German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden 337
siddesu sends this report from The Intercept:
German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said this week in Homburg that the U.S. government threatened to cease sharing intelligence with Germany if Berlin offered asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden or otherwise arranged for him to travel to that country. 'They told us they would stop notifying us of plots and other intelligence matters,' Gabriel said.
Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot implicitly denounce invasive intelligence while enjoying its ill-gotten fruits.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that ALL US intelligence is "ill-gotten"?
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you implying that ALL US intelligence is "ill-gotten"?
I don't think it matters what percentage of the intelligence is tainted, we won't be able to tell the difference; so from the public perspective all intelligence can be viewed as tainted.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think it matters what percentage of the intelligence is tainted, we won't be able to tell the difference; so from the public perspective all intelligence can be viewed as tainted.
Nope, you got it wrong.
Each country with diplomatic relations, with accredited staff in embassy and people abroad is free to gather information from public sources. That is called intelligence done by legals.
If a country is caught gathering information using illegal means that is called spying. Those who work under cover, by false identity and or role and spy are called illegals.
The simple fact that any information gathered by any means is called intelligence in home country is because no country is willing
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it would probably save someone's life to install video cameras in every private residence and monitor citizens 24 hours a day.
Or maybe the ends don't justify the means?
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Get impaired off the road first and maybe you'll have a point. And by impaired, I mean by distraction (e.g., phones), drugs, or alcohol.
It's sort of funny how "terrorism" doesn't actually kill a lot of people - overall, traffic accidents cause far more fatalities and the ones dying are rarely the ones who made the poor decision.
So yes, getting hit by an impaired driver is often a terrible way to go because there's little you could've done to prevent it.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I stand a far greater chance of dying driving to work than being harmed by the people that this type of surveillance is suppose to stop. And if you believe that this isn't the case I can even back it up with numbers. The NSA a couple of years ago claimed that their illegal activities have stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11/01. So lets assume that this is true, that means that in 12 years they stopped about 4 attacks a year and lets even assume that each of those attacks was on a similar scale to 9/11, doing this only makes the numbers look better for the government. That means that on average terrorism would kill about 12,000 people a year which puts it well below drug abuse as a cause of death [wikipedia.org]. Since we have already wandered off into the Neighborhood of Make-Believe [wikipedia.org] at this point why not take it a little further and assume that all 50 attacks happened in the same year. This means that ~150,000 people bite it a year due to terrorism and there is basically a weekly major attack meaning we are probably living in a fucking war zone. Even at that level it means that terrorism is slightly more deadly than being a fat ass in the US but still well below the next cause which is smoking. The reality is that the number attacks prevented probably isn't close to 50 that was stated, they were over ~12 years not one, and the likely scale of each attack is probably the same as the dumb bastard who failed to ignite his shoes or his underwear and would have only mildly injured him self. So in reality I could probably likely assume that had the NSA done nothing there might might be ~100 people killed by terrorism over 12 years, or in other words there are probably more people who have won the Powerball jackpot over that same time. I wouldn't base public policy on a statistical anomaly like that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What they are doing is looking for dissent, and moonlighting for private companies. 60% of all surivailence is economic according to Snowden. They're spying on your business for your competitors who are paying moonlighting NSA agents.
They are spying on your kids who fed up with the system. They're making up terrorist plots to bust, with intellegence being used to help frame
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually source of Intel is almost always extremely obfuscated as revealing how intelligence was gathered can compromise the source, possibly costing lives.
I don't think the concern is lost lives, but either losing a source of intelligence or losing face.
Re: (Score:3)
And losing lives typically results in both. Unless you're specifically aiming for a brutal reputation, it's best to keep your secret service beneath the radar.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Reconstructionist President Mackenzie of the Simon Morden books isn't far-fetched anymore, alas. We're well on the way there.
The blatant disregard for the sovereignty and principles of other nations is part of why USA is so generally despised and feared, even by our allies. But walk over people enough, and they will raise up.
Re:Can't have it both ways (Score:4, Insightful)
It is kind of funny you would say that as EVERY country does this or wishes they could. The whole point of a spy agency is to disregard the sovereignty of another country, or how else would spying happen? Would you rather this was done the way it used to be done where actual people were sent to other countries to listen to phone lines or put a cup against a door?
Re: (Score:3)
Governments spying on each other is one thing, but USA goes a lot further than that, including industrial espionage, spying on civilians en masse, strong-arming and assassinations.
