The NSA: ‘The Abyss from Which There Is No Return’
rutherford.org
rutherford.org
Exactly. Or can somebody think of an example in history where a government gave up some of its rights? These sorts of authorisations (anti-terror laws and whatnot) don't go away, because they are too convenient for those in power.
I don't think we've reached the point where this is out of the question per se. I do think it's pretty unlikely that we're going to be able to just extract out this particular bit of government, though. The only hope is a broad-based move in a libertarian direction. Plink just the NSA right now and adhoc combinations of other agencies will seamlessly move right in. To name one example, the DEA would happily step in to this sort of surveillance if the NSA wasn't there.
(I operate on a "direction" theory of voting. You don't have to be a libertarian right now to vote that way. You just have to think we have too much government right now. It's not a forever commitment. If we somehow finally reach "too little", feel free to vote for "bigger".)
If a revolution breaks out we aren't talking about a conflict the size of Syria's or Egypt's. We're probably talking about the biggest civil war ever, or a military coup. And the outcome of it (no matter if it worked or failed) would effectively gut the USA.
Tyranny is almost assured. We're on the bubble right now if the outcome hasn't already been decided (and we won't know except in hind-sight).
*: I believe that at some point, the majority of Syrian resistance was formerly the Syrian army.
As things are, any non-US-citizen is under suspect by the US gov which is totally legal in the US. Now, just imagine the US outsourcing surveillance of homeland communications, say to the UK. Again, it would be totally legal in the UK — as in most countries — to monitor the communications of a foreign state. So the American people (same applies to other countries) shouldn't be concerned with domestic effects only. (As of writing this, most European democracies are co-operating with the US and are retrieving informations on their own citizens via US-intelligence.)
Yet another two cents: The idea of side-stepping national regulations isn't that farfetched: At least the UK and France are perfectly capable of operating their own systems (and are already employing them on a limited scale). So this isn't a constitutional affair of domestic interest only, but has a human rights aspect too.
And as a European citizen, I'm feeling pretty much under attack by this. I think, there's a foreseeable point in the future, where the remote threat of terrorism begins to wear and people are still feeling their exposure to a foreign surveillance they can't help about. Eventually this could possibly be the single major damage to the reputation of the US.
I disagree with this. The people who are tasked to prevent foreign powers from attacking, destabilizing or hindering U.S. intentions have a stated mission to prevent them from doing so and as such have that as a minimum starting point.
If you look at the other arms of the USG, namely the State department their charter is exactly the opposite, building partnerships, making friends etc...
So yes, the DoD and CIA view the rest of the world as hostile to the US by default. That's what they are there to defend against so it would make sense. That said, there are tons of building partnerships, humanitarian relief and international relations missions stemming from the DoD to foreign allies and partners. Its actually growing quite a bit - and likewise makes defending the nation against materiel proliferation, attacks, espionage etc... harder.
I really would like Americans to understand that there is a great concern outside of the US about the directions the US, its government and its arms are taking.
The US had built a great reputation in 20th century as "the beacon of freedom" – and lost some of it during the G.W. Bush administration. Remember the very warm welcome Obama had when visiting Europe just before the inauguration (for example in Berlin)? This was really an expression of the wish to get back to terms as they used to be and to close the books over what seemed then to have been just an episode. Or take Obama's (quite premature) Nobel price as an example for yet another expression of this wish.
In the meantime things have changed. But it wasn't the change expected. From outside, it looks a bit like the US became out of balance. When naming the State department and other arms headed towards foreign policy, not much of them is perceived outside. (I really can't remember when the US State department was in the news last time, but it feels like to have been years ago.) What's perceived, is the intelligence, the DoD, drones, the NSA, etc. From outside it appears, as if the US with a self-description as the "blessed nation" has lost interest in co-operation on a large scale as it even targets its closest allies. What had been the epicenter of freedom, cool, and hip, now has started to feel a bit like a looming shadow. (It might be worth to note here that most political parties in Europe have their origins in the revolutions of 1848, which were essentially a revolt against surveillance and police control. Even in the social network age there are some of these values still alive and are nurturing some sensibility on this subject.) There's even saying of the cold war returning, but this time with the US featuring the bad guy. This is not, what the allies of the US have learned to expect from their partner. Nor is it, what its friends would wish them to be. This is not, how people would like to perceive the US, but eventually they start feeling being unable to help about it. There's a feeling of disappointment. And there's a great wish for co-operation and trust.
My intent was to say that yes the self protective parts of the government are going to be inherently anti-foreign, by design. I think what your comment adds is basically replying to that with: "Ok, well if you guys make that part of your government the loudest and strongest part to the rest of the world, we probably will stop liking you guys, and will stop wanting to play with you."
I think that is a very valid criticism. It is one for the legislators and the public to take on however, not the arms of the government that are intended to protect it.
Contractors on the Death Star?
Bleh, Godwin's Law and all that...