Germans abandon hope of US 'no-spy' treaty(thelocal.de)
thelocal.de
Germans abandon hope of US 'no-spy' treaty
http://www.thelocal.de/20140114/germany-gives-up-hope-of-no-spy-deal-with-nsa-usa
14 comments
Another piece of info that is missing: there were elections in germany last autumn. Going into negotiations for a "no-spy" agreement also meant that the administration could say that they are doing something. Even though the negotiations have now turned out worthless (kind of predictable...), the elections are over now and they are in safe waters.
Possibly, this may actually be a good thing, at least as far as the internet is concerned. When governments realise that they can't get any "special exemptions" put in for them, the only real option left open is to throw their weight behind measures to secure the internet for everybody.
Problem here is: the german intelligence agencies rely on the US. So we may see some political show on the surface but beneath that, nothing will happen. If we (the Germans) are unlucky, it may even end up in a show where the politicians tell us that we need more secret agency involvement to "protect us from the US" which of course will only end up as another excuse to collect even more data. Same thing they tried to sell us with the "Schlandnet" where T-Online would take over the control within Germany. There was a interesting show on the 30C3 on this.
US gives FU to Germany with the lack of a no-spy treaty.
Germany should respond by giving asylum to Snowden.
Germany should respond by giving asylum to Snowden.
Of course, giving asylum to Snowden would definitively give a signal to Washington, but I would not advice Snowden to go to Germany.
With the current situation in Germany, Snowden would be dead or in a plane to Guantanamo in very little time. And I guess, even the German BND (comparable to the US NSA) would be helping. I would not trust any promises from a current German government -- by the way, how many US troops are in Germany? I guess, there is no count for US spies yet.
With the current situation in Germany, Snowden would be dead or in a plane to Guantanamo in very little time. And I guess, even the German BND (comparable to the US NSA) would be helping. I would not trust any promises from a current German government -- by the way, how many US troops are in Germany? I guess, there is no count for US spies yet.
He knew what he was doing by going to Russia by way of Hong Kong. He's a damn smart guy that guy. I am curious what will happen when his asylum runs out. Technically speaking, by international law he should be fine as Russia will have legal standing to provide him permanent asylum based on the threat to his life.
We have to remember, we are talking about our government, the same types that while fighting a war on drugs are also making deals with the Cartels that consolidates power under one and permits import of drugs into our country.
We have to remember, we are talking about our government, the same types that while fighting a war on drugs are also making deals with the Cartels that consolidates power under one and permits import of drugs into our country.
You should definitively watch the film "The House I Live In" (One of the producers was Brad Pitt) it is an eye-opening documentation about the US drug policy. It shows, that even that is just a mock-up to fool people.
Snowden only needs a German passport.
For what, to be captured by the NSA?
There was a person with a German passport years ago, he was wrongly held in Guantanamo for a while ... against all international rights. Even after they concluded, that there is no evidence against him, they still kept him for some years.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz
Do you think, only because Snowden has got some German looking waste-paper, the NSA will stop hunting him down?
Dream on!
There was a person with a German passport years ago, he was wrongly held in Guantanamo for a while ... against all international rights. Even after they concluded, that there is no evidence against him, they still kept him for some years.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murat_Kurnaz
Do you think, only because Snowden has got some German looking waste-paper, the NSA will stop hunting him down?
Dream on!
No, but he can then legally hang around Russia or some other half-safe country without embarrassing the local government. At the moment his situation is squarely in Putin's court, which is diplomatically problematic. Should he get a new valid passport from any other country, Putin could wash his hands of it and let him stay without looking too adversarial.
Possible.
But most people understand by asylum, that he comes to Germany.
I hope, you don't want to unembarrass Putin ;)
But most people understand by asylum, that he comes to Germany.
I hope, you don't want to unembarrass Putin ;)
An unembarrassed Putin is a safe Snowden, which is all that matters at this point :)
germany is hardly a sovereign country anymore. they couldn't do so even if they wanted to.
disclaimer: i grew up there
disclaimer: i grew up there
Of course you have sources for this statement, right?
