U.S., U.K. Governments Dispute Report that U.S. Sold Out U.K. During START Negotiations

Just because it was in the first START treaty means nothing at all. Great Britain said NO to releasing the information on THIS version of the treaty. Once again the US has betrayed the trust of one of her last few allies. Hope we make it to 2012.

The sad thing about mainstream journalism now is that National Enquirers and TMZ reports are more accurate and responsible, despite reporting on matters like David Beckham’s package and Dolly Parton’s breasts.

“A knowledgeable source with the British government, speaking anonymously”
Jake, if you can’t find anyone to confirm your report ON RECORD it really isn’t a trustworthy story. Try a novel approach, INVESTIGATE!!!

Well, we fell for a plausable rogue in the form of Tony Blair, so I can hardly be ticked that you guys did the same. Still, this too will pass. Let’s all try and get a little more involved in politics so that this kind of grimness doesn’t happen so often. We’d better be quick, though, don’t you think?
Next time I meet an American I’ll still buy you a frink and pass the time of day. I have a long memory and I know you for a good people. Cheers.

How does the UK know what Russia and the US agreed to?

I think British citizens would have some questions to ask if indeed their government agreed the US would keep Russia updated on UK’s vital military secrets.
State Department obfuscations notwithstanding, informing Russia about the location of UK trident missiles is treasonous and impeachable. Isn’t it the epitome of hubris for the “spying clause” (#13) to be put on record as part of the new START? The Obama administration is not afraid of documenting its treachery, because it knows that with the mainstream media behind it, it can do no wrong. The MSM have emboldened this administration’s lawless attitude of “the end justifies the means.”

If wiki leaks posted it ,consider it news.
When the 3 Networks in the United States
start true journalism and ask the hard questions to everybody and give up political
journalistic assassination, there ratings might
go up and people in this country might make
the right choices when voting.

This story does not address the actual charges made in the original Telegraph story. The Telegraph claims that the US wanted to provide Russia with MORE specific data than in previous treaty. The UK said NO. The US then agreed to supply Russia with the serial number for each missile in defiance of UK wishes.
When disputing a charge at least address the actual charge being made.

by the way Whatthe, START I EXPIRED at the end of 1999. The link that you have called “New Start” is actually an old and now defunct treaty form 1993. We don’t have the text available from the “New START” yet, but one could assume that it is the same as that given by Wikileaks.
One thing is unclear though – given that British Foreign secretary made it clear last year that they did NOT want detailed information on such missiles made available in any new treaty. Has this new treaty gone against that wish?

Impeach this treasonous cipher!

In the context of a virtual blackout on this story across US mainstream media, the ABC blog article may have served as a rationalization for the US media silence. After all, if this just another one of those “crank” claims — e.g. we need Obama’s birth certificate to confirm he was not born in Manchuria — then it doesn’t merit coverage.
Expect more MSM articles “covering” the issue in the sense of covering up and burying it. That will happen within a week when the MSM is reluctantly dragged into the arena by a groundswell of blogs.

Did the classified wikileaks emails lie? It would seem that BO would do anything at any price in order to get what he wants. This is treachery on the worst order. This administration has lied so many times, no one believes them any more. This must be investigated. Turn on the lights and watch the cockroaches run.

Funny that the British government doesn’t seem to realized they’ve been so horribly taken advantage of….do right-wingers really expect us to believe they would be so oblivious?

Funny that the British government doesn’t seem to realized they’ve been so horribly taken advantage of….do right-wingers really expect us to believe they would be so oblivious?
====
How would they know?
They know what we tell them, or what their intelligence services tell them, right? The UK wouldn’t have any independent knowledge of what we’d negotiated with Russia.
Do we know what everyone else is doing? Egypt tells us “no”.

There is no need for endless conjecture about whether the US promised Russia disclosures that were unprecedented in their specific details. I would invite international law experts to weigh in, but the actual text of the treaties appears to strongly contradict the State Department’s claims. The commitments of the past involved a much more restricted scope of disclosures about the UK.
As stated in the executive summary of START II, START II never entered into force. Therefore we need to look at the text of START I that entered into force in 1994. The START I Protocol on Notifications states:
“I.8. notification, no later than 48 hours after it has been completed, of the transfer of items to or from a third State in accordance with a pattern of cooperation existing at the time of signature of the Treaty referred to in Article XVI of the Treaty and the First Agreed Statement in the Annex to the Treaty on Agreed Statements. Such notification shall include: the number and type of items transferred; the date of transfer; and the location of transfer;”
However, the Wikileaks cable specifies “13. …the unique identifier and the location of each of the transferred missiles.” Unique identifiers were not required for transferred SLBMs in START I. Also, START I called for “the location of transfer” and not “the location of each of the transferred missiles.”Location of transfer refers to the location where the missiles exchanged hands and became UK missiles. The UK Trident missiles are of course submarine-based when deployed.
“The location of each of the transferred missiles” goes far beyond the original commitment in START I. It may include information about which missiles were deployed, where the SLBMs are stored if not deployed and possibly even where the UK subs are. (The State Department’s recent statement on this indicates the START I language was interpreted rather liberally by this administration, so it is important to look at how the language of New START could be interpreted.)
The START I Protocol on Notifications mentions unique missile identification ten times, but each one of these instances refers to US ICBMs. Therefore it is significant the treaty did not specify any “unique identifiers” of SLBMs transferred to other States. If it was necessary to specify ten times that US ICBMs should be uniquely identified, it would have been necessary to state this explicitly about transferred SLBMs if this meaning had been intended.
It appears START II silent on this. There was one reference that only emphasized the UK Trident missiles were not part of the agreement. START II Article by Article Analysis:
“Article III: …The provisions of subparagraph 3(a) do not preclude production of Trident SLBMs for transfer to the United Kingdom.”
Similarly, the Moscow Treaty, which extended START I and was ratified in 2003, does not appear to mention transfer of SLBMs to any third country such as the UK. These treaties are found on the Department of Defense website.
The above shows that the State Department’s claim of “business as usual” based on previous START notification protocols is in fact not founded in the treaties on record. Please feel free to disseminate this analysis to encourage further critique.