Apart from Russia and Israel, I can't think of any other country that disregards other peoples to this extent.
Re: Can't have it both ways (Score:3)
And which of the ww2 allies did NOT benefit from Nazi scientific research, many of which were built on the top of genocide victms?
Re: (Score:3)
Silly question... Reelection rates remain steady at 95%, so yes, they do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot implicitly denounce invasive intelligence while enjoying its ill-gotten fruits.
You don't need the subjective value judgement for it to be true. There are probably formulations that are even more true. For example, you can't ask your friend to share their secrets while openly sheltering their enemies from them.
Not only will they say "no," they'll be offended and you won't be as close of friends anymore.
To complain afterwards, "he didn't let me be his best friend and help his enemy too, he made me choose" is just exceptionally whiny.
When did Germany get so whiny? They know they want o
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Because, you know, some other president such as republican would not have done the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
No, they would just go into a prestigious hotel room, get caught, and resign.
What planet are you on? Espionage and counter-espionage have been going on since the dawn of time. It knows no party limits. Without it, we'd be a pile of nuclear rubble by now or launching attacks into countries on a belief. Oh...wait.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know this "incompetent for the position" is a newer emphasis from the wingnuts, I try to keep abreast of the far-right and far-left talking points. That allows me to identify you
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, to a more objective observer, it looks like Netanyahu is being the dick. He's inflexible and acting up so that Adelson and his crony's can use him to tar Obama. Looks like it's working on it's intended audience. Nobody with any brains thinks "decisive military action" will be anything but bad for everyone involved or nearby.
I know this "incompetent for the position" is a newer emphasis from the wingnuts, I try to keep abreast of the far-right and far-left talking points. That allows me to identify you and categorize you appropriately.
My apologizes if any of these words are too big, read it slowly and use a dictionary if you have to.
I just wanted to add that, on the issues of war and peace that Netanyahu and Obama disagree on, the analysis that Obama is using (that regional wars are bad for Israel, and that war with Iran would be really really bad for Israel) is the same position that the Israeli Defense Force and intelligence community have been giving to Netanyahu. Bibi is the one ignoring his own generals and analysts and pushing policies that are considered very dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
The really annoying thing about AC's is that you can't "enemy" them.
Interesting double edge sword there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Interesting double edge sword there. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Understanding the desire for power and natural arrogance of authority, is there a reason not to?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting double edge sword there. (Score:5, Insightful)
It does confirm one thing: the US intelligence agencies aren't "the good guys". The good guys wouldn't condemn Germany to suffer otherwise preventable terrorist attacks for spite. Thanks to Germany for confirming this and making it known to all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It does matter. One assumes it is the intelligence services, because seems most likely, but it could have been a member of the President's staff, or the President himself who ordered it.
Think about it this way. On one hand, it seems like a threat that the intelligence services might make, but if you think about it, shutting off intel to Germany would almost certainly entail a vice-versa. I don't know that the intelligence agencies necessarily think capturing Snowden is worth disrupting their mutual arran
Re: (Score:3)
The intelligence services are together with the President and his staff. They don't get to claim they're independent. If you want independence from your boss' misdeeds, resign. If you want independence from your underlings' misdeeds, fire them.
Re:Interesting double edge sword there. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you ever believed that any country was the "good guys" on some sort of objectivist good/evil framework and didn't realize that EVERY country is solely focused on its own interests and security, then you're staggeringly naive in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Acting in your own interest is one thing. Acting in the interest of spite is another.
Re: (Score:3)
There is some idea that by default, our allies stand with us as soon as they sign whatever treaty.
The reality is that shifting governments may very well throw allies under the bus by doing things like accepting someone like Snowden, or alternately tapping phone communications.
It sounds like an overreaction and a really bad idea. It may well be, but threat and counter-threat happens all the time between allies, despite common ground against certain threats.
As we have seen played out in the news recently, th
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the world of the Millenial.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a poor argument even by internet standards. If they never prevent anything, they're not "the good guys" because they're spying on people for no reason. If they do prevent attacks, they just threatened to allow Germany to be attacked for spite.
Re: (Score:2)
If they never prevent anything, they're not "the good guys" because they're spying on people for no reason.
Or they're good guys, because their spying is enough to deter attacks
If they do prevent attacks, they just threatened to allow Germany to be attacked for spite.
