This isn't really something that's unique to America, this 'us vs them' attitude is something that's fundamental to the way nations operate, I think.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all me are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What is unclear about that?
I just don't understand that we live in a society where it is ok to 'deliver' freedom to others by force, but where we maintain that digging through every german's gmail account is 'legal' in the US, so it's ok.
It's not only hypocritical, but short-sighted. Why would a French company use Gmail or Exchange Online if the US maintains that it and any subcontractor can read their mail at their leisure with no real consequences? Why would a Belgian visit the US if they could detain him because one of his facebook friends got in trouble with the police when he visited Florida?
[1] As the NSA presentation said, an awful lot of backbone traffic passes through the US.
The internet shouldn't be a part of it, though. I agree with that 100%. The internet is not America's, we don't own it, we can't act as if anything going through our part of it belongs to us, to do with what we will.
I am naturally outraged at the antics of the NSA and similar organisations (GCHQ etc.).
But right now I am really annoyed that the entire debate seems to have focused on "This is affecting us". It seems to have been accepted by everyone (Government, News, Public) that spying like this on foreigners is fine and dandy.
I just wish there was a bit more outrage / discussion on the "Is it actually ok to spy on foreigners like this?"
Well, you can't really fault American media for focusing on Americans (or maybe you can.) But it would be interesting to see that break into the national consciousness.
I'm afraid, though, that if you asked most Americans their answer would be "of course it's OK, as long as we're the best at it."
... I can see how that could be incredibly infuriating.
And it's considered basic right, so why shouldn't foreigners have it?
The more I learn about USA the stranger it seems. Guns are legal cause freedom, even at cost of lives, and secrecy of correspondence is just nice-to-have? Why do you need the guns, if you don't use them to defend your privacy?
Bear a few things in mind... most Americans don't own a gun, and most who do don't have them to rise up against the government, and quite a few don't fit into the stereotype of 'gun loving American' at all. After the Newtown shooting (I believe it was) there was widespread support for gun control legislation (close to 90% IIRC) but it was summarily killed because of the power of lobbyists.
America is bigger and more complicated than perhaps it seems from the outside. Also, gun ownership is a constitutional issue... IANACS* but the purpose of that is to allow the people to rise up against the tyranny of either an oppressive government or an outside enemy (as there was no assumption at the time that a standing national army would be a thing, or that Britain was going to leave us alone.) So that's been something we've been arguing over since the beginning.
Meanwhile, a lot of Americans just aren't as politically charged about privacy as they are about gun rights. There's no privacy lobby which is as powerful as the NRA, an you can't win midterms by scaring your constituents about how the other party is coming to take your private keys away. There might be outrage about this eventually, but you've got to give it time to bubble up. All many Americans even know about Edward Snowden is some vague notion that he 'stole secrets' and 'gave them to China.' Meanwhile all you see on the news now is the George Zimmerman trial.
* I am not a constitutional scholar
Not all countries have Guantanamo. Most won't allow foreigners to be imprisoned indefinitely without charges. Heck, in my country (Brazil), foreigners are usually treated better than citizens, even when charged with a crime. Despite the low rate of conviction, crimes against foreigners draw more attention from the justice system. The legal protections for foreigners are that strong, and Itamaraty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itamaraty) enforces them. If you are living here (even temporarily), you hold all the rights that citizens have, minus some things (like the obligation to vote).
> and which apparently has no intelligence service at all...
Not as extensive as the US system, but that's to be expected.
At some point it might be necessary to make a distinction between citizens and foreigners, but only when it matters.