US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel's Nuclear Program

[TommyGunn]

Yes - you posted text that was intended to minimise the crime of espionage, specifically to support foreign political agents.

Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is the constitutional crime.  I ca think of no more obvious example than aiding someone who directly attacks the president for anti-American purposes.

Article Three, Section Three of the U.S. Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or  on confession  in open court.

So, is Israel our enemy?   Are we at war with them? 
No.
Is Iran our enemy?    OK, question mark here.  We are not, however, at war with them.

This talk of "treason" on the part of anyone here is rubbish.

DeSelby, I wonder; are you as equally offended that Obama sent his political minions over to aid Netanyahu's opponent (and interfering in their elections) as you seem to be that Netanyahu spoke to our kongresskritters?

[Fitz]

Article Three, Section Three of the U.S. Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.  No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or  on confession  in open court.

So, is Israel our enemy?   Are we at war with them? 
No.
Is Iran our enemy?    OK, question mark here.  We are not, however, at war with them.

This talk of "treason" on the part of anyone here is rubbish.

DeSelby, I wonder; are you as equally offended that Obama sent his political minions over to aid Netanyahu's opponent (and interfering in their elections) as you seem to be that Netanyahu spoke to our kongresskritters?

If you're expecting rationality from De Selby, you may be waiting a while

[agricola]

DeSelby, I wonder; are you as equally offended that Obama sent his political minions over to aid Netanyahu's opponent (and interfering in their elections) as you seem to be that Netanyahu spoke to our kongresskritters?

One or two blokes who used to work on the campaign going out to help vs an unwelcome visit by a foriegn head of state to directly and publically oppose the foriegn policy of the US is not really something that will ever produce equal offence, is it?

Besides, the problem Obama has is that the two biggest and best funded foriegn lobbies in US politics are actively seeking to oppose any deal with Iran; personally I think that anything the two of them agree on is almost certainly bad.

[RevDisk]

I love this - a foreign power is spying on America and using the information to undermine American foreign policy, and you guys are calling Obama the traitor for punishing them?

This.

Israel as a country is our ally. I like plenty of them, and think its a country with a lot of potential.

Israeli intelligence and espionage agencies are actively our enemies. They have actively killed American servicemen, they routinely infiltrated our military with spies and they've turned US persons into traitors. They're the third largest threat after PRC and Russia.

Countries and their intelligence and/or military agencies are two very different beasts. There's plenty of countries we're hostile to, but friendly with their militaries/intel folks. And vice versa.

[makattak]

This.

Israel as a country is our ally. I like plenty of them, and think its a country with a lot of potential.

Israeli intelligence and espionage agencies are actively our enemies. They have actively killed American servicemen, they routinely infiltrated our military with spies and they've turned US persons into traitors. They're the third largest threat after PRC and Russia.

Countries and their intelligence and/or military agencies are two very different beasts. There's plenty of countries we're hostile to, but friendly with their militaries/intel folks. And vice versa.

I'm not seeing how this is germane to the topic.

The people in this thread (myself included) are saying we don't have any problem with this specific incident, nor are we all that outraged by the spying, in general.

At no point has anyone, anywhere in this thread said that Israel can do no wrong and if they kill Americans, well, they must have deserved it.

Can you point out, in this incident, what is so outrageous? Was it informing Congress? Was it "undermining our foreign policy"? (As though we swore and oath, I hereby pledge I will support and defend the foreign policy of the United States)

Where's the outrage here?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

One or two blokes who used to work on the campaign going out to help vs an unwelcome visit by a foriegn head of state to directly and publically oppose the foriegn policy of the US is not really something that will ever produce equal offence, is it?

Besides, the problem Obama has is that the two biggest and best funded foriegn lobbies in US politics are actively seeking to oppose any deal with Iran; personally I think that anything the two of them agree on is almost certainly bad.

Let's be clear, here.  Netanyahu's visit was only unwelcome by Obama.  Obama clearly doesn't like Netanyahu, but Obama isn't king and his royal feelings don't matter for *expletive deleted*it.  Netanyahu was warmly welcomed by Congress and the people.

The opposition you speak of is not against making any deal with Iran, it's against making a bad deal with Iran.  And there's no doubt that the current deal is bad.  

I read yesterday that they maybe won't even write down and sign the terms of the deal.  How on earth are we supposed to judge the merits of the agreement if we don't know what was agreed?  How are we supposed to hold participants accountable if there's no record of what they committed to?  We can't, obviously, and I think that's their goal.

Obama doesn't want to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, he just wants to claim credit for securing a deal.  I think the outrage over Netanyahu's speech is because it blew a huge gaping hole in Obama's plans to do nothing of substance.

[JN01]

Undermining a foreign policy intended to undermine the US is a bad thing?

[wmenorr67]

Hell the thing is Israel is much better at the spy game than any other country, us included, IMHO.

[roo_ster]

This.

