I believe that espionage is a necessary evil for any nation. But with that said, I would like to differentiate between what I term espionage and what
the CIA and NSA term espionage. I would agree with them that such clandestine activities are necessary to ensure peace and stability, because they are
100% correct. If the US refrained from clandestine operations this would not change the fact that all other major powers would still be doing it, and
it would put the US at a disadvantage. Where these intelligence agencies' beliefs begin to diverge from my own has to do with the saying "the ends
justify the means." For those who do not know what that means, basically it is a consequential belief that if a certain goal is important enough, ANY
means may be used to attain the objective, and that this is perfectly acceptable. This is what the US intelligence apparatus believes, whether they
make this view publicly known, as evidenced by the Snowden revelations.
In keeping with their belief, which is any means are justifiable in the interest of "national security," a blanket term that loses all of its meaning
when used by the government on many occasions, they feel it is perfectly acceptable to actually violate the Constitutional rights of a United States
citizen to preserve these national interests. What is most baffling is that they are allowed to determine what is detrimental or important to national
security, and this is why I stated that it is a blanket term with no real weight behind it. I am at odds with their belief in this instance, and I
believe I have not only the ideal of justice on my side, but also the law. I say that the Constitution, our most sacred document, and what is
contained therein, trumps any later laws that contradict it. So the government can say that they can take away our most basic rights, and even kill
us, when they deem it necessary, while I say that this is essentially treason of the highest order, only trumped by conspiring against the US with a
foreign power. For the record I do not believe that is what Snowden did.
Having said these things, I would like to point out another piece of information that I do agree with. Namely that it is perfectly acceptable for the
US government to spy on foreigners, including officials of a sovereign state, as well as their government itself. The US is under no obligation to
respect the rights of a non-US citizen in my opinion, except that they must uphold their most basic rights, meaning they cannot justifiably torture,
murder, and so on and so forth. I was not always of this opinion, I admit, but that is where I now stand. The US government is however under an
obligation to its own citizens, and because of this these same measures cannot be used against an American citizen. I have thought diligently about
whether these same rights apply to an American citizen who is on foreign soil, and I will admit that I am not certain that they should. Of course many
would say that an American's rights are attached to the person themselves, regardless of where they are located, and I completely understand this. I
am inclined to be of the same opinion, but I just haven't made up my mind, as I haven't considered the question in its entirety. Granted that the
above argument is probably the best point to be made in the affirmative.
Anyway, of course the US has agents/spies in foreign countries, including in the private sector. This does not mean however that we send agents to
infiltrate these companies or the government itself. The US is not keen on risking its own citizens, including its highly-trained and expensive
agents, in such matters. Generally what occurs is an American agent with official cover, meaning they hold an official government position, and are
usually a diplomat in a foreign country, will recruit an asset, who then becomes an agent, to do what needs to be done, whether it is steal secrets,
get into a computer system, plant software, et cetera. The official US agent, known as a "handler," will usually operate a number of different
foreigners as agents, while none of these assets know about each other. The only common link is the US OC operative, and nothing can be done to that
person. If this person is caught, the worst outcome for them personally is to be expelled from the foreign nation. And that is why we don't send in US
citizens as agents, unless they have official cover.
Again, I agree with this and think the entire practice is perfectly acceptable. This is likely what is going on in China and Germany. It is much more
likely that a nation like China will actually send Chinese spies to the US to infiltrate the government or businesses. Countries like Russia would
actually send Russian agents to the US, while the US was simply recruiting people who had no affiliation with US intelligence. Other countries are
more prone to this because of the melting pot that is the US. Certain countries are notoriously difficult to penetrate, and even an American accent is
enough to raise suspicion in many of these places, while foreign accents are common all throughout American business and even government to a lesser
extent.
I think that US intelligence is abusing the power it has obtained, and I think something needs to be done to stop it. I am reminded of the boy who
cried wolf, for the simple fact that these agencies have used the cloak of "national security" so often that the lines between what is truly national
security and what is not have been blurred in the eyes of the public, and this could hurt US intelligence in the near future. People are getting fed
up in general with the government overstepping its bounds, and national security could very well suffer precisely because when the edifice gets torn
down due to the outrage of the populace, we will be so aware of government lies that we will think everything is a lie. And hey, it probably is,
lol.
edit on 10/12/14 by JiggyPotamus because: (no reason given)