What if the foreignerns don't want to spied up on? Or do they count for less?
Are you really suggesting that your country's intelligence service doesn't attempt to do the same?
Targeting "all foreigners" destroys trust that foreigners have in the USA system for trade and diplomacy, lowering the impact of the state on both.
In the entire human history of diplomatic relations, nations have always attempted to spy on one another. Diplomatic relations are not based on trust, they are based on shared beliefs, interests, and goals.
This is not such a naïve viewpoint as you may think since I would expect it to be the average of the viewpoints that many Americans held about its own government up until a year or so ago. To most Americans, a year ago the NSA didn't spy on US citizens, not did it eavesdrop on the communications of the leaders of its own allies.
If you asked the typical American a year ago if s/he believes that their government spies on the leaders of our allies like Angela Merkel, you'd probably get an overwhelming negative response. If you continued your line of questioning and asked if it is acceptable to for the US government to do so, you'd probably get mixed responses. If you then went on to ask if it would be acceptable for the German government to spy on president Obama and other US politicians, you'd probably get a reaction where US citizens would consider that an act of war.
The truth is that many US citizens hold very very very different opinions of what is acceptable than those in the intelligence community.
I don't know about you, but the simple fact that such a wide disconnect exists between what citizens collectively think about how their government is operating and how it actually is operating is a fundamental failure of how our democracy currently functions. Leaders in a democracy should have a legal obligation to work to keep their constituents as best informed of how they are actually doing their jobs and attempts to hide or be less than honest about their activities should be viewed as attempts to subvert democracy. Anything otherwise, prevents I, Joe Q. Citizen, from honestly and effectively exercising my right to vote. If such policies mean non-American leaders will have a greater insight into how our politicians are acting in foreign policy negotiations than our leaders have about those non-American leaders are acting, that is the cost of being more ethical. Ideally that disadvantage is made up for in the long term by establishing a norm of greater ethics that those leader's citizens expect them to meet.
If a citizen votes based on lies and misinformation, are they really participating in a democracy?
The citizen will always vote based on (US or not) (a/dis)information in the sense that every government has secrets. The key is maintaining a state where the secrets are not destructive to the underlying society that supports that given government. I am not entirely assured that the US has achieved that, however I do not think (betting man here) that we have fully failed that.
Downvote if you must, but there is a not small tragedy in verbally damming the deeds of those whom we literally paid to do it in the first place (spying on Americans not included, more referring to the foreign targeting referred to in the parent article).
Yes, and it's all bad. I don't see what's naive, or even controversial, about this.
If the NSA can commit crimes abroad, they can commit crimes at home.
My problem ultimately, as a Brit, is that it seems that we are more and more becoming a satellite of the US, bound by US law and ideals we never ever voted for. We had a referendum on the EU, but never a referendum for all this. But of course that is a British matter and not something the US should be concerned with. If we Brits want to suck up to the US, why would the US turn it down?
I think that what has happened is a nasty mission creep with regard to intelligence. Its used to be all about threats to a given country. The basic point was to understand the intentions of one's enemies. This was and is vital in preventing mistaken action based on not knowing that an enemy has no plan to, say, invade, or what ever. It was based on the idea that knowledge helps prevent paranoia and fear. All of which is not just OK, but vital. It is why in the cold war, both sides accepted this in a gentlemanly way. Both knew it was vital to both to stop both nuking each other. If the USSR said it would not start a war, the West could verify that by spying and have confidence. And vice versa. Now it seems that a lot of it is about gaining advantage in commerce, and local law enforcement. Its fine to say that the NSA has nothing to do with this, but we know that they give access to the FBI and police. We can reasonably believe that its quite possible that the NSA also gives intelligence to large businesses like Lockheed. What has happened is that economic and local criminal issues are now redefined as matters of national security. The lines have not just blurred, but completely crossed over, perhaps gone completely.
As a result, I think we need to re-examine the role and scope of intelligence gathering. Spying needs credibility. And yes, there is a severe danger of throwing out babies in the bathwater. But ultimately, if the people lose confidence in intelligence gathering, we are in a whole lot of trouble. It is vital to get the balance right.
And those of us who do not like the actions of our governments can leave. In fact, we do.
So don't think this 'high road' of "you did it too" is going to absolve you of anything. We all leave the playground, eventually.
No wonder, when you don't belong to "gods own people", isn't it?