Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Seizethecarp

(US-UK no-spying agreement discussed farther into the story)

...it continues:

Mr. Blair had pressed for a pact between the United States and France that would have halted espionage operations on each other’s soil, a more formal version of America’s “gentleman’s agreement” with Britain.

The informal agreement with London is built on decades of trust between the American and British governments. Officials said that Mr. Blair had come to believe that Mr. Sarkozy’s presidency was a unique opportunity for two countries long suspicious of each other’s motives to build lasting security ties.

But others worried that a written pact — the first of its kind for the United States — would handcuff the United States if a new government came to power in France that was more hostile to American foreign policy goals.

“What people balked at was the suggestion of a formal, written, no-spy pact, signed by heads of state,” said one American intelligence official. “How would you verify it — by spying?”

A spokesman for the intelligence director declined to comment.

Unlike America’s relationship with Britain and other close allies like Australia, the United States and France have a long history of spying on each other. For example, intelligence experts said the French had been particularly aggressive in trying to steal secrets about the American defense and technology industries. For its part, the United States has long been suspicious of French government and business ties to countries like Iran and Syria, and about North African militant groups whose operatives work inside France.

In recent months, Mr. Blair had also made a push to rein in covert activities carried out by the C.I.A., reflecting his view that the United States had become too enamored over stealth activities.

He even developed rules to guide policy makers before they approved a covert action. Among them were guidelines that covert activity should never be employed “for the purpose of circumventing a lack of U.S. public support for any particular overt policy,” according to one American official.

Officials said that some in the White House and C.I.A. bristled at Mr. Blair’s efforts to exert greater oversight over covert action. The reaction, they said, puzzled Mr. Blair, who had thought he had been given a degree of authority over these activities.

There appears to have been similar miscommunication on the France episode. Officials said that while Mr. Blair had been authorized to work out new intelligence-sharing arrangements with the French, he was specifically told by the White House that a formal no-spying pact was off the table.


2 posted on 05/22/2010 1:01:06 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Seizethecarp
“Officials said that while Mr. Blair had been authorized to work out new intelligence-sharing arrangements with the French, he was specifically told by the White House that a formal no-spying pact was off the table.”

Despite Obama kissing up to our enemies, Panetta’s CIA didn't want to give up spying on the French, it seems, even when they were willing to agree not to spy on us.

If Obama isn't even willing to trust the French, how can he be willing to trust a whole lot of undemocratic despots under his proposed nonproliferation, unilateral disarmament and no preemptive first strike schemes?

3 posted on 05/22/2010 1:08:14 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Seizethecarp
If the agreement with Britain is based upon decades of trust, Britain had better start spying on the US with a vengeance. Obama’s animus toward Britain and sympathies to Islamic states are ample evidence to the danger he poses.
6 posted on 05/22/2010 3:11:58 PM PDT by Truth29
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson