Near where I live in the U.K. we have an American spy base called Menwith Hill reportedly run by the NSA. It is difficult to be sure exactly what it does and what information it picks up but here is a brief outline of the base. Anyway, on to my question, how widespread is the practice of putting top-secret bases in foreign countries? As far as I can tell Menwith Hill is accountable to no British authority and stands as a part of American soil here in the U.K., with what appears to be carte blanch to do whatever it likes.
Does the U.K. have any such bases on American soil? Does America have any similar bases in other countries around the world or do any other countries share such a similar “bond” e.g. do Sweden and Denmark allow military top-secret bases to be placed in each other’s countries?
I should make it clear that i’m not complaining about the base being there, i’m just wandering how wide-spread the practice is of allowing other countries to place military bases on foreign soil (i’m talking about the top-secret unaccountable to the country the base resides in type of bases, rather than simple military training bases).
I used to watch a British crime drama on BBC America called “Red Cap” that was set on a UK army base in Germany, so perhaps the US is not the only one to do this.
The difference is that Eschelon appears to be a joint-effort (though perhaps dominated by the USA) with bases in many countries around the world comprising the whole and sharing the results, rather than the case with Menwith Hill where the NSA don’t seem to share the information they garner from it’s use with the GCHQ, unless they feel like it.
IIRC the Red Cap drama was about the Royal Military Police and their investigations of crimes reportedly commited by members of the British Army on foreign soil, somewhat different to the goings-on at spy-bases such as Menwith Hill. I know it is common to find “standard” military bases in other coutries used for traning in different climates and environments but surely these bases are open to investigation by the country they are situated in, should anything untoward be suspected of going on.
I guess that is the information they collect relates to a potential risk to the U.K. they pass on the information, but otherwise it is kept for the sole use of the U.S.A. (though this is a bit of a WAG).
Here is another quote from a Member of Parliament in the U.K.
Apparently questions have been asked in the House of Commons regarding the base but many have been refused answer.
Just to clarify I am looking for cases of foreign bases in any country of the world that appear to have complete immunity to the laws of the country they are based in.
I am trying to be careful how I word what I say, as I of course don’t know all the details of how the base operates and who it reports to, I only know what I have read and that seems to indicate immunity to local and national laws for the base.
A suprising relationship is that the U.S. has had listening posts in China (with the help of the Chinese) to spy on Russia for many years. Hong Kong hosts both U.S. and British posts to spy on the Chinese.
why do you treat “foreign bases” differently than foreign embassies?Diplomatic Immunity is common.
About 6-7 years ago, there was a murder at the Libyan embassy in London.Someone from inside the embassy building fired gunshots at demonstrators outside and killed a British policeman. Of course there were expressions of outrage in Parliament, and the embassy staff was kicked out of the country, as I recall. But the British government had no other powers to investigate/arrest the murderer.
I highly doubt any foreign base is ever given “immunity.” It’s far more likely that the US and British government have worked out a very specific deal wherein certain benefits are awarded in return for certain concessions. Use of space, joint operations, intel sharing etc.
However, neither government is about to let the details of their deal be made public on anything other then a Need-To-Know basis.
So basically, the only ‘immunity’ granted is an immunity from public revelations.
The incident at the Libyan Embassy in London and some other pretty serious events, such as rape, caused the UK to define those having diplomatic immunity much more narrowly.
It’s usual practice nowadays for Ambassadors to waive immunity from prosecution for their staff who have been involved in serious criminal incidents, its usually in their interests do do so, as movements and operations on diplomatic staff can be held exactly to the letter of the Geneva Convention, and this is somewhat less than the freedom of movement they currently enjoy.
This is exactly correct. The CIA, DIA and other information-gathering services operate out of embassies and consulates worldwide. They’re just not always called “CIA”, but rather have euphemistic titles such as “Office of Political Research”. Covert agents often pose as diplomatic corps officers and staff.
Actually, they have a perpetual lease, which can only be cancelled with the consent of the U.S. and Cuba. The Americans cough up $4085 a year, though Fidel has only ever cashed one check.
There have been numerous complaints that any time you have a company with a large operation in another country, a significant number of top-level employees are spies working for the intelligence agencies of the country the company originated in. US companies have also been bitching for years that the various French, British, etc., intelligence agencies are spending more of their time committing industrial espionage, than going after “bad guys.”
