The now not so secret activities by Americans in the UK

[Tez3]

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages...ews.html?in_article_id=415889&in_page_id=1770

This has outraged a lot of people! Thoughts?

 

[Blotan Hunka]

like your MI organizations arent neck deep in their own operations. probably here too.

 

[michaeledward]

If I read the article correctly, a British citizen was attempting to sell British made goods to Iran.

I'm trying to figure out the United States involvement. I mean, other than setting up the sting, having the man arrested, and extraditing him to the US, so as to be able to claim a victory in the 'War on Terror'.

Seems to me, that the rights that have been being wiped away here in the States (Colonies?) because of this war on Terror. That our Orwellian Government would attempt to extend its reach to our allied and friends is sad, but not unexpected.

I apologize on behalf of my government. I realize it is probably a useless gesture, cause I can't do much that counts on behalf of this government.

And it seems that all these stories that can be spun as victories in the War on Terror seemed to be related to criminal enforcment activities - and not military. Hmm ... I wonder if that means anything.

Mike

 

[Tez3]

like your MI organizations arent neck deep in their own operations. probably here too.

We can't afford to send people over there! They've taken on more staff but with the same budget, doubt they can afford a day trip to France at the moment!
The problem as projected by the paper is that using means that are illegal in this country they've arrested people for crimes they are wanted for in the States. No one has a problem with police coming, arresting people and having them extradited to face trial as long as it's legal and open, it's the secrecy and illegal tactics used that worry people. That and the fact that our government more than likely condoned the breaking of the law.

As a small side issue have a look at the article too that says if we don't recycle enough rubbish the councils are taking our bins away and giving us smaller ones. We already have microchips in them to weigh the rubbish etc!

 

[Kacey]

We can't afford to send people over there! They've taken on more staff but with the same budget, doubt they can afford a day trip to France at the moment!
The problem as projected by the paper is that using means that are illegal in this country they've arrested people for crimes they are wanted for in the States. No one has a problem with police coming, arresting people and having them extradited to face trial as long as it's legal and open, it's the secrecy and illegal tactics used that worry people. That and the fact that our government more than likely condoned the breaking of the law.

Are you more concerned about the actions of the US agents, that they have broken British law (or at least applied US law on British soil) or that your own government condoned it?

While I can understand your concerns about the above, and am personally very leery of people who believe the ends justify the means, if your government was working with our government, toward a mutually agreed-upon outcome, I'm not sure I have a problem with the situation. As far as secrecy goes... well... sting operations tend to be rather ineffective when they are advertised beforehand.

As a small side issue have a look at the article too that says if we don't recycle enough rubbish the councils are taking our bins away and giving us smaller ones. We already have microchips in them to weigh the rubbish etc!

I don't see how this is related to the topic of the thread. Nor do I see a problem with providing smaller recycling bins to people who are not using the current ones at their capacity. If you are concerned about governmental oversight (the only potential connection I can see here), are you in some fashion comparing British government oversight with the potentially illegal, but governmentally accepted, actions of US agents in Great Britain? Otherwise, this is a totally separate topic which should be placed in a separate thread, not added as an aside here.

 

[Tez3]

Are you more concerned about the actions of the US agents, that they have broken British law (or at least applied US law on British soil) or that your own government condoned it?

While I can understand your concerns about the above, and am personally very leery of people who believe the ends justify the means, if your government was working with our government, toward a mutually agreed-upon outcome, I'm not sure I have a problem with the situation. As far as secrecy goes... well... sting operations tend to be rather ineffective when they are advertised beforehand.



I don't see how this is related to the topic of the thread. Nor do I see a problem with providing smaller recycling bins to people who are not using the current ones at their capacity. If you are concerned about governmental oversight (the only potential connection I can see here), are you in some fashion comparing British government oversight with the potentially illegal, but governmentally accepted, actions of US agents in Great Britain? Otherwise, this is a totally separate topic which should be placed in a separate thread, not added as an aside here.

