it as anything negative. What exactly is the objection to classifying some information as SECRET//US,UK,CAN,AUS,NZ instead of SECRET//NOFORN ?

lern_too_spel 4y ago

What mutual backscratching? No such program was in the Snowden leaks. If you're claiming that the US gets other countries to spy on its citizens, that would be utterly illegal.

newZWhoDis 4y ago
You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) Essentially what they’ve done is commit treason by colluding with hostile foreign powers to mutually spy on each others citizens, bypassing the pesky constitutional/charter limitations in the process. In the right political climate we could Nuremberg trial 5 levels deep into the organizations responsible, I’m hopeful for that outcome. Reminder: “I was just following orders/policy” wasn’t a defense then and it won’t be this time either.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > You’re correct, it would be utterly illegal and they are in fact doing it via the five eyes program (FVEY) If they are doing it, where's your evidence? You don't have it because otherwise, Klayman would have filed a lawsuit.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      I did. I read the actual documents Snowden leaked instead of relying on wild conspiracy theories people conjured up out of thin air at the time the documents leaked. If you have evidence, you can file a lawsuit. You don't. You're just repeating conspiracy theories that anybody who understands the law easily spots as nonsense.
      - mixmastamyk 4y ago

bombolo 4y ago

> I don't understand why people who make this argument think it's OK for the US government to spy on the private communications of all Chinese citizens but not for it to spy on those of American citizens. Is it OK for China to spy on American citizen's private communications, then? Because USA is good, so if they are the ones doing the spying, it's just for pretty legit reasons, while chinese people don't speak english so they clearly are up to no good /s

kelnos 4y ago
You're being sarcastic, but in a generalized sense that's exactly what it is: of course spying is ok/good when it's your country doing it to someone else! Obviously that spying will enrich your country, and might even make you safer. But duh, of course it's bad when someone else spies on you! That can only make you less safe. It's not about "ok", it's about winning the "war".
- bombolo 4y ago
  But I'm not in USA, I'm in sweden. For me, USA is the more imminent danger, so I don't understand why people aren't equally appalled.
  - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
    > so I don't understand why people aren't equally appalled the answer here is the difference between "me" and "people"
    - bombolo 4y ago
      "people in the same country as me, who are in the same set of risks as me". Don't pretend you didn't understand just to comment pointless nitpicking.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
        what makes you think they view things that way, rather than just you viewing things that way? after all, humans have a tendency to think other people think the same way they do