Or they're good guys, because a slightly reduced capability is better than letting it be known that someone who participates in a massive breach can find a comfortable home in Germany.
Re: (Score:3)
So the argument is that they're useful enough to be somewhat worthwhile but not useful enough to make the threat to Germany a serious one? I'm not sure how that could ever make them "the good guys". Are we grading on a curve?
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to allowing anyone holding state or indeed any secrets to use them to their own advantage... Best case: the resulting destabilization of the USA only affects people like you. Worst case: it affects us all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defense (Score:5, Interesting)
Without getting into the moral implications of such a threat by the US, this is the cost Germany et. al. pay when letting the US foot the defense bill. The US defense budget pays for a large portion of the defense of the first world. If they don't want to be beholden to the whims of the US, don't depend on the US for defense.
Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen (Score:5, Insightful)
they aren't outsourcing it, the situation with defense was forced upon them, and who wants a fully armed german military? Europe burned down twice because of that.
Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen (Score:5, Informative)
The need for that imposition died of old age roughly 15 years ago.
The only reason Germany ran wild twice was because we (the victors of WWI) botched the unholy shit out of things the first time, basically wrecking Germany and creating a power vacuum.
Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen (Score:5, Interesting)
The only reason Germany ran wild twice was because we (the victors of WWI) botched the unholy shit out of things the first time, basically wrecking Germany and creating a power vacuum.
I'd say it was a bit more complicated than that. The issues were not Germany's alone, nor that of the losers, nor even the occurance of the Great Depression. The entire 20's and 30's was a three way battle between the idealogies and factions of Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany fell to fasicsm before WW2 even started.Before they did, there was a see-saw battle in the streets. The foundations of the Nazi party gained prestige when they helped overthrown a communist coup in Bavaria. There was even debate in the US along those idealogical lines.
Re: (Score:2)
yup ideology trumps reason every time. The Germany (any country) of today may not be the same tomorrow. This is the human condition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US imposing military will is hardly the same as countries FORCED BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO NOT REARM expecting defense from its allies..
Remember that little thing with all the jewish people going to camp? well germany's not been allowed to have a military build up.
Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen (Score:5, Interesting)
Umm, Germany has the eighth largest military in the world. Or were you unaware of that?
Japan has the ninth, in case you were interested.
Aside from the Big Three (US, Russia, China), Germany is behind India, UK, France, and South Korea. Which puts them about where they were in 1939 (what, you didn't know that the Wehrmacht in 1939 was smaller than the French Army, much less the combined Anglo-French forces they faced in 1940?).
Source? (Score:3)
Re: This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
From whom? Ask those who lived next to the GDR & saw people shot running to freedom in the recent past or more recently people living in eastern Ukraine. Perhaps you would prefer to converse with Boris Nemtsov?
Re: (Score:3)
Defense from who, exactly?
Those that would threaten US dominance.
Why didn't he go to France? (Score:2, Funny)
France isn't part of NATO and has never had any trouble telling people to get stuffed. You know, like a good friend should.
Re: (Score:3)
France isn't part of NATO
Wut? [nato.int]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
France isn't part of NATO and has never had any trouble telling people to get stuffed. You know, like a good friend should.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You really don't understand the French. The time of De Gaulle has been over for more than 40 years.
Todays political establishment would sell the French people without thinking twice about it. With France, you have to pay attention to deeds not words. What they say is nothing like what they do. You do know that France is one of the closest US allies ? Even closer than Germany or Italy. You wouldn't think so from how the politicians speak about the US. French politicians are a duplicitous b
Re: (Score:3)
The way I've always heard it told, instead of defending a line from WWI that they wouldn't be able to defend, and having Paris bombed to rubble, they surrendered and switched to guerrilla tactics in order to preserve their cultural treasures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
It seems to be mostly Americans from the political "right" who have that silly idea that the French just surrendered. They never stopped fighting, but they did save Paris. Every other plan I've heard about what they could have done inste
Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)
By trying to prevent its allies from giving Snowden asylum, the USA has forced him to take asylum with a relatively unfriendly nation, Russia.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Insightful)
By trying to prevent its allies from giving Snowden asylum, the USA has forced him to take asylum with a relatively unfriendly nation, Russia.