I suggest you reread my post more closely, I was asking for thoughts, I hadn't actually expressed my own opinion on this issue... yet. I haven't posted "I think" I was curious to see what you thought of this media report.
While situations in this world are very serious a sense of the ridiculous helps put things in perspective sometime. The point about the bins was such and btw way they are not giving them smaller recycling bins they are giving them smaller dustbins for ordinary rubbish.
I guess what they say about our sense of humour being different from yours is valid in this case.

 

[Kacey]

I suggest you reread my post more closely, I was asking for thoughts, I hadn't actually expressed my own opinion on this issue... yet.

In your initial post, no; in your response to other posts, it appeared you were; it was those latter statements to which I was responding.

I haven't posted "I think" I was curious to see what you thought of this media report.

As I said, I think that there are multiple concerns here, and was not - and still am not - certain which of those concerns, if any, you are asking about.

While situations in this world are very serious a sense of the ridiculous helps put things in perspective sometime. The point about the bins was such and btw way they are not giving them smaller recycling bins they are giving them smaller dustbins for ordinary rubbish.
I guess what they say about our sense of humour being different from yours is valid in this case.

Not knowing you personally, and having only printed words with no voice tone to work with, I have no way of knowing - unless you say - whether you are serious or joking; nor do I know you well enough to have known - again, unless you say - why you would post a seemingly unrelated item within the the thread. It has nothing to do with having a different sense of humor; rather, unless someone indicates they are being humorous, my general response is to take them seriously, as I did here. Humor is, generally, based on a mutual understanding of cultural norms; my cultural norms (and some of my daily vocabulary; until you said, I did not know the difference between a dustbin and a recycling bin) are different that yours - this is not related to my sense of humor, per se, but rather to my background being different than yours, as your not understanding what I was saying appears to be related to your background being different than mine. Should you care to continue a discussion of cultural differences, please open another thread or PM me; this discussion, while interesting, is off the topic of the thread, and does not belong here.

To return to the original issue, I stand by my original response in my post - I am uncertain what you are most upset about of the option I posted, or if those are even the issues that you find concerning. If you wish to wait and see what other posters have to say, that's your option.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not in the least upset about any of it, I merely asked for opinions.
What I wrote was " The problem as projected by the paper .......",
I do not take everything printed in newspapers as gospel truth, I'm sceptical therefore I wanted to know if this was 1. known about over there and reasonably true 2. acceptable to you guys and 3. legal in your country. I like to have a bit of background before I start giving my opinion. The newspapers in America may have a completely different take on the criminal part of the story.I'm not pouring down blame on anyone either, if there's any wrong doing it's more likely our governments doing as I can't imagine they didn't know.
As I started the thread perhaps I can be allowed to choose what I consider relevant to the discussion lol!

 

[Don Roley]

While I can understand your concerns about the above, and am personally very leery of people who believe the ends justify the means, if your government was working with our government, toward a mutually agreed-upon outcome, I'm not sure I have a problem with the situation.

I have to agree. If Americans were running a sting operation like this without the UK's knowledge, then that would be a big problem. But I would not have a problem with British agents running a sting operation on American soil if the US goverment knew about it.

So, did the UK know?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

I apologize on behalf of my government. I realize it is probably a useless gesture, cause I can't do much that counts on behalf of this government.

Mike

And to whom would you apologize - given that it was apparently a MUTUALLY agreed upon operation between the U.K. and the U.S.?

 

[michaeledward]

And to whom would you apologize - given that it was apparently a MUTUALLY agreed upon operation between the U.K. and the U.S.?

I have extended my apologies to the citizens of Great Britain who find tactics like this offensive. That my government would take actions in another country, that are illegal in that country, demonstrates a measure of disrespect between states. I believe this is worthy of citizen to citizen amends.

