So you mean, the very purpose for which the NSA exists?
And... how wrong would it really be if diplomats from Canada planted a bug in the Whitehouse. Surely nothing wrong with that.
If they don't, someone in the motherland isn't doing their job.
Not much worse than when they burned it down.
Anyway, Front street 151 in Toronto carries a substantial amount of US traffic. Maybe someone should check the place for taps.
CSIS HQ is a stone's throw from there, but that's probably unrelated.
US is at the blame here, not UN or those which US spies upon.
A "treaty" or "law" that can't be enforced doesn't merit the name--it's just lip service.
The fact that the US can bully its way wherever it wants and can afford to ignore every treaty it is signatory to is setting a fine example. I'd hold a tinpot dictator to a higher standard than this. It is recognized that some parties are stronger than others. That does not give the stronger parties the right to ignore their treaties, which count as solemn promises rather than lip-service.
Dumb shit like this is what got us into plenty of wars in the past.
If the United States does not want to be party to treaties then it should simply not sign them. (See: the ICC).
That naivete ignores the fact that from a thug's perspective, it is entirely advantageous to sign treaties, and then secretly ignore them.
Of course, I agree, but I'm not sure it can exist.
>I think that nation states once bound by treaty should abide by that treaty, even the largest, especially the largest.
Well, the US has demonstrated that it is not to be trusted. Move the UN HQ to... umm... I don't know where.
More generally, I think the U.N. serves a valuable humanitarian purpose. It serves as a great vehicle for coordinating international efforts. I think it's a total failure as a political organization. I'd have no problem disbanding the General Assembly and just preserving the useful agencies (UNICEF, ICAO, WHO, etc). It's unfortunately not politically practical in the U.S., because a certain segment of the country fetishizes world government.
We're so smugly confident of the security of our position at the top of the heap that we can bemuse idly about how interesting it will be to watch foreign affairs in the near future. BTW, I'm not trying to mock you, any more than I mock myself for the same thoughts. But it worries me that so few people seem to even consider the possibility that our prospects for the future might be anything other than world dominance.
>How seriously are other countries going to take things?
Diplomats from the countries involved have known or been aware to some degree, but now they can publicly rebuke US/NATO policy initiatives. For that matter, anyone may now criticize UN policy on the basis that it lacks independence.
>Could they apply sanctions against the US?
Well, maybe not through UN resolution! But, sure; it may not have an effect if it isn't unilateral to some degree. The US still holds a lot of cards in that respect, but fewer each day it seems. When, (not if) consensus turns against the US, it will turn quickly.
>Enough to get companies to effectively lobby against spying?
The pessimist in me thinks that by the time public opinion in the US (even among the businessmen you're referring to) turns against gov't policy, the damage will already have been done. Arguably/Possibly a good thing for the world.
So now we're stuck trying to educate very well-meaning, yet angry people that no, simply because something says "NSA" on it doesn't mean it's evil. Spying has been around since the Romans, and probably before. Spying happens all the time between friendly governments even. It's a legitimate function of any government, and when done well prevents people from being hurt -- a very good thing. Each country needs an intelligence service.
Or we could just all ramble around online with a chip on our shoulder, no idea what the fuck we're talking about, and ranting while never giving up the moral high ground.
I know one thing: if you want spying on civilians to continue, then keep confusing the legitimate use of spying with the terrible illegitimate use that we now have. Then you'll force pragmatic libertarians like myself to choose between some farcical simpleton's future in which there exists no state intelligence, or letting the government do what it wants. And I don't want to be forced to make that choice.
The public discussion on the NSA has taken a turn for the worse for freedom-loving people everywhere.
The Romans were out for world conquest. I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us.
Glorifying some Machiavellian competing states scenario is not of this time. Not only that, it's naive. The real benefit of this NSA information on it's allies is purely economic.
There are still people alive who remember a war in which Europeans killed 60 million of each other. Which came just a couple of decades after a war in which Europeans killed 15 million of each other. Which followed a century of violent European colonization of Europe and Asia. Which followed a few centuries of constant war (international and civil) in Europe (e.g. 30 years war, French revolution, etc). The history of Europe is a history of war.
There were a lot of people who thought World War I was the war to end all war, and that with the league of nations it would never happen again.
You ignored the majority of the parent's point, instead electing to pick on one word ("Romans") and then strawman that half to hell.
If it pleases you, and you'll read the rest of his argument before bashing out an angry rebuttal, put in some other example of your choosing.
You literally missed his entire point about the purpose and necessity of intelligence gathering agencies in the global theater. People shouldn't have to worry about their exact word usage because someone -- like you -- will come along and nitpick it so the original point is buried under the burden of a disagreeable example.
You responded to his post either without really reading all of it or understanding it. Allow me to summarize his point:
Spying does not require nor dictate that two countries are enemies. Allies and spying are not mutually exclusive - your entire point about how you'd like to think about your allies as someone from the Netherlands is thus irrelevant.
Next, allow me to address your second paragraph. All states are always competing. We don't live in an idealistic world where globalization has renderd us kumbayah with everyone else. Again, let me reiterate - that does not mean we are enemies.
Finally, or course there is an economic benefit to all intelligence gathering agencies. This should be self-evident. But no, that's not the only one by any means. Intelligence gathering agencies also benefit their homelands with intelligence, which is obviously not just an economic benefit.
It would be rogue if it decided to, say, give crucial information to a foreign country at the expense of the United States.
But what does that make us? Are we now the bitter EX of the US?
So yes, actually, it is. On the front page. Explicitly.
That's why treaties trump national law in the first place.
American courts are fairly hostile towards treaties (something which I think is under the surface of Medellin). Basically treaties are un-democratic. They are written by unelected diplomats and are necessarily the product of foreign influence. It doesn't help that one of the motivating factors for the treaty provisions of the U.S. Constitution was the status of the U.S. as a precarious winner of the Revolutionary War. One of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris was that debts on both sides would be recognize. Of course, in most cases Americans were the debtors. The British were very concerned about states passing laws to abolish debts owed by their citizens to the British. Hence the provision elevating treaties of the U.S. above state law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_backgro...
The key here is that the 'last bit counts'.
Missouri v. Holland, nor any subsequent case of which I'm aware, did not disturb the holding of the Cherokee Tobacco Case ("The Supreme Court decided against the men, stating that a law of Congress can supersede the provisions of a treaty."). See: http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/18-treaties-... ("Treaties Versus Prior Acts of Congress.—The cases are numerous in which the Court has enforced statutory provisions which were recognized by it as superseding prior treaty engagements.")
Another thing that led to the status of treaties in the U.S. is that the Court spent much of the 1800's looking for ways around the various treaties the U.S. entered into with the Indian tribes.
Treaties are dangerous and anti-democratic. They put legislative powers in the hands of diplomats. They represent the words of a man binding a nation of people. Europe is learning this the hard way, with ACTA, etc.
If all you have is the internal laws of countries and no international framework to work within then you are actively advocating for isolationism and war.
Just so you realize where that reasoning leads to.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/07/nsa-co...
In fact, one of the countries that spies on the United States consistently is Israel, one of our biggest allies. Mossad has repeatedly spied on the U.S. since the creation of that agency.