Not really. Russia's leadership doesn't really have to worry about public perception of how Snowden is treated and Putin can be relied upon to do what is best for Putin, not Snowden, Russia or anyone else unless doing so advances Putin. Once Snowden is no longer useful he can swap him for something he wants without worrying about the reaction in Russia. In addition, Snowden is much more likely to get tired of Russia than Germany and thus may eventually decide to return to the US without preconditions. Thus, the US is more likely to get Snowden back from Russia than Germany and so Russia may be a more desirable option for the US.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:4, Interesting)
This subscribes to a cynical one sided view of the world. In regards to Snowden, we only have assumptions on Putin's behavior toward him, while we do have evidence on Obama's behavior towards him. What you do here, is condemn someone based on assumptions, in order to try to protect or justify actions of someone else, who's already done harm. As for the second set of assumptions, we've had a reverse case like that which you advocate with a country similar to Germany, the UK. So there is actual evidence that this is not a preferred scenario for the concerned party.
I wish, Sir, you stopped living in a fantasy world of conclusions reached based on assumptions and joined us in evidence based reality.
Impossible Fair Trial (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
How much are you willing to pay for gas?
I bet the middle east could survice longer on the money they already have that the US could without oil from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Saudi Arabia is the largest exporter, and without the oil money, the people will be quick to revolt.
Re: (Score:2)
But other countries pay for their oil, too. The oil money won't be instantly down to zero. Yes, they would have to cut back, but people won't revolt that quickly if they build less skyscrapers.
Here comes into play what the other commenter replied: The US is a net energy exporter, Saudi Arabia doesn't have to supply ALL the oil needed there. Gas prices still would go up a lot, but gas stations wouldn't run dry.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But "energy" in general won't help you if you need to run combustion engines.
Re: Impossible Fair Trial (Score:4, Insightful)
By "fair trial" do you mean to be tried in accordance with the law? Don't put me on the jury, because it seems clear to me that he did break the law by divulging classified information - and lots of it. In fact, he wouldn't be the popular hero he is if he hadn't broken the law. (Nobody becomes a popular hero by working secretly behind the scenes at NSA to reform the system from within.) So, I think even a fair trial would convict him. (Then again, that's why you shouldn't put me on the jury.) We could then expect his supporters to claim that the trial was unfair.
However, note that I'm referring only to the legal issue here. Whether or not what Snowden did was "right", "good", "moral", etc. is a different question that I know that many people here feel strongly about. But that's a separate issue.
Regardless, you can't simultaneously lionize him for having the guts to break the law in order to do what he and others see as the right thing, then expect him not to be convicted for breaking the law because "the full power of the US government would make any fair trial impossible."
Re: Impossible Fair Trial (Score:5, Insightful)
There are whisteblower protection laws that permit one to claim as a defense "yes, I did the act but it was justified because..." and if the jury believes the reasons to be justifiable, there's no crime and therefore no conviction.
However, matters of national security are specifically excluded from the whistleblower protection law. So he would not be allowed to argue, at all, that his actions were justifiable. If his lawyer tries to argue Snowden was justified, "objection, irrelevant." And it would be.
This is the problem with the "well, if he's such a patriot, he should come back and stand trial and let a jury of his peers decide if what he did was good!" He is literally not allowed to argue that what he did was good.
Without preconditions, the one and only chance he would have is, as the Coward notes, jury nullification. But, they would have to arrive at the decision to nullify essentially on their own, because Snowden would not be allowed to argue that his actions were justifiable, thereby making the case for nullification.
Now, he could have a fair trial with the condition that he's exempt from the prohibition on use of a justification defense in the case of national security. IANAL, but I imagine that would require an act of congress, passing an amnesty law, as I don't think the executive or judicial branches have the authority to make the necessary agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting points. I hadn't thought about possible whistleblower protection and/or its inapplicability to Snowden's case.
Another escape valve the system offers for "faireness" in such cases is a Presidential pardon, but that seems very unlikely. The US government as a whole sees Snowden's acts as quite damaging to national security, even if others see them as beneficial overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason US wants Snowden ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... is for revenge and the mistaken idea that punishing Snowden would be a deterrent.
Snowden is no hacker any more than Manning is. Both were inside the perimeter and walked off with the goods.
The Snowden documents (not Snowden himself) will reveal more as time goes on.
The best tactic for US is to just leave Snowden alone to minimize the publicity.
In the matter of threatening Germany, that's no surprise -- and it worked.