 

[Tez3]

I'm waiting for the Prime Minister's Question Time to see how he answers this, I'm thinking it will be yet another embarrassment for him to have to explain. The main problem is that the man accused is English, living in England and the criminal conduct he's accused of was committed in England. There is also the case of the Natwest three, three men accused of fraud again committed in England but the US claimed jurisdiction because of seven "wire communications" were made between Texas and London in the disputed transaction. I'm not saying any of these are innocent, they may well not be but it has always been that countries would respect the principle that if the crime was committed in and evidence was found in a country then the trial would be held in that country with the evidence gathered according to the laws of that country.
The sting is legal in the States but under English law (Here I use the word English advisedly as Scotland, N Ireland Channel Isles etc have their own laws) the US investigators are guilty of the criminal incitement committed in London. the question is did our government condone the breaking of the law if so thats totally reprehensible or have the Americans just come in and "done their own thing"?
This isn't a case of spies chasing down terrorists this is a case of respect for the law.

 

[Sukerkin]

Leaving aside any issues of sovereignty, the thing that stands out for me is that if the 'security services' break the law to enforce the law then the system is failing (no big surprise there I suppose).

It may be in the case mentioned that a loophole is 'in play', so to speak. There is a somewhat known and tacitly accepted mutual arrangement many governments have to 'spy' on each other and then share the information (thus allowing the 'host' country to get around any legislation the have about not surveilling their own populations). This may provide the justifying evidence required for the criminal prosecution to go ahead.

I'm just engaging in idle speculation tho' (and under-informed speculation at that) so I'd probably best be quiet .

 

[Don Roley]

Sukerkin I think has a point.

It may be that two goverments used loopholed in the law to catch a group of people that were a threat to long term peace and safety.

Perhaps we should think about how the laws are not doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. protect the people when both the letter and the spirit of the purpose of goverment seems to have been followed.

It looks like a debate over some laws in England need to be debated rather than what we are seeing now.

 

[Tez3]

The points getting mixed up in here is that only one of the cases was about selling potentially useful goods to what is maybe a terrorist organisation/country. The case where the American investigators broke the law was concerned with banking fraud.

 

[searcher]

We all need to remember that we ARE allies and that we are helping each other out. Arguements like this are what OUR common enemies want. If we fight amongst ourselves we can't focus on beating them.

 

[Tez3]

We all need to remember that we ARE allies and that we are helping each other out. Arguements like this are what OUR common enemies want. If we fight amongst ourselves we can't focus on beating them.

Good grief we aren't fighting! Far from it, we are having a frank discussion among friends! The free trade in information is what "our enemies" don't want. If we don't respect our own laws how can we then hold our selves up as a beacon of freedom to others? Remember it was Churchill who said "jaw jaw is better than war war".

 

[Kensai]

There's actually plenty of information that the US has witheld from us. Military technology/secrets. We are treated as a very junior partner in that "special relationship". Most Brits are heartily fed up with being Bush's?the US's lap-dog. Pity B-liar can't/won't see that.

As regards this issue, I've read (can't for the life of me remember off of the top of my head the name of the publication) that the US, supposedly under Clinton of all people, passed a law allowing US agents to act without the assent and prior knowledge of a target country, with impunity. "If" that's true, I would have a problem with that. "If" B-liar was aware of it, I still don't like that law, I still don't like B-liar, and I still don't believe in that "special relationship". It's Islam vs the World, and from the other side sometimes it comes across as the US vs the World. Or, perhaps it's just Islam vs Corporate America?

 

[Tez3]

I'm sometimes seconded to work at a fairly hush hush American base Menwith Hill (the name's not secret) up here that monitors communications and such like. It's true enough that we are very much the junior partner and are often treated patronisingly. This is Blair's fault for demeaning us by bowing to Bush's every whim. We would like our self respect back. We can be allies and disagree about things. I do agree with the Corporate America v the rest of the world thing though. That is not an attack on Americans by the way, I think they suffer from corporate decisions as much as any.