By the way - this is exactly the argumentation neo-Nazi parties parties proclaim all the time [1]. You must be in lack of any information about what is going on in European and German politics to state stuff like this...
[1] http://npd-fraktion-sachsen.de/index.php?s=111&aid=6373
By the way - this is exactly the argumentation neo-Nazi parties parties proclaim all the time [1]. You must be in lack of any information about what is going on in European and German politics to state stuff like this...
[1] http://npd-fraktion-sachsen.de/index.php?s=111&aid=6373
> By the way - this is exactly the argumentation neo-Nazi parties parties proclaim all the time [1]. You must be in lack of any information about what is going on in European and German politics to state stuff like this...
It doesn't matter who says it or why. Germany, for better or worse, has little or no sovereignty.
I don't know of any historical countries with 50,000 foreign soldiers in them that were not vassals, let alone sovereigns.
It doesn't matter who says it or why. Germany, for better or worse, has little or no sovereignty.
I don't know of any historical countries with 50,000 foreign soldiers in them that were not vassals, let alone sovereigns.
You don't know a lot then...
That's just ideological right-wing bullshit. Presumably you're referring to the EU, but while there are efforts to harmonize EU asylum laws, it would be hard to find a more incorrect statement about them than that they would not allow a country to grant asylum to someone if it wants to.
Besides, no EU regulation is ever going to get passed that the German government doesn't want to.
Besides, no EU regulation is ever going to get passed that the German government doesn't want to.
The US government doesn't realize the implications of their actions. A day will come when the US needs German help, support, or assistance in an area of global importance and the Germans will be very reluctant to help because of this.
The USA has had it good for a long time and has become very spoiled by it's priviledges.
Essentially, the US overplayed it's hand and there will be blow-back consequences.
I could imagine a terrorist living in Germany and the US asks for assistance obtaining him and the Germans tell the US to fuck off.
It doesn't even have to be a terrorist, it could be a person like Snowden. So, now, instead of assisting the US government, the Germans are actively working against them.
Or, I could see the Germans investing heavily in developing technologies that prevent spying. Germany could become a place where you learn how to NOT be spied on.
All this because the US Government doesn't know how to treat allies and respect sovereignty.
The USA has had it good for a long time and has become very spoiled by it's priviledges.
Essentially, the US overplayed it's hand and there will be blow-back consequences.
I could imagine a terrorist living in Germany and the US asks for assistance obtaining him and the Germans tell the US to fuck off.
It doesn't even have to be a terrorist, it could be a person like Snowden. So, now, instead of assisting the US government, the Germans are actively working against them.
Or, I could see the Germans investing heavily in developing technologies that prevent spying. Germany could become a place where you learn how to NOT be spied on.
All this because the US Government doesn't know how to treat allies and respect sovereignty.
I genuinely hope a whole bunch of countries get together and stop using the USD altogether. Make the Euro the standard for Gold and Oil, etc, stop trading on the US-based stock markets, etc. etc.
America's economy is it's greatest vulnerability, and other countries could do great damage to it if they banded together and gave them the finger back.
America's economy is it's greatest vulnerability, and other countries could do great damage to it if they banded together and gave them the finger back.
There's a school of thought that the "Axis of Evil", invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the ongoing antagonization of Iran and Venezuela are all demonstrations to the world at large of the extent to which the US would respond to such a move.
100%.
Australia wasn't going to send troops into the illegal Iraq war... then they did and within a couple of weeks signed never-before-seen trade deals with the US that were extremely good for the Australian economy.
When asked if he was pressured into making that decision or lose all trade with the US, the Prime Minster looked straight at the camera with a "what was I going to do" expression, and said nothing.
Australia wasn't going to send troops into the illegal Iraq war... then they did and within a couple of weeks signed never-before-seen trade deals with the US that were extremely good for the Australian economy.
When asked if he was pressured into making that decision or lose all trade with the US, the Prime Minster looked straight at the camera with a "what was I going to do" expression, and said nothing.
> I could imagine a terrorist living in Germany and the US asks for assistance obtaining him and the Germans tell the US to fuck off.
I don't think that will ever happen. Dismantling a terrorist group is such a decidedly good thing that I'm sure everyone can agree on acting together. (Note though that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated (like in: it is several orders of magnitude less dangerous than the media implies).)
