Changes

: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 for it for them. It's a loophole that provides a 'legal' way 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 1]]} 01:55, 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 for it for them. It's a loophole that provides a 'legal' way 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]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 1]]} 01:55, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

::Now that Obama has shown us how to evade FISA, the law seems a bit pointless. It was a Watergate-inspired reform, like the independent counsel statute. Clinton's treatment of Ken Starr revealed the independent counsel as toothless, at least with respect to Democratic presidents. The FBI was able to blame 9/11 on a FISA screw up, so there is a definite downside to the law. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

::Now that Obama has shown us how to evade FISA, the law seems a bit pointless. It was a Watergate-inspired reform, like the independent counsel statute. Clinton's treatment of Ken Starr revealed the independent counsel as toothless, at least with respect to Democratic presidents. The FBI was able to blame 9/11 on a FISA screw up, so there is a definite downside to the law. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 01:39, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

:::If you point out that the Dems evade FISA, here is what happens to you: "[http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/media/andrew-napolitano-fox-news/ Andrew Napolitano absent from Fox after citing anonymous spying claims]". [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 17:38, 21 March 2017 (EDT)

:::If you point out that Obama evaded FISA, here is what happens to you: "[http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/20/media/andrew-napolitano-fox-news/ Andrew Napolitano absent from Fox after citing anonymous spying claims]". [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 17:38, 21 March 2017 (EDT)