Tuesday, December 12, 2006

The state of the womb of the mother of a future King

Generally speaking, when you see one intelligence agency surveilling a prominent target from a closely allied country, the surveillance is being done at the behest of the allied country.  The reason for the complication is legislative or PR difficulties for the allied country in performing its own surveillance.  In the case of Diana, she had specifically requested that the British stop watching her, so there would have been big problems if it were revealed that the British spies had failed to obey the request of the popular Diana.  Her romantic involvements were, or course, of particular interest in Britain.  The state of the womb of the mother of a future King is always going to be of interest to the Court.  Don’t believe the nonsense that the Americans were doing this on their own, and that the British government is angry about it, as international protocol would necessarily require the Americans to seek permission before following somebody as important as Diana.

We’re seeing a lot of these intelligence shenanigans lately.  The CIA can’t spy domestically, so the FBI or the Pentagon does the job for it and passes on the information.  In the case of the Israelis following the September 11 ‘terrorists’, it is quite possible that Israel was doing this for some American government agency.  This comfortable reciprocity probably partly explains why all the Israelis caught doing suspicious things in the United States are quietly deported back to Israel.  If American spies want the continued (apparent) cooperation of Israeli intelligence, they have to play along.

Ever since Reinhard Gehlen convinced the CIA and the Pentagon that international intelligence interests were more important than the interests of any one particular country, and that the community of spies should stick together against claims of national sovereignty, the real enemy of everybody has become the collective of intelligence agencies. 

0 comments: