The dispute also reflects very different views of how far the state should go in conducting surveillance, both at home and abroad.This is, to quote Joe Biden, a "Big f%$#ing deal."
In an angry conversation with Mr. Obama in October after the phone monitoring was revealed, Ms. Merkel said that the N.S.A.’s activities reminded her of growing up as the daughter of a Protestant minister in East Germany. “She told him, ‘This is like the Stasi,’ ” said one person who had discussed the conversation with the chancellor.
Another person familiar with the conversation said Ms. Merkel had told Mr. Obama that she was particularly angry that, based on the disclosures, “the N.S.A. clearly couldn’t be trusted with private information, because they let Snowden clean them out.”
Angela Merkel grew up in the DDR, and this likely not a term that she invokes lightly.
The capabilities of our state security apparatus are remarkable, but the custodians of those capabilities, the NSA, CIA, and the rest of the three letter acronyms, cannot be trusted to deploy these capabilities in the best interest of the United States.
They are simply too enamored of their abilities, and so act without regard to the consequences of a potential failure.
Is Merkel covered by US Constitutional guarantees?
ReplyDeleteNo, but that is not the point.
ReplyDeleteThe question is whether or not the activities of the NSA are a net plus or a net minus to the interests of the United States.
The US state security apparatus cannot make this decision, since they are culturally predisposed toward collecting everything, all the time, regardless of the consequences.
The same can be said about defense procurement and the Pentagon.
Obama's meek acquiescence to the intelligence agencies (and the Pentagon) is allowing the inmates to run the asylum.
That is the problem.