> It doesn't even have to be a terrorist, it could be a person like Snowden. So, now, instead of assisting the US government, the Germans are actively working against them.
You are kind of mixing positive and negative visions here. Supporting whistle blowers like Snowden should be a matter of course for a democratic nation.
I don't think that will ever happen. Dismantling a terrorist group is such a decidedly good thing that I'm sure everyone can agree on acting together. (Note though that the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated (like in: it is several orders of magnitude less dangerous than the media implies).)
> It doesn't even have to be a terrorist, it could be a person like Snowden. So, now, instead of assisting the US government, the Germans are actively working against them.
You are kind of mixing positive and negative visions here. Supporting whistle blowers like Snowden should be a matter of course for a democratic nation.
"I could see the Germans investing heavily in developing technologies that prevent spying. Germany could become a place where you learn how to NOT be spied on."
This is already happening. The Washington Post had a story in November about how Berlin has become a new haven for leakers & privacy activists. Of course, it probably now makes Berlin one of the most heavily spied-on cities in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/leakers-privacy-a...
This is already happening. The Washington Post had a story in November about how Berlin has become a new haven for leakers & privacy activists. Of course, it probably now makes Berlin one of the most heavily spied-on cities in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/leakers-privacy-a...
I still can't imagine, that the current German government will draw any (slightest) consequences to the US behavior. I even think, that they don't believed themselves on a no-spy deal. But it was a clever cover-up to come across the election without to many penalties. And it worked ... German voters did not recognize a thing.
But of course it might harm the US in the future. There might come the day, that people in Germany and in other countries wake up. Also the US behavior hurts them in south american companies and at least in China. The south american people are fed up with the US behavior already!
But of course it might harm the US in the future. There might come the day, that people in Germany and in other countries wake up. Also the US behavior hurts them in south american companies and at least in China. The south american people are fed up with the US behavior already!
The US government doesn't realize the implications of their actions. A day will come when the US needs German help, support, or assistance in an area of global importance and the Germans will be very reluctant to help because of this
Presumably you're referring to the US invasion of Iraq.
But I don't think something like the German refusal to cooperate back then is going to happen again. All that matters is money, and German's economy is (solely) based on exports. They need the American consumers for their own good, and German cooperations will make sure they keep their markets.
Presumably you're referring to the US invasion of Iraq.
But I don't think something like the German refusal to cooperate back then is going to happen again. All that matters is money, and German's economy is (solely) based on exports. They need the American consumers for their own good, and German cooperations will make sure they keep their markets.
Another big problem is German sovereignty. Many laws need fixing as they still give the US enormous control over what they can do in Germany.
Do you have some examples for this?
Not exactly paragraphs but I have a link to SVG on Wikimedia which explains it quite good I think: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_military_bases_in_...
Explains or proves absolutely nothing.
Perhaps with a little bit history background it gets a little bit more clear. Germany lost WW2 and was divided between the allies (USA [south], France [west], UK [north], Russia [east]), the rest was given to Poland for their lost areas in the east which are now mostly Ukraina.
After the end of the cold war the British reduced their bases to 4 (and those will be gone by 2019 too), the Russians left 1994 and the French, I don't know, would need to look it up.
The US has afair about 40k troops in Germany. They use Germany for their bases to be closer to the hot spots like Iraq and Afganistan. You might say that 40k is not much, but the whole German Bundeswehr has only 186k soldiers, so 40k is quite a lot of foreign soldiers (+ the british and french leftovers). That is of course after a big reduction after the end of the cold war.
You could say that it does not explain or prove anything but it does. It explains why even if Germany were independent economy wise (which their are not) they still wouldn't be able to say "Fuck you NSA".
After the end of the cold war the British reduced their bases to 4 (and those will be gone by 2019 too), the Russians left 1994 and the French, I don't know, would need to look it up.
The US has afair about 40k troops in Germany. They use Germany for their bases to be closer to the hot spots like Iraq and Afganistan. You might say that 40k is not much, but the whole German Bundeswehr has only 186k soldiers, so 40k is quite a lot of foreign soldiers (+ the british and french leftovers). That is of course after a big reduction after the end of the cold war.
