Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,647
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 5:
Line 5: +
Talk:Barack Obama Controversies (view source)
Revision as of 05:55, March 20, 2017
, 05:55, March 20, 2017no edit summary
Despite all the heated denials, it's a safe bet that the British were in fact eavesdropping on Trump. He didn't have the level of security a government official does, so it would have been easy enough for them to do it. Judging from all the leaks that appeared in the British press, the Brits were obviously interested in this issue. If they are not surveilling the obvious targets, what's an electronic surveillance agency for? That surveillance agencies do surveillance is hardly remarkable. The story here is, why did the FBI want a FISA warrant and why did this information leak to so many media outlets? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
Despite all the heated denials, it's a safe bet that the British were in fact eavesdropping on Trump. He didn't have the level of security a government official does, so it would have been easy enough for them to do it. Judging from all the leaks that appeared in the British press, the Brits were obviously interested in this issue. If they are not surveilling the obvious targets, what's an electronic surveillance agency for? That surveillance agencies do surveillance is hardly remarkable. The story here is, why did the FBI want a FISA warrant and why did this information leak to so many media outlets? [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:01, 20 March 2017 (EDT)
:It's called a reciprocal sharing agreement. They have been in use since 1938, when the US lacks probable cause for a warrant, or MI5 vice-versa under British law, they ask each other's intelligence unit to fo it for them. It's a loophole that provides a 'legal' to violate a person's civil rights under the guise of national security laws and foreign intelligence sharing agreements. The need for secrecy in a high-profile case weighs, too. [https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/dec/10/monarchy.peterallen The US had no interest or need in wiretapping Lady Di], but the British government did considering she was pregnant with a Muslim child who could have a claim on the throne. So too here, UK's interest in Trump is marginal or peripheral, so they can act almost as independent unbiased observers, returning a favor. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 1]]</sup> 01:55, 20 March 2017 (EDT)