Elind
Philosopher
This latest hysteria about the CIA actually setting foot, in some way, on EU soil is interesting in terms of how one can actually conduct clandestine operations with "allies".
Forgetting the, so far, unsubstantiated allegations that started the issue, like torture camps, and perhaps substantiated grabs of terror suspect in a few cases, this seems to have morphed into the very principle of making any use whatsoever of so called friendly foreign soil.
In principle it would seem to be an issue that is not just between the US and others, but also between EU states, for example.
If the CIA cannot even travel through foreign airports without full advance disclosure, then it would seem that they really are not allowed to do anything clandestine without first getting permission of whatever other countries are involved.
It is understandable that any nation wants to know what is going on on their soil, even if it is not activity directed at or against them, but the logical conclusion seems to be that any such activity should be illegal and any lead to be followed up, or possibly legal overflight, or refuelling, would need to be fully disclosed and permission requested in advance. Say similar to police requiring a judge's order to make a wiretap.
I practical terms this high principle would cripple intelligence activity against terrorism since we know such cooperation, however well intentioned, would not work well on a day to day basis.
In effect, taken to it's logical conclusion, all countries should outright ban and intelligence related activity on their soil and the CIA should be brought home from and friendly country and simply use phone and email to ask others to do this or that on their own soil.
Should allies be willing to accept such activity with a certain amount of trust between them, or should one simply make anything of the sort illegal?
Forgetting the, so far, unsubstantiated allegations that started the issue, like torture camps, and perhaps substantiated grabs of terror suspect in a few cases, this seems to have morphed into the very principle of making any use whatsoever of so called friendly foreign soil.
In principle it would seem to be an issue that is not just between the US and others, but also between EU states, for example.
If the CIA cannot even travel through foreign airports without full advance disclosure, then it would seem that they really are not allowed to do anything clandestine without first getting permission of whatever other countries are involved.
It is understandable that any nation wants to know what is going on on their soil, even if it is not activity directed at or against them, but the logical conclusion seems to be that any such activity should be illegal and any lead to be followed up, or possibly legal overflight, or refuelling, would need to be fully disclosed and permission requested in advance. Say similar to police requiring a judge's order to make a wiretap.
I practical terms this high principle would cripple intelligence activity against terrorism since we know such cooperation, however well intentioned, would not work well on a day to day basis.
In effect, taken to it's logical conclusion, all countries should outright ban and intelligence related activity on their soil and the CIA should be brought home from and friendly country and simply use phone and email to ask others to do this or that on their own soil.
Should allies be willing to accept such activity with a certain amount of trust between them, or should one simply make anything of the sort illegal?