You could say that it does not explain or prove anything but it does. It explains why even if Germany were independent economy wise (which their are not) they still wouldn't be able to say "Fuck you NSA".
It is still meaningless in the context of this discussion because an actual military confrontation between the USA and Germany is not a realistic scenario no matter how the NSA thing washes out.
They could very much say "Fuck you NSA and the horse you rode in on and your little dog as well", and all it would lead to is lengthy diplomatic posturing and economic damage to both sides (and the USA is at least as dependant on Germany economywise as the other way round).
They could very much say "Fuck you NSA and the horse you rode in on and your little dog as well", and all it would lead to is lengthy diplomatic posturing and economic damage to both sides (and the USA is at least as dependant on Germany economywise as the other way round).
The important things are not easily proven. The important people of the world cover up, what they do and what power they have. Because, if they would do it openly, people would find out, that democracy is just a mock-up.
The weird thing is, had I read a comment like this two years ago I would just dismiss it as conspiracy theorist bullshit. Today I can't do that that easy anymore :-/
I too would have dismissed many things, that I know today as conspiracy bullshit. The point is, that we were educated (or should I say brainwashed) for centuries in a special way. But today I see, that it was a cover-up.
I too was convinced, that the west is so much better than say China or Russia ... Today I still don't like China and Russia, but things have changed ....
I too was convinced, that the west is so much better than say China or Russia ... Today I still don't like China and Russia, but things have changed ....
That image is very inaccurate. I can't accurately list all the installations that are shut down off the top of my head, but I am very certain that many of them are, i.e. Schwetzingen, Mannheim, Heidelberg, Stuttgarten, etc
Here is an excellent talk from 30C3 (In German) which gets into the complexity of the problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ive...
How ironic will it be if the next generation of German kids has to rise up to fight the totalitarian might of the USA? I see it happening, already .. truly a staggering circumstance that we are here now in the 21st Century, and not even Germany can stand up to the tyrants.
That is a lovely fantasy but I'd be surprised if they even cut back on US military bases.
They won't. The cuts on the German Army bases is already considered a mistake. Forcing (no idea how) the US to close down bases would only hurt the local and regional politicians.
I don't belive it at all.
I don't belive it at all.
Why was it a mistake? Just curious. When I was stationed over there in 98-00, we pumped A LOT of money into the local economies, I personally bought a lot of beer! I love Germany, such a beautiful country, awesome people.
I'm sorry, I guess there was a misunderstanding based on my bad choice of words. I ment the Bundeswehr bases. Because of that decission many german soldiers are forced to move or travel a lot. Currently the new Defence Minister tries a more US approach on military bases by intergrating some kind of infrastructure within the bases.
And yes, the US (as well as german) bases pump really much money into local economies. And local economies are suffering from closed down bases a lot.
And yes, the US (as well as german) bases pump really much money into local economies. And local economies are suffering from closed down bases a lot.
The US are tyrants? Seriously?
In the context of international politics they are a clear match for most definitions of tyranny. Killing civilians based on behavioral profiles (look up "signature strikes drones") without any declaration of war against the countries in question (Pakistan, Yemen) is just one example. The relations between the US and most south-american countries is another one.
Official declaration of war on a state entity is almost quaint given how modern conflicts are now waged. If only it were as easy as declaring war on country "X" with complete disregard for native and non-native controlling factions.
What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality?
Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.
What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality?
Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.
Not if your intelligence is worthless. If your intelligence is worthless, it's almost indiscernible.
You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
Your points are right on, and I think as technology gets better, civilian deaths do decrease. However what happens is we start to cringe at the effectiveness of a cruise missile or drone attack forgetting that the alternative is bloodier, more dangerous and arguably a lot less effective.
How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons?
My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be.
I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons?
My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be.
I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
It's not a war. No more than the war on drugs is a war.
I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism.
You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring.
Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing.
Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this.
I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news.
The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions.
It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them.
[0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/
[1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...
I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism.
You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring.
Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing.
Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this.
I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news.
The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions.
