Well,
This is a very interesting discussion, and I know it is one that won't be done, soon. I am mostly on Jon's side in the analysis of all this - though, Jon, I have no problem in anyone's using
The Guardian as a source, as long as that reference refers to simple reporting, rather than its editorial pages. . . and I also think what you doubtless intended as a friendly joke, in RRhill's direction, was a serious breach of courtesy. One is entitled to disagree vehemently with various governments' security policies ~ as RR clearly does, without being tarred as someone with seditious sentiments. I heartily disagree with much of what RR has put forth, in this thread, but still, I regard him as a thoroughly honourable person, in expressing the opinions, he has.
This present debate is a very difficult one, and involves so many "grey areas" in matters of the delicate balance between civil rights and essential security - leading legal experts in the U.K., the U.S., and Canada (not to mention, everywhere else) are very much at odds about all of this. So let us, please, extend the basic intellectual courtesy of allowing an intelligent friend to "agree to disagree" ~ I believe that this is essential. Humorous sallies, notwithstanding!
I do disagree with "RR", on a number of points:
* While it is clearly not COMPLETELY POLITE that the U.S. spies on the E.U. - as they surely also spy on Canada - (Of course, WE all spy back on the U.S., you can be sure of it ;-): this is simply a fact of international relations, which will only end at some distant future moment, when, as the Utopian Socialist Charles Fourier speculated: the North Pole will become milder than the Mediterranean; every woman will have four lovers; and all the oceans will turn to lemonade. . . .
* "RR's" depiction of the U.S.A.'s, and the U.K.'s, intelligence-gathering programmes is, I think, not entirely correct. I believe that he greatly overestimates either the interest or the CAPACITY of intelligence services to turn ACCESS into PERSECUTION - especially in societies which are growing (ever-so-gradually) more tolerant, at the behest of public opinion. (Witness, for example, the United States' Supreme Court's decisions on Proposition 8, and the "Defense of Marriage Act", this past week or so. . . )
* We live in a new, and very difficult age - not only in the Anglo-Saxon nations, but also in The Kingdom of the Netherlands (which I love - my brother-in-law is Dutch, you know). Terrorists of all sorts now regularly make contact with one another, and contract their schemes, via the Internet. The NSA claims that it has been able to foil up to 50 terrorist plots using the information to which they have access - and, just this weekend, a couple of disturbed individuals who planned to bomb the British Columbia legislature, in Canada, were disrupted in their attempt, by police:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/07/02/bc-victoria-bomb-motivation.html
* Therefore, I am not hugely exercised by the fact that, when given a lead, police services in democratic countries have access to search e-mails. Of course, there ought to be checks and balances in place, and, to this extent, "RR's" posts do us a service, in reminding us of this.
* I think, personally, that "RR's" posts comparing President Obama to former President Nixon, are just SILLY. Nixon used the power of his office, directly and unabashedly, to persecute his political enemies. This is a matter of historical record. There is no evidence that President Obama has ever done this. Not to mention: Obama is the author of historic initiatives to benefit the poor, and bring greater justice and equity to gay people living in his country. If you are looking for an historical demon, "RR" - I think you could find a worthier one ;-)
* I also think, personally, that "RR's" posts suggesting that the U.S. is more a danger to China and Russia, than
vice versa, are entirely risible. China's hacking of U.S. industrial and military secrets has been proceeding at a monumental pace, for quite some time: and any U.S. defensive efforts in this regard, are to be lauded, rather than condemned.
* As far as poor Mr. Putin - well, RR - if you
believed Putin's
schtick that "Snowden must stop hurting our American partners, in order to STAY". . . then, I'm afraid, I must reluctantly toss you a free voucher to the kindergarten of foreign relations ;-) Vladimir Putin is not QUITE the nice man you seem to believe he is. . . . in fact, he is an autocrat, who has gradually degraded ALL nascent democratic institutions in his country. . . . he has gradually degraded and devalued and SET BACK all aspects of civil society in Russia, over the past decade or so - - - including the prospects for gay people in that country: AND, his playing with Snowden (like a tiger, with a little mouse) has been a clear ploy to USE the Snowden incident to bolster his own people's sense that HE is a democrat, while others are not, and to bolster his own regime's waning legitimacy, based on Russians' traditional xenophobia. This is what Garry Kasparov has to say about the West's obeisance to Putin ;-)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ama-as-syria-burns-and-snowden-runs-free.html
*****************************************************
So, no, "RR", I don't agree with you, about your judgements regarding Snowden, the NSA, the U.S.A., the U.K., Obama, or all the rest of it. I think you are
mostly incorrect. And perhaps (if you will forgive my saying so, and I know you won't, and shouldn't;-) a little naïve about international politics, as well. (It wasn't "niceness", and "sweetness" that saved Western Europe from Soviet occupation - or which eventually freed Eastern Europe, either - it was toughness, large expenditures on armaments in the face of HUGE opposition from hundreds of thousands of protesters in West Berlin, and Munich: and yes, quite a little bit of SPYING, too ;-)
"RR", where I think your argument is well-taken is, in this regard: it is not such a bad thing that democratic countries should have a public debate about the limits of public surveillance, to ensure that the broad limits are well-demarcated. (Though this is never an easy thing.) Perhaps Mr. Snowden has brought us to the threshold of such a debate a little more quickly than would otherwise have happened - though I think it would have happened, anyway. (And, if he had been a patriotic citizen, there were OTHER GOOD and LESS PREJUDICIAL means for him to have raised this debate, than the one he chose.) But this is precisely why I shan't fault you for your substantive opinions (with which I disagree): even though I share your concern about some of the procedural questions, in this matter.
Hugs,
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
P.S. A good spy story is always amusing ;-)))))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEsWi88Qv0
P.P.S. Being a defector isn't always fun - just ask Kim Philby's son ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9818727/Kim-Philby-Father-husband-traitor-spy.html
And, lookie, Venezuela is there too!!
