[Prost1]

"There's arguably no need for the NSA to intercept messages..."

The assets are most likely UK/USA. The USA assets are most likely NSA. Sharing Intel is meaningful - "Actionable intelligence".

Echelon may be nothing more than a UK/USA agreement, but that has existed since post WWII and was effective during the Cold War.

Until the EO or Patriot Act, NSA was forbidden from directing its surveillance towards Domestic targets.

[NJ_gent]

"Echelon may be nothing more than a UK/USA agreement, but that has existed since post WWII and was effective during the Cold War."

The UK/USA agreement came after the beginnings of Echelon. Also, last I did research on the subject, Echelon was hosted in at least six different countries. Australia is another nation housing NSA property in NSA-controlled facilities, as is Canada.

"Until the EO or Patriot Act, NSA was forbidden from directing its surveillance towards Domestic targets."

It was my understanding that the NSA, like the CIA, was specifically denied the authority to operate domestically against US citizens in its charter. In that case, those NSA employees who reportedly refused to cooperate were very smart. Cooperating in this case could potentially risk the very existence of the agency. As well it should when they begin operating against US citizens on US soil.