It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them.
[0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/
[1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...
Intelligence is worthless if it results in someone getting killed.
Just like McD's is a nice form of bbq. Got it.
What's next, dial-a-bomb? You do realize you are justifying tyranny with precisely the mechanism of the tyrant: this 'elite' state is 'better' than 'anything else'.
I can think of a 1,000 better ways to solve the peace problem than dropping bombs on kids. The US invests in Death machines. That same technology, with different people, could be just as easily used to deliver tools of life...
But, 'war happens', right? The right to murder another human 'just happens', out there in the big world.. sorry, but no. If you claim sovereignty, then you must not be sad when others disavow you of it. That is the price. The USA respects no sovereign but itself: tyranny.
What's next, dial-a-bomb? You do realize you are justifying tyranny with precisely the mechanism of the tyrant: this 'elite' state is 'better' than 'anything else'.
I can think of a 1,000 better ways to solve the peace problem than dropping bombs on kids. The US invests in Death machines. That same technology, with different people, could be just as easily used to deliver tools of life...
But, 'war happens', right? The right to murder another human 'just happens', out there in the big world.. sorry, but no. If you claim sovereignty, then you must not be sad when others disavow you of it. That is the price. The USA respects no sovereign but itself: tyranny.
Your post implies that the US operates in Pakistan and Yemen without their consent -- there is definitely consent. Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb their country, for a variety of reasons that are as silly and contradictory as one can imagine.
Silly and contradictory enough that it's probably more confusing than not to imagine a Pakistan or Yemen with a united will.
The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
The recognized leaders of these countries are the ones who are allowing this. Read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for more.
I think compared to the Soviet Union they are positively benevolent.
I don't think we should make the Soviet government the standard.
No-one is making it the standard, but it is relevant seeing that NATO and the US were the only things that guaranteed West Germany's safety from Soviet Russia.
...that might have been an argument almost 25 years ago, but the NATO continues to exist while the Soviet Union is long gone, and its questionable if that's for the benefit of the worlds population.
Yes. This fact is becoming increasingly more clear to the rest of the world.
We saw what happened when Germany "rose up" in the middle of the last century. I guess Germans though the jews were tyrants back then.
you forgot the homosexual tyrants, the gypsy tyrants, the slav tyrants and not forgetting the tyrants with disabilities.
The takeover of the German state by the National Socialist party was little more than a coup by a gang of thugs, psycopaths and criminals. The persecution of Jews and other minorities was just a convenient scapegoat to drag the majority of the population along. The horrible crimes perpretated during this period cannot in anyway be ascribed as a (popular) uprising.
The takeover of the German state by the National Socialist party was little more than a coup by a gang of thugs, psycopaths and criminals. The persecution of Jews and other minorities was just a convenient scapegoat to drag the majority of the population along. The horrible crimes perpretated during this period cannot in anyway be ascribed as a (popular) uprising.
[deleted]
German Nazis and German Communists (who were very much not the fluffy Euro-Communists of the Cold War) made up a majority of the German population. The ends to which people were forming active, violent militias were different, but when massive groups of people are taking up arms, a society has chosen the path of violence. German elites, conservatives, and moderates actively chose to let the Nazis take power, because it seemed superior to the alternative at the time.
The Jews etc. were the scapegoats of Germany, and the party and their leader rose to power because Germany was the scapegoat of WW1 (justly or not). I don't imagine that Hitler and his party would actually have gotten such a foothold if it wasn't for the fact that the German people were resentful for being under everyone's heel, and that Hitler's leadership brought Germany out of a slump in the 30's.
No? My knowledge of history is rusty.
No? My knowledge of history is rusty.
I believe the main reason for the failure of the Weimar Republic was that most people actually didn't want a democracy. Right-leaning people saw it as a decadent and weak form of government and wanted the monarchy back, and left-leaning ones were split between a dozen different brands of communism or anarchism.
And of course it didn't help that previous military leaders had been worthless cowards who continued a losing war to a point where they could not longer sue for peace, then leave it to the newly formed democratic government to accept the onerous conditions imposed by the opponents and end up getting blamed for something they had neither caused not any choice in.
