View Full Version : THE US has elevated Australia to their highest ranking of intelligence partner.
Papewaio
09-01-2005, 04:50
Top US intel rating for Australia (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16454606-29277,00.html)
Not sure how true this is or what in effect it means?
The move, confirmed with a decree from US President George W Bush, puts Australia alongside Britain in terms of importance as an intelligence partner, News Ltd papers report today.
Defence Minister Robert Hill confirmed only that Australia had a higher intelligence sharing status with the US than it had ever had before.
Strike For The South
09-01-2005, 04:54
Have you guys learned the handshake yet?
bmolsson
09-01-2005, 04:59
And what does CIA believe crocodile-dune-dee can add ? ~;)
What does it mean? It means the CIA has become utterly incompetant. We seem to rely almost entirely on foreign intelligence these days. Everything coming from our own Intelligence Agencies is bias and corrupt, because they have to play the role of yes-men to Bush. He fires people who say "That won't work.", after all.
THe CIA became utterly incompetant many years ago - way before President Bush. You might want to read a little about the "firing" that previous presidents have done to the CIA.
The CIA has always been pathetic. I just think it has reached the height of it's idiocy under Bush.
And you would be slightly incorrect. During the 1990's the CIA stopped relaying on human intelligence gathering
Papewaio
09-01-2005, 05:57
Anyhow...
Is it real?
Is is a pat on the head or a useful relationship to the US?
PanzerJaeger
09-01-2005, 06:55
I am always happy to hear news of increased Anglo-American cooperation. The strong ties between the 4 major players are an extremely powerful force for good in the world and they should stick together. I think this, if true, is just a late affirmation of the ever more important role Australia plays in the world and the importance their strategic situation represents. Asia is poised for dramatic change with the emergence of China, and its important that we keep our close allies in the region in the loop.
In my opinion, the Anglo-American special relationship cannot be overstated in its importance to the security and prosperity of all 4 nations involved and their subsidiaries.
yesdachi
09-01-2005, 07:31
Wow, we were pretty quick to slam on the CIA and GW. Both are performing less than stellar but establishing a better information relationship with one of our best allies is a good thing and should be complimented.
You’ve tainted a positive topic by complaining about an organization and person that have just done something good (for a change).
sharrukin
09-01-2005, 07:37
Well the CIA isn't exactly going to publicize their successful operations are they!
They do conduct operations with allies and we will never hear about most of them. They do however, need to increase their human intelligence assets (spies, and other shifty people).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201361.html
English assassin
09-01-2005, 12:48
What does it mean? It means CIA spooks are now privy to Australia's extensive files on dangerous international figures hitherto unknown to them, such as Michael Vaughan. (Hah. I bet Nasser Hussain's glad he's not England captain any more...)
Also it will now be possible for MI6 officers seconded to Langley to excuse any social faux pas by claiming to be Australian, since Americans seem to be completely unable to tell the difference between the British and Australian accents.
Ja'chyra
09-01-2005, 13:43
Lol, US, Australia and intelligence all in the same sentence, that's almost as bad as British military intelligence ~;)
Australia undoubtedly has access to better and more widespread sources of intelligence in the very important area of Asia, particularly Indonesia. Australia also has better relations with some countries in Asia than the U.S. does. It makes sense to me.
Louis VI the Fat
09-01-2005, 23:03
The advantages of being America's lapdog are obvious. But being a leashed-up poodle has some disadvantages too.
Sometimes it pays to retain the means to form a critical opinion of your own.
Has US-UK Intelligence Sharing Been Too Cozy?
From the Financial Times (London), July 6 2004:
America's spy agencies have been under relentless scrutiny over mistakes they made on Iraq and their failure to prevent the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
British agencies will face a similar examination over the Iraq war next week with the publication of Lord Butler's review of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction.
As their records are examined, the fortunes of the intelligence agencies of the two countries will to some extent rise and fall together. While their assessments of the threat posed by Iraq in 2002 did not agree on everything, they shared an enormous amount of raw information and co-operated closely on the analysis. Inevitably, intelligence co-operation across the Atlantic will come under intense review.
According to Thomas Powers, a US intelligence historian, the close co-operation between the American and British services "helped President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair make their case for war while protecting them from awkward questions".
In many respects, US and UK co-operation represents the most significant aspect of the so-called special relationship. Its closeness is often the source of great frustration to the intelligence services of Britain's European Union partners. Indeed, European governments argue that Britain's obsession with its transatlantic partner obstructs intelligence sharing within Europe - which is especially important in light of the terrorist bombings in Madrid last March.
Some people in Britain are sceptical of its utility to the UK, but a central part of British strategy since the second world war has been directed towards securing and retaining a high level of US intelligence co-operation.
Other experts, however, see it differently. "It's a servant-master relationship," says Cees Wiebes, professor of comparative politics at the University of Amsterdam. In contrast to its free sharing with the US, Britain tends to be parsimonious with the information it shares with its European partners. "In 2001, the Dutch almost broke off liaison with British GCHQ because it refused to share (information) with the Dutch," he says.
The closeness of the alliance occasionally produces strange outcomes. Take, for instance, the Suez debacle in 1956 when France, Britain and Israel launched an invasion of Egypt against strong US opposition. "The UK continued its intelligence exchanges with its US critic while denying them to its French ally, and the US at the same time supplied Britain with timely U-2 bomb damage assessments of the RAF's attacks on Cairo airfields," says a former UK intelligence officer....Link to unabridged article (http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/6033.html)
Don Corleone
09-01-2005, 23:09
Et tu, Louis? Jealous?
For what it's worth, I highly suspect this is merely the formal recognition of an intelligence relationship that has been ongoing for some time.
Louis VI the Fat
09-01-2005, 23:47
Et tu, Louis? Jealous?Jealous? No, just delighted at the opportunity to rub in that it is precisely the all too close US-UK relationship that has prevented close scrutiny of each other's intelligence in the recent past.
I'm afraid I have to admit that I'm not above petty childish emotions like that. :kid:
Louis VI the Fat
09-01-2005, 23:51
Oh, Don, BTW, how was Alaska?
And does anyone know of a classification the US uses for intelligence sharing status? I couldn't find a link. I'm quite curious about it...
Goofball
09-01-2005, 23:54
Top US intel rating for Australia (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16454606-29277,00.html)
Not sure how true this is or what in effect it means?
Dumb and Dumber?
~:smoking:
Sorry all you Aussies & Yanks. I just couldn't resist that one.
:hide:
Adrian II
09-02-2005, 00:38
Top US intel rating for Australia (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16454606-29277,00.html)
Not sure how true this is or what in effect it means?It probably means you will be invaded next.
Papewaio
09-02-2005, 11:11
Well they will have to bring their own water...
Red Harvest
09-03-2005, 05:57
Well they will have to bring their own water...
I don't need much...
I'll be happy to invade if I can bring my big telescope along! As far as I'm concerned, when hunting faint fuzzies with a big light bucket, the less water around, the better! :thumbsup: And when I feel I need some water time (during full moon and all that) I'll take a splash along that little reef down there...guess I need to bring my dive gear too.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.