Germany has. Their last attempt at widespread “permament widespread retention” was cut down by the constitutional court. The latest one will probably not survive the constitutional court either.
Even then, the extent is way below that what the NSA sids on allied citizens.
It’s not like we could easily hijack transatlantic cables due to having a close vassal right at the border of the United States, provide operating systems running the computers of this world or have occupation forces - sorry, I mean “allied military bases under benevolent, yet form control” - on US soil, which can be use for mass interception for radio and satellite transmission.
Edit: I getting kinda annoyed here. It’s like finding someone with both hands in the cookie jar at Starbucks and being told that he at least washed his hands and it’s not so bad anyway because other customers sometimes don’t tip.
He applied for asylum in Ireland?! He is aware that with the gobshite laden theocratic oligarchy we excuse as government that we are the de facto 52nd state right? He would have been better off buying a direct flight to Gitmo.
that was like a million years ago, and mostly to piss off the British, who we had just (mostly) shaken off after like 400 years of brutal colonial servitude. (700 if you count passive meddling)
“poses a threat to trans-atlantic relations”: certainly not. Our (German) government knew officially how the NSA was monitoring all communications as early as 2001. This can be verified through public declarations of government officials from that time.
Poses a threat for trust in our own govenment: certainly. They got it up to the neck already.
Maybe the intent has been to lower our opinion of all governments and politicians so far that they can literally do whatever they want, since we expect no better of any of them.
Well, no wonder you’re befuddled and caught off-guard by the USA spying on Germany. Critical thinking doesn’t work when you practice in selective filtering like that.
QUESTION: After releasing your book 9-11, many reporters have said
that you are anti-American. Others even suggest that you should pack
up and move to another country since you believe America to be a
leading terrorist state. How do you respond to such remarks?
CHOMSKY: The concept “anti-American” is an interesting one. The
counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military
dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book
Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents
were condemned as “anti-Soviet.” That’s a natural usage among people
with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy
with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with
even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with
ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian
state policy were condemned as “anti-Italian.” It would be regarded as
too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but
surely not otherwise.
Actually the concept has earlier origins. It was used in the Bible by
King Ahab, the epitome of evil, to condemn those who sought justice as
“anti-Israel” (“ocher Yisrael,” in the original Hebrew, roughly “hater
of Israel,” or “disturber of Israel”). His specific target was Elijah.
It’s interesting to see the tradition in which the people you refer to
choose to place themselves. The idea of leaving America because one
opposes state policy is another reflection of deep totalitarian
commitments. Solzhenitsyn, for example, was forced to leave Russia,
against his will, by people with beliefs very much like those you are
quoting.