And of course it didn't help that previous military leaders had been worthless cowards who continued a losing war to a point where they could not longer sue for peace, then leave it to the newly formed democratic government to accept the onerous conditions imposed by the opponents and end up getting blamed for something they had neither caused not any choice in.
>justly or not
German started WW1, btw
German started WW1, btw
What's the point of a No Spy treaty if people will break it anyway? Being a cynic, if you're going to spy anyway, isn't it better to have a situation where everyone knows that everyone else is spying, and have fake outrage? (I'm assuming that the treaty won't stop anything)
What makes you think this current outrage isn't the "fake outrage" you are looking for?
Well, if you say "no, really, ...now...this time stop lying and cheating and stalking. Ok, we're good not, right." then it will mean something.
I will only believe it if they preface it with "honestly" or "frankly". :-) Where is Orwell when we need him?
The German government was hardly really negotiating a no-spy treaty. They benefit too much from the exchange with the US (at least that's what they think). Remember, the NSA is not supposed to spy on US citizens, just as the German BND is not supposed to spy on Germans. So they spy on each other's citizens and exchange the information.
So far so good for Merkel and friends. What probably upsetted them was that the German government was spied upon, too. Also, they were just second-grade allies, and the US was probably trading information with the UK for example, which they didn't share with the Germans (see the "Five Eyes" agreements). But it's hard to believe that any of this is news to the German government, if their intelligence agencies are any of their money worth.
So the big question is, why do they tolerate being spied on? I know, diplomacy is complicated, and you have to make a lot of delicate compromises, and there is a lot that you can't see from outside.
Nevertheless... Espionage is already punishable in Germany. If a German citizen is involved, they might even be charged with treason. If I were Merkel, I would just casually mention the possibility of pressing charges in this case (you can file charges against anonymous in Germany), and use this as leverage e.g. when negotiating trade agreements.
So far so good for Merkel and friends. What probably upsetted them was that the German government was spied upon, too. Also, they were just second-grade allies, and the US was probably trading information with the UK for example, which they didn't share with the Germans (see the "Five Eyes" agreements). But it's hard to believe that any of this is news to the German government, if their intelligence agencies are any of their money worth.
So the big question is, why do they tolerate being spied on? I know, diplomacy is complicated, and you have to make a lot of delicate compromises, and there is a lot that you can't see from outside.
Nevertheless... Espionage is already punishable in Germany. If a German citizen is involved, they might even be charged with treason. If I were Merkel, I would just casually mention the possibility of pressing charges in this case (you can file charges against anonymous in Germany), and use this as leverage e.g. when negotiating trade agreements.
All is right, except the last paragraph.
That is just theoretical stuff. Yes, theoretical there might be something like "treason" in some old law book .... But, I don't remember one "treason" prosecution in my life time in Germany, with exception maybe to the DDR-Spy with Willi Brand as chancellor ... wow is this long ago! Also, I think there should be filed charges against many people in Germanys current government because they don't stop the US to spy on German people and companies openly. But nothing happens.
Why, because in Germany there is no independent judiciary at all. There will be no prosecution without federal prosecutor, but all of them have to obey the government -- so no member of government or top politician will ever be prosecuted in Germany, whatever evil they do against the country or the people.
Germans should start understanding, that they don't live in freedom at all. It is just a mock-up.
That is just theoretical stuff. Yes, theoretical there might be something like "treason" in some old law book .... But, I don't remember one "treason" prosecution in my life time in Germany, with exception maybe to the DDR-Spy with Willi Brand as chancellor ... wow is this long ago! Also, I think there should be filed charges against many people in Germanys current government because they don't stop the US to spy on German people and companies openly. But nothing happens.
Why, because in Germany there is no independent judiciary at all. There will be no prosecution without federal prosecutor, but all of them have to obey the government -- so no member of government or top politician will ever be prosecuted in Germany, whatever evil they do against the country or the people.
Germans should start understanding, that they don't live in freedom at all. It is just a mock-up.
> Germans should start understanding, that they don't live in freedom at all. It is just a mock-up.
Replace Germans with "Everyone".
Replace Germans with "Everyone".
