Revealed: How the UK Spied On Its G20 Allies At London Summits 262
Writing "Wow, this is going to really set the cat amongst the pigeons once this gets around," an anonymous reader links to a story at The Guardian about some good old fashioned friendly interception, and the slide-show version of what went on at recent G20 summits in London:
"Foreign politicians' calls and emails intercepted by UK intelligence; Delegates tricked into using fake internet cafes; GCHQ analysts sent logs of phone calls round the clock; Documents are latest revelations from whistleblower Edward Snowden."
Convenient partners (Score:4, Informative)
"Allies" (at least as far as Governments are concerned) are just partners of convenience. They are not friends, and although they might be allies one day they could easily be enemies the next. Now the Brits might have been acting a bit slimy in their methods (I don't like the idea of well-meaning delegates being tricked into using fake Internet cafes), but it's what's done in the Intelligence business and I d
It is not unusual to spy on your allies - indeed it's expected, plus you'd have to be pretty naive to think your own allies aren't doing the same to you. Again, your allies might end up being your enemies one day, so it's important to keep up with what they are doing. Even with the US/UK alliance, a traditionally strong alliance, the US still felt the need to have its own plan in case war with the Brits became necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red [wikipedia.org])
Re:File this under (Score:5, Informative)
I missed the part where this was done for commercial gain. Please find the excerpt. I looked for it, but didn't see it. Perhaps I missed something?
You're right, the exact word used in the article is a "political objective" related to "finance" and not "commerce". My mistake.
The officials summarised Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it."
The document explicitly records a political objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations".
There is of course absolutely no connection between engineering desired financial outcomes and commercial gain. All financial insitutions, and especially those related to the British Government, operate from a completely non-self-interested desire to make others nations rich.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:2, Informative)
No, you don't quite have that right. To the best of my knowledge they are POWs, but their status is "unlawful combatant." They do not fight and act in accordance with the Law of War, hence their status. As a result they forfeit protections and privileges they would otherwise have.
Re:Seems fishy (Score:2, Informative)
No, you misunderstand, probably again. They were genuine US military, but they did not follow basic standards of conduct and for the treatment of prisoners. They disobeyed orders. They breached military law. They went to jail.
Hopefully you now understand.
Re:Khaled el-Masri (Score:4, Informative)
The FBI would consider it rape
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Source [nydailynews.com]
Re:Seems fishy (Score:5, Informative)
That is not the definition of an unlawful combatant, that's the definition of a war criminal. A war criminal is still protected by (and subject to) the Laws of War.
Unlawful combatant means someone who is a civilian who takes part in military combat (with no implications one way or the other about whether they commit any further crimes while doing so). The Geneva Convention is quite clear on what happens to them- if a belligerent captures them, the belligerent can either treat them as a PoW under the regular Laws of War, or they can treat them as a civilian criminal and try them under a "regularly constituted court", subject to the usual international treaties and standards for human rights to justice.
What happens at Guantanamo (detainment without trial, trials by secret military tribunal, water boarding and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment) are illegal (and immoral) however you choose to dice it up.