Move along, nothing to see ...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
if anything Manning was misguided and possibly mentally unstable. A charge of traitor is bit much for some one who clearly should not have passed his mental assessment exam. The fault lies with the recruiting process and possibly the excellent DontAsk legislation. Thanks Clinton.
hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
who, this germany?:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/paral... [npr.org]
http://www.spiegel.de/internat... [spiegel.de]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
americans are and should be angry at the NSA
but other countries complaining about the NSA is hypocrisy
if i was german, would i be worried about the NSA? or the BND and the BfV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... [wikipedia.org]
if you live in a country outside the USA, and your biggest privacy concern is the NSA, you're a moron: your own country is doing everything the NSA is doing, and in many countries, far worse. obviously, they can also abuse you a lot easier than the USA can. and they do
again: i don't have a problem with americans complaining about the NSA. americans SHOULD complain about the NSA. but i do have a problem with other countries complaining about the NSA when they do the same or worse
Re: (Score:2)
Being pissed off when you find out that some (supposedly friendly!) foreign agency is spying on you is not hipocrisy. It's a perfect normal reaction.
On the other hand, it's hipocrisy not to relize that exactly is their job.
or how would you think America would react if the BND started wiretapping Obamas calls? Not amused. I'd guess.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)
As an American, I'd be pissed at the American government for allowing BND to succeed at it, not at BND for trying.
Re: (Score:2)
Precisely & in addition, spies & traitors in US ranks that forswear their vows should be punished. Snowden, I'm looking right at you.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Which would actually be a wise reaction compared to the knee-jerk reactions Joe Sixpack would come along with.
Re: (Score:2)
The American intelligence community assumes that the BND, MI6 and everybody else we work with every day is trying their darndest to wiretap the Oval Office. And for all we know they do have a successful tap running. Amused, not real
Re: (Score:2)
>> if you live in a country outside the USA, and your biggest privacy concern is the NSA, you're a moron:
I get your point but it really doesn't work like that. Thanks to most EU governments pandering to the US, the NSA have gotten their hooks into everything there too, even though its not their country.
Re: (Score:2)
americans are and should be angry at the NSA
but other countries complaining about the NSA is hypocrisy
So you think the rest of the world should just accept the illegal (in the rest of the world) spying that the NSA does to them, just because it's a foreign government? That's a foolish argument.
It is hypocritical to continuous publicly call a nation an ally, often pressuring them them into working with US on fighting terrorism, etc., and then spy on said government who practises what US calls good governance, i.e. an independent government consisting of democratically elected representatives. That's the part
What is he complaining about? (Score:2)
Look, why are you complaining about being "strong armed" by the USA? You didn't like their tactics? They where playing fast pitch hard ball and you wanted to play slow pitch softball?
IF you wish to play ball on the intelligence front, play ball. If you don't like how the USA plays, don't play with them. If you don't like the rules used by the USA, you don't have to play with them, just start your own game.
After all, it's not as if you where being threatened with violations of your sovereignty. The USA w
Keep your enemies close (Score:2)
Wouldn't it have made more sense for Snowden to end up in Germany where he can have an eye kept on him, than in Russia where he is free to give any and all intel he has to Putin?
Re: (Score:2)
Snowden gave everything he had to journalists. He didn't bring any digital storage media with him when he went to Russia precisely because he didn't want anyone else getting access to the raw data.
Whatever 'intel' he could provide has already been published in the pages of The Guardian.
I see a problem here and it isn't Snowden/Germany (Score:5, Insightful)
What I love about these tools that think that they should be able to spy on us to "protect" us. Yet in Canada we have a motorcycle gang that all wear special clothing, have special tattoos, and hang out in known HQs; yet our national police force can't shut them down with every law needed already in place. Prisons which have pretty well no constitutional protections for privacy or intercepted communications are filled with drugs. So even if they manage to completely remove privacy and rights they have proven themselves incompetent at doing their jobs with simplistic criminals.
What hope do they have against actual terrorists with an IQ over 90? Or lone wolves who communicate with exactly nobody?
My assessment of all these laws is that they are there to protect vested interests. The politicians want to protect their friends in big business in the name of national security/stability. But my guess is that they mostly want to protect themselves from the erosion of power that is happening through the internet where the press and other investigators can find out what corruption is happening. Thus the ideal situation is that whistleblowers will be nervous about contacting the press because they don't know if their communications are secure. That even politicians will be nervous about trying to reduce the power of the security services because not only might they be listening but that the security services will be well placed to leak data about they or their friends.