Ok, you are right. But I wanted to make a statement about Germans in particular.
I know. I was just going out of my way to be depressing. :-)
Were they able to secure such a treaty, why would there be any expectation that it'd be meaningful?
After all there's and obvious disconnect between the various spy agencies and political process, with the former typically giving less than lip service to most treaties/laws in the past.
After all there's and obvious disconnect between the various spy agencies and political process, with the former typically giving less than lip service to most treaties/laws in the past.
The relationship between Germany the US is quite special. After the WWII West Germany was occupied by the US, Britain and France - the East was occupied by the Soviet Union. Germany was under tight control from those countries. The US then decided to build up Germany again to use it as an ally against the Soviet block. The NATO then took over as the institution under which the various troops were deployed in West Germany and under which the various activities were coordinated.
After the reunification many rights of the Nato allies (and especially the US) were still protected.
Germany would need discuss with the allies how to change these older treaties. Plus it would also need to discuss with the US the shutdown of various activities of the US in Germany and against German interests:
* spying on Germany on German ground. The US has lots of installations here.
* spying on Germany from the outside (like tapping communication cables outside Germany which are going to Germany)
* using Germany has a base for various wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, various conflicts in Africa). For example the US has the Central Military Command for Africa in Germany. Drone strikes are coordinated by the US from Germany. The US has logistics centrals for their intelligence agencies in Germany.
* using Germany for various extremely unpopular actions, like using Germany as a transport hub for kidnapped people who were brought to torture camps in Europe or even to places outside Europe
etc.etc.
After the reunification many rights of the Nato allies (and especially the US) were still protected.
Germany would need discuss with the allies how to change these older treaties. Plus it would also need to discuss with the US the shutdown of various activities of the US in Germany and against German interests:
* spying on Germany on German ground. The US has lots of installations here.
* spying on Germany from the outside (like tapping communication cables outside Germany which are going to Germany)
* using Germany has a base for various wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, various conflicts in Africa). For example the US has the Central Military Command for Africa in Germany. Drone strikes are coordinated by the US from Germany. The US has logistics centrals for their intelligence agencies in Germany.
* using Germany for various extremely unpopular actions, like using Germany as a transport hub for kidnapped people who were brought to torture camps in Europe or even to places outside Europe
etc.etc.
> Were they able to secure such a treaty, why would there be any expectation that it'd be meaningful?
I would be very meaningful in a symbolic sense. Germany and most of Western Europe are used to seeing themselves as close allies of the US since WW2.
With close allies you expect to be able to reach an acceptable level of trust on topics like spying, even though you know both sides are still going to do it at some level.
By not being able to sign this agreement the message for Germans / US relations is "we trust you just like we trust the Chinese". That will likely lead to a weakening of past alliances...
I would be very meaningful in a symbolic sense. Germany and most of Western Europe are used to seeing themselves as close allies of the US since WW2.
With close allies you expect to be able to reach an acceptable level of trust on topics like spying, even though you know both sides are still going to do it at some level.
By not being able to sign this agreement the message for Germans / US relations is "we trust you just like we trust the Chinese". That will likely lead to a weakening of past alliances...
Found this interesting tidbit on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Wall
The National Security Agency was the only American intelligence agency that was aware that East Germany was to take action to deal with the brain drain problem, i.e. the outflow of East-Germans via Berlin. On 9 August 1961, the NSA intercepted an advance warning information of the East German Communist Party's plan to close the intra-Berlin borders between East- and West-Berlin completely for foot traffic. The interagency intelligence Watch Committee assessed that this intercept "might be the first step in a plan to close the border." This warning reached not U.S. President John F. Kennedy until noon on August 13, 1961, who was vacationing in his yacht off the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. While Kennedy was angry that he had no advance warning, he was relieved that the East Germans and the Soviets had only divided Berlin without taking any action against West Berlin's access to the West. However he denounced the Berlin Wall, whose erection worsend the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The National Security Agency was the only American intelligence agency that was aware that East Germany was to take action to deal with the brain drain problem, i.e. the outflow of East-Germans via Berlin. On 9 August 1961, the NSA intercepted an advance warning information of the East German Communist Party's plan to close the intra-Berlin borders between East- and West-Berlin completely for foot traffic. The interagency intelligence Watch Committee assessed that this intercept "might be the first step in a plan to close the border." This warning reached not U.S. President John F. Kennedy until noon on August 13, 1961, who was vacationing in his yacht off the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. While Kennedy was angry that he had no advance warning, he was relieved that the East Germans and the Soviets had only divided Berlin without taking any action against West Berlin's access to the West. However he denounced the Berlin Wall, whose erection worsend the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
That's pretty much my view. If the US persists, then there's basically no real alliance anymore. NATO is dead.