Israel as a country is our ally. I like plenty of them, and think its a country with a lot of potential.

Israeli intelligence and espionage agencies are actively our enemies. They have actively killed American servicemen, they routinely infiltrated our military with spies and they've turned US persons into traitors. They're the third largest threat after PRC and Russia.

Countries and their intelligence and/or military agencies are two very different beasts. There's plenty of countries we're hostile to, but friendly with their militaries/intel folks. And vice versa.

Thread winner for clarity and lack of kool-aid stains.

Let me repeat: The intel apparatus of Israel is our enemy.  And, at times, has been its military given their attacks on our servicemen.  Plenty of Israelis are decent folk and they are surrounded by heap many indecent folk.  Doesn't make betraying the USA any less of a betrayal because of ethnic solidarity or eschatology or you want to embarrass our current sorry excuse for a POTUS.

As Rev wrote, they are the third largest threat, but likely the most capable threat.

"Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."
----Lord Palmerston

Israel understands Lord Palmerston's wisdom and acts on it.  Its cheerleaders in the USA do not.

[roo_ster]

Undermining a foreign policy intended to undermine the US is a bad thing?

The USA and Israel are not synonymous. 

By your logic, undermining the second Iraq war by way of espionage would have been a "good thing," given how the Iraq war put our interests in jeopardy and increased Iran's influence.  Betrayal does not work that way.

[Scout26]

Again, I will point out that it is the job of the President and administration to keep Congress informed as to the status of any and all "talks" with foreign entities.

If the French or Brits (who are part of the talks) tell the Israelis to tell Congress what's happening in the talks, isn't really spying (not that I don't think that Israeli is picking up every word of the discussions). 

And saying that you disagree with the POTUS and his foreign policy, and that it's good that SOMEONE is keeping Congress informed, is not treason.

[makattak]

The USA and Israel are not synonymous.  

By your logic, undermining the second Iraq war by way of espionage would have been a "good thing," given how the Iraq war put our interests in jeopardy and increased Iran's influence.  Betrayal does not work that way.

Ok. I'll play. (Again.)

What is wrong in this particular episode that makes you offended by the Israeli intelligence agencies?

Are you objecting to espionage as a whole?

[roo_ster]

Ok. I'll play. (Again.)

What is wrong in this particular episode that makes you offended by the Israeli intelligence agencies?

Are you objecting to espionage as a whole?

The episode in the OP of releasing intel on Israel's nukes?  If done to further America's interests, no problem.  If done for domestic political positioning, slimy.

Israel supposedly infiltrating American talks with the eye-uh-toljas and releasing it for their benefit?  Treason and offensive.  The Senate will act on any treaty, yea or nay.  And Congress can refuse to fund any of it if found lacking.

The difference is that I am an American and take America's part in foreign affairs. 

I expect enemy foreign intel services to act like foreign intel services.  If caught, I am more than willing to condemn them as enemies and have them killed, but I am not offended that they do what they do more than I would be a snake killing and eating a fluffy bunny.

I am offended by Americans who help them, though, and would with relish condemn them to death. 

[Scout26]

One or two blokes who used to work on the campaign going out to help vs an unwelcome visit by a foriegn head of state to directly and publically oppose the foriegn policy of the US is not really something that will ever produce equal offence, is it?

Besides, the problem Obama has is that the two biggest and best funded foriegn lobbies in US politics are actively seeking to oppose any deal with Iran; personally I think that anything the two of them agree on is almost certainly bad.

Ummm, it was a bit more then then a couple of unemployed former staffers volunteering to help...

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

[makattak]

The episode in the OP of releasing intel on Israel's nukes?  If done to further America's interests, no problem.  If done for domestic political positioning, slimy.

Israel supposedly infiltrating American talks with the eye-uh-toljas and releasing it for their benefit?  Treason and offensive.  The Senate will act on any treaty, yea or nay.  And Congress can refuse to fund any of it if found lacking.

The difference is that I am an American and take America's part in foreign affairs. 

I expect enemy foreign intel services to act like foreign intel services.  If caught, I am more than willing to condemn them as enemies and have them killed, but I am not offended that they do what they do more than I would be a snake killing and eating a fluffy bunny.

I am offended by Americans who help them, though, and would with relish condemn them to death. 

Ok. What if it is done to further the interests of damaging America's position in the world?

Everyone is focused on the effects on Israel, but MY problem has been that it makes us appear untrustworthy to our allies. (Hey, for once, what Obama appears to be, he is!)

Betraying our allies in order to further a deal that is detrimental to the security of the world (including our own) and damaging to America's allies is damaging to the long-term interests of the United States.

I take America's part in foreign affairs. Acting in a trustworthy manner (something like, "No better friend, no worse enemy") IS in America's interest. 

[De Selby]

If you're expecting rationality from De Selby, you may be waiting a while

And yet the only time I've disagreed with you on this forum is when you were trying to say that drone striking Americans based on secret evidence, with no trial, was perfectly fine.

