5 ms·

It's safe to say that "bugging our allies" probably isn't in the NSA mission statement.

by ferdo 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago
Spying on allies is a time-treasured practice. Countries have no allies, just frenemies.
- ferdo 13y ago
  If it's not part of the mission statement, it's off mission. I don't consent to rogue intelligence agencies at the heart of my government.
  - dylangs1030 13y ago
    It's not "rogue" at all. The NSA's explicit purpose is to do intelligence gathering and analysis on foreign threats. That's its core competency - data mining. If you look at the mission statement, it says its goal is to do intelligence gathering. It would be rogue if it decided to, say, give crucial information to a foreign country at the expense of the United States.
    - ferdo 13y ago
      The NSA is spying on American citizens. It's off mission and thus rogue.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Hm. I don't know. The vibe that I get from talking to the people around me is that spying happens among enemies and prospective enemies. And being downgraded into the prospective enemies category comes with a bit of emotional trauma for us Europeans. But what does that make us? Are we now the bitter EX of the US?
  - hyperventilator 13y ago
    No your governments are getting the data as well.
  - Millennium 13y ago
    Spying happens among friends at least as often as among enemies and prospective enemies. Maybe even more so, because it is commonly used for back-channel diplomacy.
saraid216 13y ago
Off nsa.gov: "The NSA/CSS core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information." So yes, actually, it is. On the front page. Explicitly.
- jacquesm 13y ago
  The US is bound by treaty in this respect. That means that all arms of the US government including the NSA are bound in the same way. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of your government are or are not bound by certain treaties. Either they all are, or none are. That's why treaties trump national law in the first place.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    In the U.S. treaties do not trump national law. In fact, in the U.S. treaties have no legal effect at all unless they are either 1) implemented by Congressional legislation; or 2) written so it is clear that the intent is for the treaties to be "self-executing" (see Medellin v. Texas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas). And even if a treaty is effective, it has the status of ordinary law. With ordinary law, a subsequent act of Congress that is inconsistent with a prior act is given precedence over that prior act. So if the U.S. passes a treaty saying it won't do X, then Congress passes a law allowing the President to do X, then the law, being latest in time, overrides the treaty. American courts are fairly hostile towards treaties (something which I think is under the surface of Medellin). Basically treaties are un-democratic. They are written by unelected diplomats and are necessarily the product of foreign influence. It doesn't help that one of the motivating factors for the treaty provisions of the U.S. Constitution was the status of the U.S. as a precarious winner of the Revolutionary War. One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was that debts on both sides would be recognize. Of course, in most cases Americans were the debtors. The British were very concerned about states passing laws to abolish debts owed by their citizens to the British. Hence the provision elevating treaties of the U.S. above state law.
    - jacquesm 13y ago

It's safe to say that "bugging our allies" probably isn't in the NSA mission statement.

by ferdo 13y ago

It's safe to say that "bugging our allies" probably isn't in the NSA mission statement.

rayiner 13y ago

Spying on allies is a time-treasured practice. Countries have no allies, just frenemies.

ferdo 13y ago
If it's not part of the mission statement, it's off mission. I don't consent to rogue intelligence agencies at the heart of my government.
- dylangs1030 13y ago
  It's not "rogue" at all. The NSA's explicit purpose is to do intelligence gathering and analysis on foreign threats. That's its core competency - data mining. If you look at the mission statement, it says its goal is to do intelligence gathering. It would be rogue if it decided to, say, give crucial information to a foreign country at the expense of the United States.
  - ferdo 13y ago
    The NSA is spying on American citizens. It's off mission and thus rogue.
sentenza 13y ago
Hm. I don't know. The vibe that I get from talking to the people around me is that spying happens among enemies and prospective enemies. And being downgraded into the prospective enemies category comes with a bit of emotional trauma for us Europeans. But what does that make us? Are we now the bitter EX of the US?
- hyperventilator 13y ago
  No your governments are getting the data as well.
- Millennium 13y ago
  Spying happens among friends at least as often as among enemies and prospective enemies. Maybe even more so, because it is commonly used for back-channel diplomacy.

saraid216 13y ago

Off nsa.gov: "The NSA/CSS core missions are to protect U.S. national security systems and to produce foreign signals intelligence information." So yes, actually, it is. On the front page. Explicitly.

jacquesm 13y ago
The US is bound by treaty in this respect. That means that all arms of the US government including the NSA are bound in the same way. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of your government are or are not bound by certain treaties. Either they all are, or none are. That's why treaties trump national law in the first place.
- rayiner 13y ago
  In the U.S. treaties do not trump national law. In fact, in the U.S. treaties have no legal effect at all unless they are either 1) implemented by Congressional legislation; or 2) written so it is clear that the intent is for the treaties to be "self-executing" (see Medellin v. Texas, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas). And even if a treaty is effective, it has the status of ordinary law. With ordinary law, a subsequent act of Congress that is inconsistent with a prior act is given precedence over that prior act. So if the U.S. passes a treaty saying it won't do X, then Congress passes a law allowing the President to do X, then the law, being latest in time, overrides the treaty. American courts are fairly hostile towards treaties (something which I think is under the surface of Medellin). Basically treaties are un-democratic. They are written by unelected diplomats and are necessarily the product of foreign influence. It doesn't help that one of the motivating factors for the treaty provisions of the U.S. Constitution was the status of the U.S. as a precarious winner of the Revolutionary War. One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was that debts on both sides would be recognize. Of course, in most cases Americans were the debtors. The British were very concerned about states passing laws to abolish debts owed by their citizens to the British. Hence the provision elevating treaties of the U.S. above state law.
  - jacquesm 13y ago