Germany is not a sovereign country, there is no peace contract. "Seeing themselves as close allies" is kinda lol looking from the fact that we are occupied since 60 years.
Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany
(http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm):
"Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a united Europe;"
"(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved."
"(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs."
Sorry to insert fact...
"Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a united Europe;"
"(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved."
"(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs."
Sorry to insert fact...
The fact that Germany still allows the presence and construction of extremely expensive and big NSA surveillance centers (tapping into German infrastructure) such as the "Dagger complex" [0] certainly says a lot with regards to "sovereignty".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_Complex
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagger_Complex
"extremely expensive and big"? You're joking, right? Look at the pictures... or are you claiming there's some gigantic underground complex underneath those two small office buildings?
And just so you don't think this is over soon when they shut down Dagger, they reopen in Wiesbaden-Erbenheim, about 30km north-west of their current location.
[deleted]
There weren't any. The treaty was a method for chancellor to look like she reacts at least a little bit given the situation, while still effectively doing and changing nothing. The former was important because of the elections the later because germany is not a sovereign country.
The article directly contradicts itself.
>A government spokesman said the talks between the US and Germany were ongoing and they hoped to “get something in the next three months.”
>A government spokesman said the talks between the US and Germany were ongoing and they hoped to “get something in the next three months.”
that is the official statement. the rest of the statements were made by an anonymous source, with inside information.
I interpret this as meaning that they hope to get something in the treaty but not all of the anti-spying measures they wanted.
This was only a cover-up by the Merkel administration to win the election in last autumn. Of course, some people that where in the delegation wanted to get some little success to bring home ... but the US showed that they are the rulers and the US is the big boss.
I hope, that slowly some people in Germany wake up. The success of Merkel shows, that many still dream their econony wonder (German: "Wirtschaftswunder") dream of the 70s. But the Germans do not realize, that they have been mucked around. Germans are the country in Europe that has sold their interests most to the US, maybe with the exception of Britain.
I hope, that slowly some people in Germany wake up. The success of Merkel shows, that many still dream their econony wonder (German: "Wirtschaftswunder") dream of the 70s. But the Germans do not realize, that they have been mucked around. Germans are the country in Europe that has sold their interests most to the US, maybe with the exception of Britain.
Some people realized that years ago, others still don't. It is a shame but Merkel is very popular, especially with older people that don't understand the implications of the NSA scandal.
Yes, it is a shame. It is also a shame, that even younger people and even tech people have voted for Merkel.
I guess, egoistic behavior and stupidity is just very widespread.
I guess, egoistic behavior and stupidity is just very widespread.
I grew up in the US often hearing stories of Israeli intel agencies spying on the US. 'Everyone spies on everyone, even allies, it's no big deal,' was what everyone always said.
Besides the valid points already raised in the discussion it also shows that the US isn't considering the German intelligence service as a threat. Either because they expect German politicians not having the balls to order it to spy on the US government or because they consider it too incompetent to do so or because they have it in their pockets.
After reading this, I clicked on the "6 quotes on Germany from Americans" gallery. MLK Jr said "Never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal."
Kinda hits the NSA nail on the head.
Kinda hits the NSA nail on the head.
Unlike the German rabble, its political leaders (with very rare exceptions) are personally invested in the "trans-atlantic partnership". The underlying assumption on the German side is of course that this is a partnership among equals.
Team Merkel is hoping sooo bad that a high-ranking US official will come out to tell them that they haven't been just a bunch of chumps. I wonder how they will react now that it has become clear that that won't happen.
They'll probably just step up their self-delusion game.