SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Intercept reports that in the aftermath of the NSA's sweeping surveillance of three French presidents, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira thinks National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might be allowed to settle in France.
Taubira was asked about the NSA's surveillance of three French presidents, disclosed by WikiLeaks this week, and called it an "unspeakable practice." Taubira's comments echoed those in an editorial in France's leftist newspaper Libération that France should respond to the U.S.'s "contempt" for its allies by giving Edward Snowden asylum.
France would send "a clear and useful message to Washington, by granting this bold whistleblower the asylum to which he is entitled," wrote editor Laurent Joffrin in an angry editorial titled "Un seul geste" — or "A single gesture." (google translate)
If Paris offers Snowden asylum, it will be joining several other nations who have done so in the past, including Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. However, Snowden is still waiting in Moscow to hear from almost two dozen other countries where he has requested asylum.
French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira thinks National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange might be allowed to settle in France.
If France decides to offer them asylum, she would "absolutely not be surprised," she told French news channel BFMTV on Thursday (translated from the French). She said it would be a "symbolic gesture."
Taubira was asked about the NSA's sweeping surveillance of three French presidents, disclosed by WikiLeaks this week, and called it an "unspeakable practice."
Her comments echoed those in an editorial in France's leftist newspaper Libération Thursday morning, which said giving Snowden asylum would be a "single gesture" that would send "a clear and useful message to Washington," in response to the "contempt" the U.S. showed by spying on France's president.
Will France deliver the rebuke to Washington that Germany has failed to?
Original Submission 1 Original Submission 2
(Score: 4, Insightful) by vux984 on Saturday June 27 2015, @01:25AM
Spying on foreign governments is the one legitimate use of a spy agency.
Specifically spying on allies not so much though. The fallout of getting caught is usually worse than value of any intelligence gained; at least if the ally has any balls.
Spying on opponents on the other hand, you've got less to lose; and you might actually head off or mitigate a hostile move; so its worth the risk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:43AM
> Specifically spying on allies not so much though.
“England has no eternal friends, England has no perpetual enemies, England has only eternal and perpetual interests”
-- Lord Palmerston
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:58AM
That doesn't justify spying on them while they are allies. It just means that allies today may not be allies tomorrow. Meanwhile there are a LOT of things one can legitimately do (and should legitimately do) short of actually tapping an allied leaders phone to "keep tabs" on them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @02:30PM
> It just means that allies today may not be allies tomorrow.
No, what it means is that "ally" is not a binary state. The error you are making is to think that nations have the same sort of relationships that people do. That is not an accurate paradigm. International relations are a complex web of specific agreements addressing specific areas. Few, if any, countries have agreements not to spy on each others' governments nor are there international laws codifying any such restrictions.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:34PM
Few, if any, countries have agreements not to spy on each others' governments nor are there international laws codifying any such restrictions.
So what? If these countries are so free and principled, they can start by not doing the evil things that the other countries are doing. If the US is truly 'the leader of the free world' (which is a joke), then it should stop its unethical mass surveillance wholesale.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:01PM
> If these countries are so free and principled,
You are making the same error in logic of anthropomorphizing international relations. A "free" country is one in which the people are free to live their lives from intrusion by the organization of citizens called "government." There is no international government, even the UN is more of a club of countries with voluntary membership than a government.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday June 27 2015, @05:47PM
You are making the same error in logic of anthropomorphizing international relations.
There is no error in logic for wanting countries to act ethically, and not just say "Well, everyone else is doing Evil Thing X, so we need to do it too!"
I believe everyone has rights and should be free from mass surveillance. I live in the US, and the US government should not even be conducting mass surveillance on foreigners. It should be targeted. I don't care if other countries are doing it too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:32AM
> There is no error in logic for wanting countries to act ethically,
The error in your logic is to assume that what is ethical for interactions between people is also ethical for interactions between nations. Hence anthropomorphization.
That is as reasonable as saying that the same ethical framework for human-to-human relationships should also apply to human-to-animal relationships, so keeping pets or farm animals is unethical because slavery is unethical --- something obviously nonsensical.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 28 2015, @06:02AM
The error in your logic is to assume that what is ethical for interactions between people is also ethical for interactions between nations. Hence anthropomorphization.
I'm assuming nothing. Mass surveillance is simply unethical to me.
There's nothing difficult to understand about this. "Mass surveillance is unethical." != "Human-to-human relationships are the same as country-to-country relationships."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:05AM
> I'm assuming nothing. Mass surveillance is simply unethical to me.
Spying on heads of state and other targets of interest in foreign governments is targeted surveillance.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 28 2015, @05:28PM
We also spied on allies, rather than actual enemies, which is also a problem.
