Snowden and the NSA

[sukeban]

@ProperX

 

First of all, thanks for the great post!

 

Personally, I think that Germany's refusal to participate in Western (US/UK/France) foreign wars of choice is absolutely a credit to your nation and to the strength of your democratic institutions. I also have no idea as to why the American government would want to spy on Germany or treat her as a "third-class partner" in any realm, be that foreign policy, national security, human rights, etc. If I had to advance some speculation, I would say that perhaps it is because American policymakers are wary of Germany potentially growing out of its "little brother" role and taking on a more active, independent position in European and global affairs. Since 1945, the US has organized Western foreign policy to be very hawkish and right-wing; but apart from German re-armament in the 1950s, Germany has, as you say, largely not participated in these policies, especially in matters outside of European borders. I think that American policymakers have been willing to accept German non-participation in these affairs, but that they are scared of the possibility that Germany might be able to influence the rest of the EU into outright opposition to them.

 

More fundamentally, I believe that the US fears that it will lose its ability to "speak for the West" if a German-led EU becomes too independent of Washington. Such a split between a hawkish, aggressive America (or an American/UK alliance) and a more pacifistic EU would expose much of American foreign policy for what it is: self-interested militarism dressed up self-sacrificing idealism. The US (probably correctly) worries that a pacifistic, independent EU would run a high probability of transferring the "moral authority" of the democratic West from the US to Europe, leaving the US to couch its wars of adventure in the more mundane terms of self-interest rather than the lofty rhetoric of human rights and democracy. It might sound insignificant to a cynical point of view, but this moral authority really is important, as the "ideal" of "American values" is like a permanent "disposition boost" (to couch it in TES terms) with the people of the Third World (and previously the Second World) and represents a historic bond even to much of the developed world, like Germany. Stripped of the power of moral suasion, the US speaks only for itself, as a single, self-interested country--one amongst nearly two-hundred--nothing more and nothing less.

[colourwheel]

One thing I find interesting is people all over the place consider Edward Snowden a traitor as if he has committed treason. Which to my understanding the U.S.A. isn't officially at war with any nation.

 

"Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason."

 

Just one thing I found interesting when reading random articles on the web on Snowden.

Edited July 11, 2013 by colourwheel

[Nintii]

One thing I find interesting is people all over the place consider Edward Snowden a traitor as if he has committed treason. Which to my understanding the U.S.A. isn't officially at war with any nation.

 

"Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on behalf of an ally constitute treason."

 

Just one thing I found interesting when reading random articles on the web on Snowden.

 

Though he might be viewed as a traitor he will not be charged as one, he's being charged firstly as a "thief" for

stealing Gov. property and then under the Espionage Act.

 

Also, when you say, "people all over the place" consider Snowden as a traitor, that's not necessarily true ... there are

plenty who consider him a patriot (within the US) and multitudes more abroad consider him a hero.

[TRoaches]

The US has not "officially" been at war with any nation since 1945. Declarations of war have been replaced in a very Orwellian way with "congressional military authorizations" or deployments authorized by the President under the War Powers Act.

 

I think when people accuse Snowden of "treason" what they really mean to say is "espionage", which is applicable to nearly any aid given without authorization, perhaps even if the country receiving the aid is an ally. I'm not so sure that what Snowden did even qualifies as espionage because he did not do it to strictly aid any other particular country, and it is arguable whether he did it with the intent of harming the US.

[HeyYou]

We are still officially (technically) at war with N. Korea.

 

Snowden is a whistle blower, informing the american public of just what it is our government is doing to us. I don't see that as a 'bad' thing. Certainly not treasonous.

[Ghogiel]

We are still officially (technically) at war with N. Korea.

There is much debate whether the president actually needs congressional approval to declare war, because of a section of the constitution and what Madison clarified on the subject of the executives actual powers of declaring war.

 

So while Truman said 'war', he never asked for congressional approval to do it. After he did that, he later said it was a 'police action.'

[HeyYou]

So then, if a country declares war against the US, we aren't really in a "war" until congress says so?

[Ghogiel]

Absolutely. The US would have about 50 wars going on right if all it took was for someone else to declare war on the US.

 

imo, being officially at war would be any one of the 5 wars the US has fought in it's entire history, the ones it officially made a declaration of war in.

 

Even disregarding the constitution and the so called grey area of the limited power the president might have in matters of declaring war, while all the other conflicts were in every sense wars, the US presence were usually called a 'police action' or some crap. All the conflicts of the cold war were all proxy wars against the USSR and/or UN sanctioned actions and none of them did the US declare war.

[HeyYou]

Absolutely. The US would have about 50 wars going on right if all it took was for someone else to declare war on the US.

 

imo, being officially at war would be any one of the 5 wars the US has fought in it's entire history, the ones it officially made a declaration of war in.

 

Even disregarding the constitution and the so called grey area of the limited power the president might have in matters of declaring war, while all the other conflicts were in every sense wars, the US presence were usually called a 'police action' or some crap. All the conflicts of the cold war were all proxy wars against the USSR and/or UN sanctioned actions and none of them did the US declare war.

Simply politicians giving something a different name, so they can continue their profiteering.

[colourwheel]

 

Also, when you say, "people all over the place" consider Snowden as a traitor, that's not necessarily true... there are plenty who consider him a patriot (within the US) and multitudes more abroad consider him a hero.

 

A poll was done across the nation recently where about 35% of the nation considers Snowden a traitor. Just because It is not a majority of the nation doesn't exclude the fact that a lot of people believe Snowden has committed treason.

 

I personally do not think he has committed treason but also do not think Snowden is a patriot or a hero. Snowden is a coward. A true patriot does not flee the country in fear to be held accountable for their actions. Also a true hero would not hide and seek asylum in countries that have less civil liberties than the U.S.A. undermining Snowden's original cause.

 

If Snowden was a true hero or patriot he would have accepted what he has done and face any consequences including imprisonment or worst if he truly believes what he did was right.

Edited July 15, 2013 by colourwheel