[Fitz]

And yet the only time I've disagreed with you on this forum is when you were trying to say that drone striking Americans based on secret evidence, with no trial, was perfectly fine.

I'm not saying you're always wrong, or that we even disagree entirely on this issue (i'm a bit in the middle on much of it)... I'm saying you tend to bounce all over the place.

The logic leaps you're making here aren't making a whole lot of sense.

For the record, I've come about on that issue significantly.

[agricola]

Ummm, it was a bit more then then a couple of unemployed former staffers volunteering to help...

http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

So basically the man complaining about Democrat staffers going over there and interfereing with the Israeli election is a Republican staffer who went over there and worked for Likud in the same election?

The opposition you speak of is not against making any deal with Iran, it's against making a bad deal with Iran.  And there's no doubt that the current deal is bad. 

I read yesterday that they maybe won't even write down and sign the terms of the deal.  How on earth are we supposed to judge the merits of the agreement if we don't know what was agreed?  How are we supposed to hold participants accountable if there's no record of what they committed to?  We can't, obviously, and I think that's their goal.

Obama doesn't want to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, he just wants to claim credit for securing a deal.  I think the outrage over Netanyahu's speech is because it blew a huge gaping hole in Obama's plans to do nothing of substance.

Not really - what Netanyahu wants is to bomb Iran, or more specifically he probably wants you to do it.  Also any concievable deal that the US could work out with Iran would be opposed by him and by the usual suspects in Congress, either on its own merits or "because we cannot trust them to do what they are required to do" (a la Iraq 2003).  In fact, it is probably the case that he opposes even having diplomatic contact with them. 

[Blakenzy]

So, what does the US Government gain from revealing this formerly taboo information?

[French G.]

So, what does the US Government gain from revealing this formerly taboo information?

Currying favor with their new bestest BFF Iran? Let's whip some Sunni butt Iran! Isn't it great how good of friends we are?

[De Selby]

I'm not saying you're always wrong, or that we even disagree entirely on this issue (i'm a bit in the middle on much of it)... I'm saying you tend to bounce all over the place.

The logic leaps you're making here aren't making a whole lot of sense.

For the record, I've come about on that issue significantly.

Okay, I'm happy to hear about the leaps Im making - I found it to be a simple issue.  Foreign power spying on the U.S. to play party politics against the president = bad, is what I was thinking. 

[Scout26]

So basically the man complaining about Democrat staffers going over there and interfereing with the Israeli election is a Republican staffer who went over there and worked for Likud in the same election?

There's a bit of difference between former strategists/staffers working on a foreign election
 and using the US State dept and federal money to influence a foreign election.

Not really - what Netanyahu wants is to bomb Iran, or more specifically he probably wants you to do it.  Also any concievable deal that the US could work out with Iran would be opposed by him and by the usual suspects in Congress, either on its own merits or "because we cannot trust them to do what they are required to do" (a la Iraq 2003).  In fact, it is probably the case that he opposes even having diplomatic contact with them.  

Had the Isrealis not execute Operation Opera back in 1981, Desert Storm might have been the first nuclear battlefield.  Even Bill Clinton said it was a good idea.

And I'll point out again, that the mad mullahs are true believers, they aren't developing the bomb for peaceful purposes are to be able to gain hedgemony in the reason.  They plan to use to to fullfil "the prohecy" as they see it.

[agricola]

And I'll point out again, that the mad mullahs are true believers, they aren't developing the bomb for peaceful purposes are to be able to gain hedgemony in the reason.  They plan to use to to fullfil "the prohecy" as they see it.

er - there is one sect of modern Islam that is actively spending vast sums of money, actively recruiting and "educating" thousands worldwide in its barbarism, and murdering and enslaving tens of thousands trying to bring about "what is prophesized"; that sect isnt the Shia. 

If the Iranians want the bomb - and they almost certainly do - it is vastly more likely that they want it to prevent any regime change fun (of the kind that made Iraq such a popular destination for the murderous), and because at least one (and probably two) of their regional rivals have the bomb themselves.   

[roo_ster]

er - there is one sect of modern Islam that is actively spending vast sums of money, actively recruiting and "educating" thousands worldwide in its barbarism, and murdering and enslaving tens of thousands trying to bring about "what is prophesized"; that sect isnt the Shia. 

If the Iranians want the bomb - and they almost certainly do - it is vastly more likely that they want it to prevent any regime change fun (of the kind that made Iraq such a popular destination for the murderous), and because at least one (and probably two) of their regional rivals have the bomb themselves.   

Both saudis and iranian mullah spend big bucks funding murderous muslims.  Hezboallah and hamas being just two of tbe shia proxies.

[agricola]

Both saudis and iranian mullah spend big bucks funding murderous muslims.  Hezboallah and hamas being just two of tbe shia proxies.

Hamas arent Shia, and for most of their existence the majority of their funding came from the Saudis.