And that's if you ignore the countless people the US is conducting mass surveillance upon. Not sure why you'd do that, though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @09:34PM
> We also spied on allies, rather than actual enemies, which is also a problem.
Ok, so now we are in a circular pattern.
You don't like spying on the governments of 'allies' because that's 'mass' surveillance - except it isn't because those are specific targets of interest.
So now we are just back to the problem that it is 'allies' which is again anthropomorphizing so you'll throw in all the other spying on regular people to muddy the waters.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:10PM
You don't like spying on the governments of 'allies' because that's 'mass' surveillance - except it isn't because those are specific targets of interest.
You're an idiot. Here's what I'm saying:
1) Mass surveillance is unethical.
2) We shouldn't spy on our allies, but our enemies, and it should be targeted.
How difficult is this to understand?
which is again anthropomorphizing
You keep making this assertion, but you have provided zero reason for me to accept that saying certain behaviors are unethical is anthropomorphizing. It's essentially just a buzzword you use to dismiss my arguments without putting any sort of thought into the issue. It's also a straw man, because at no point have I said that "Human-to-human relationships = country-to-country relationships", so drop it already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:38PM
> 1) Mass surveillance is unethical.
Good for you. Not in dispute. But also completely unrelated to the question of spying on foreign governments.
> 2) We shouldn't spy on our allies, but our enemies, and it should be targeted.
Anthropomorphization because the rules for national "allies" are not the same as the rules for personal friends. Ca-fucking-piche?
> at no point have I said that "Human-to-human relationships = country-to-country relationships"
Pedants defense. You did not say it literally, but your entire argument is based on that presumption.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:42PM
Anthropomorphization because the rules for national "allies" are not the same as the rules for personal friends.
Not in dispute. But spying on allies is still unethical. Ca-fucking-piche? Understand my position?
Pedants defense. You did not say it literally, but your entire argument is based on that presumption.
No, this is called the "I didn't make that argument, so you're arguing with a straw man." defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @10:47PM
> But spying on allies is still unethical.
Explain yourself. All you do is keep stating it with no other justification than they are our buddies - something also known as anthropomorphization.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:14PM
Explain yourself.
All surveillance should be justified and require actual reasons to spy on someone beforehand. In the US, it would (if our government obeyed the constitution) require a warrant. The fourth amendment doesn't actually use the word "citizens", but even so, there should at least be oversight. Right now, there is none, and we spy simply to make sure our supposed 'allies' aren't doing anything bad, which is unjust.
something also known as anthropomorphization.
Not providing a justification that you like != anthropomorphization. It's fairly clear to me that you don't even know what the hell that word means and aren't interested in responding to what I actually say.
When will you cease the straw men? You don't need to rely on logical fallacies to disagree with me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @11:21PM
ll surveillance should be justified and require actual reasons to spy on someone beforehand. In the US, it would (if our government obeyed the constitution) require a warrant. The fourth amendment doesn't actually use the word "citizens", but even so, there should at least be oversight. Right now, there is none, and we spy simply to make sure our supposed 'allies' aren't doing anything bad, which is unjust.
Half of that paragraph is about citizens, not governments. - do you see why I keep accusing you of anthropomorphization?
As for the rest of it, what defines just? International relations are defined by treaties, not some vague undefined notion of what is "just." We haven't signed any treaties saying we won't spy on each other.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 29 2015, @12:16AM
Half of that paragraph is about citizens, not governments. - do you see why I keep accusing you of anthropomorphization?
What the fuck? Governments are made up of groups of humans and involve humans, even if they are not themselves one single human; you can't completely separate humans from governments. I pointed out the fourth amendment of the constitution. The word "citizens" is mentioned exactly once.
I mentioned a standard for surveillance that you should be familiar with.
As for the rest of it, what defines just?
I'd say that if you care about freedom, you already agree with me. I respect things such as privacy, and countries like North Korea (and apparently the US government and most other governments) don't.
not some vague undefined notion of what is "just."
There has never been a perfectly defined notion of "just" and there never will be. Not even laws are unambiguous. But warrantless, suspicion-less surveillance is generally rejected by people who actually care about things such as freedom. Maybe you don't, as seems to be the case.
I don't know why ethical judgements are so hard for you to understand, but just endlessly repeating your favorite buzzword will never convince me of anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 29 2015, @12:22AM
You didn't answer the question. All you've got is your own ideas about ethics which you keep justifying by referring to personal relationships not international relationships. Concepts such as "freedom" simply have no analog in international relations.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday June 29 2015, @02:33AM
All you've got is your own ideas about ethics
Which are based around unimportant nations like "freedom" and "privacy", but who needs those, really.