Remember that this sort of power is very insidious. For instance when the government goes to appoint someone to a watchdog or judicial position that will oversee the security services the security service does a "background check" this is not only to make sure that the person isn't an enemy spy but to protect the politicians from embarrassment if it turns out that their potential appointee is unsavoury in some way. This could be something like anti women views or even something like they are 60 and often date 20 somethings. Thus if the person is going to a hanging judge and is happy to give the security service free reign they can give the person a clean bill of health during the "background check" but if the person has long been a defender of privacy and generally anti authoritarian then they will compile a list of rumours and innuendos that suggest the person will be an embarrassment.
Thus as we hear about judge after judge giving their blessings to insanely unconstitutional behaviour, and we hear about watchdogs that aren't watching keep in mind about who vetted these people in the first place.
What scares the shit out of these people is when they don't have control over them as in the case of politicians in other countries. This is where they have to play hardball. But my simple question is how many politicians in various G7 countries have had information "leaked" about them by the US security services? Leaked during elections where they were successfully running against right wing hardliners that the US would prefer to win?
Re:I see a problem here and it isn't Snowden/Germa (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easy to blame the US but we didn't create most of the problems facing the world. Europe did with colonialism. Though the US is responsible for the rise of ISIS, the political boundaries that aided the creation and much of the problems of the middle east are related to the divvying up of the middle east by Europe after WWI and the subsequent colonization that took place later. The problems Europe created will haunt us for a long time to come, probably several hundred years.
Up until WWII the US was neutral and outside the fucking around in the western hemisphere pretty well minded their business. We didn't create the problems, we've just been dealing with them. And you should fear greatly the day people like me get our way and turn this country back neutral and start looking out after our own and stop caring about everyone else. Europe, Canada and many others will be in for a shitstorm when they have to start paying for their own defense.
Re: (Score:2)
The ones in Halifax wouldn't have been caught by anything short of the most severe privacy violations and massive all encompassing dragnets.
kind of surprised (Score:2)
Germany not safe in the first place (Score:2)
No member of NATO could possibly keep anyone safe from the US because the Americans are already on the inside.
Dichotomous (Score:2)
Amazing that this kind of stuff keeps happening yet many Americans still believe the US is "The Land Of The Free"(tm).
Idiots! Snowden isn't the threat. (Score:2)
Terrible politicians getting involved in matters that they don't fully comprehend, making awful decrees and threats. Snowden is not the enemy of democracy: secret state actions are a greater threat to our nation.
Do it Germany (Score:2)
If I was Merkel, even if I originally had no intention to take Snowden, I would now just to put the US in its place.
There's more of that 'Smart Diplomacy' ... (Score:2)
...that we were promised. Maybe we can send John Kerry over to Berlin with a modified staples button that says "überladen" to try to make things right.
US blew the chase (Score:2)
You would think that professional politicians would be smarter with this stuff, sheesh.
Re:Diplomacy, bullying, what's the difference? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, Snowden would be stupid to trust Germany. Only sovereign on paper, Germany is America's lapdog.
It's strange, but during the 80s, Italy as a major lapdog of the US (having important NATO bases and naval bases for the US 6th fleet and 688 nuclear submarines stationed in Sardinia) had one of most ballsy (and crook) prime ministers of the last 40 years. Bettino Craxi had the balls to go against the US when Italian interests were at risk. He even went as far as having a military showdown between Italian military special forces and US navy Seals in Sigonella air base. The US forces retreated and Reagon was furious. One of the major air bases from which the US military launched missions against Libyia. Nowadays no European politician (prime minister or president) would dare defy the Amercans. How sad. And I say this as a European.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to go as far as to make that a matter of trust.
If ANY country's 3-letter-agencies are looking out for you, you don't want to be in any country that has a visa waiver program with the first.
So much for the question if Germany should offer refugee status. He would be stupid to request it here.
Re: (Score:2)
Because everyone feels like they need the truly dirty work done, but no one wants to sully their hands with it. We outsource clean hands to the cognitively dissonant.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't germany do its own intelligence? Why outsource intelligence to america?
I guess they're not that smart. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Actually, it's common for allies to share intelligence, which works to everyone's benefit. They probably all do it selectively: nobody shares everything they've got. See the Pollard case [wikipedia.org] for an example.
Re: (Score:3)
Friends don't bully, or extort, friends.
Re: (Score:2)