Concepts such as "freedom" simply have no analog in international relations.
Nice try trying to divorce ethics from the actions of countries. Surveillance ultimately targets people, and surveillance can be ethical or unethical. Countries, likewise, can act in unethical ways. I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that people aren't involved in this process at all, and if that's not what you mean, then I have no idea what you're saying. Almost everyone else understands what I mean when I say country X did something unethical, whether they agree or not.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 27 2015, @03:39AM
Agreed, spying on Germany made no sense, but France has always been something of a fickle ally and probably warranted spying on.
Apparently the NSA was pretty good at it, since the French were clueless untill someone leaked the files.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @07:21AM
Germany is the strongest economic power in Europe. What they decide, Europe does, more or less. Sanctions on Russia? You need Germany's buy-in on that. Any policy that the US wants Europe to adopt needs to be presented to Germany, and the US can persuade them more effectively when they know what cards the Germans are holding. That's why the diplomatic service is so close with the intelligence services: they need intel in order to function optimally.
Ask yourself which European nation was strong enough to cause the most trouble for the US in the early twentieth century.
You don't choose who to spy on based on friendship, but on strength: spy on the most powerful ones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 27 2015, @11:30AM
So fickle that they fought beside you during your battle for independence [wikipedia.org], during both World Wars, and more recently in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq 1 and 2, Afghanistan, ... America needs to respect its friends a little more than it does at present.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:25PM
I'll give you the first, but in each of the others, it was the US paying back the French or the revolutionary war help, (even though the reason the french were here in america was largely self serving, protecting their own holdings).
World wars 1 and 2, they were flat on their backside, and occupied by the Germans. Fighting beside us? Really?
The token forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, came late, and lite, and left early.
They have vetoed more British, German, and US proposals in the UN than any other country other than the sino-soviet block.
Wiki has a fairly balanced discussion of the prickly relations [wikipedia.org] with France.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2015, @04:58PM
> They have vetoed more British, German, and US proposals in the UN
Vetoing british and german proposals is definitely opposing the US.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday June 27 2015, @06:38PM
Frojack - you have a poor knowledge of both the world wars, and of the Gulf wars.
During the first world war, the late arrivals were the Americans. The French were fighting from the beginning to the end, alongside the UK, Belgians, commonwealth countries (including elements of the Caribbean countries, India, Australia and NZ). The French lost over 1 million dead and missing in action, compared with the US losses of 53,000. That means that, per capita, the French lost around 4.3% while the US comes in at 0.13% [wikipedia.org]. I suppose it depends on how you wish to view a 'contribution'
During World War 2, the country was divided. Part had capitulated but although the country was occupied, the remainder fought on either as members of the Marquis, the Resistance or with the Free French Forces under De Gaulle. The total losses figures were much closer [wikipedia.org], with the French losing 550,00 compared to the US 420,00. But as a per capita value, that is 1.34% versus 0.32%. Again, although the US contribution was invaluable and the war would not have been won without it, it depends on how you measure it. Of course, the French civilian casualties knock the equivalent US figures 'out of the ball park', but having never had your country occupied it is easy to say that you wouldn't have followed the same path when you see your families being killed in front of you.
In Bosnia, I had the honour of serving alongside both US and French special forces. They were both there from the beginning and were there to the very end. Not quite sure where you get your information from but I think your source is incorrect.
Gulf War 1 - the French contribution was called Opération Daguet [wikipedia.org]. Their contribution is listed here [wikipedia.org]. One of the problems that the French suffered was that, after the initial air assault, they were prevented from using much of their air power (by the Americans) because the same aircraft were employed by the Iraqis. The US have an unenviable reputation when it comes to blue on blue (friendly fire) kills, and they apparently have forces that cannot recognise friendly IFF codes, use correct radio authentications or employ the other measures that are designed to alleviate such circumstances. It was probably the correct decision. Nevertheless, you cannot blame the French for being unable to contribute in this one particular aspect of military power. In every other aspect they contributed fully.
Gulf War 2 - the Invasion of Iraq [wikipedia.org] - involved only 4 countries officially: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland. France, along with many other countries objected to the invasion arguing that there was no hard evidence that justified it - they and the others have since been proven correct. They have fully participated in the UN operation to cope with the aftermath of the invasion. I'm not sure what you find lacking about that contribution.
France, Germany and the UK, and many others have stood alongside the US more often than you seem to realise. When countries do stand alongside the US it would be nice if they could be treated as friends and allies. Which was the point of my original post.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2015, @04:35AM
> Frojack - you have a poor knowledge
When it comes to any sociological topic you could have just stopped right there.
Frojack is the ultimate contrary indicator for any topic not narrowly technical.