Slashdot Mirror


German Vice Chancellor: the US Threatened Us Over Snowden

siddesu sends this report from The Intercept: German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said this week in Homburg that the U.S. government threatened to cease sharing intelligence with Germany if Berlin offered asylum to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden or otherwise arranged for him to travel to that country. 'They told us they would stop notifying us of plots and other intelligence matters,' Gabriel said.

25 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Can't have it both ways by halivar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot implicitly denounce invasive intelligence while enjoying its ill-gotten fruits.

    1. Re:Can't have it both ways by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you implying that ALL US intelligence is "ill-gotten"?

    2. Re:Can't have it both ways by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Are you implying that ALL US intelligence is "ill-gotten"?

      I don't think it matters what percentage of the intelligence is tainted, we won't be able to tell the difference; so from the public perspective all intelligence can be viewed as tainted.

      --
      "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
    3. Re:Can't have it both ways by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, it would probably save someone's life to install video cameras in every private residence and monitor citizens 24 hours a day.

      Or maybe the ends don't justify the means?

      --
      Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
      Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
    4. Re:Can't have it both ways by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would be willing to bet that the pervasive and often illegal gathering of intelligence has done far more damage than it has prevented.

      I stand a far greater chance of dying driving to work than being harmed by the people that this type of surveillance is suppose to stop. And if you believe that this isn't the case I can even back it up with numbers. The NSA a couple of years ago claimed that their illegal activities have stopped 50 terror attacks since 9/11/01. So lets assume that this is true, that means that in 12 years they stopped about 4 attacks a year and lets even assume that each of those attacks was on a similar scale to 9/11, doing this only makes the numbers look better for the government. That means that on average terrorism would kill about 12,000 people a year which puts it well below drug abuse as a cause of death. Since we have already wandered off into the Neighborhood of Make-Believe at this point why not take it a little further and assume that all 50 attacks happened in the same year. This means that ~150,000 people bite it a year due to terrorism and there is basically a weekly major attack meaning we are probably living in a fucking war zone. Even at that level it means that terrorism is slightly more deadly than being a fat ass in the US but still well below the next cause which is smoking. The reality is that the number attacks prevented probably isn't close to 50 that was stated, they were over ~12 years not one, and the likely scale of each attack is probably the same as the dumb bastard who failed to ignite his shoes or his underwear and would have only mildly injured him self. So in reality I could probably likely assume that had the NSA done nothing there might might be ~100 people killed by terrorism over 12 years, or in other words there are probably more people who have won the Powerball jackpot over that same time. I wouldn't base public policy on a statistical anomaly like that.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  2. Interesting double edge sword there. by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can understand why they might have refused to take the risk. But it hardly seems like a smart idea to allow a country we value to be destabilized over one man. What affects the one, affects us all. If Germany became destabilized due to our childish antics, it wouldn't end well. Best case scenario, the euro zone would collapse. Worst case, nuclear power plants would be pilfered.

    --
    Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    1. Re:Interesting double edge sword there. by bulled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You assume that the German government didn't ask the USA for this letter to justify something they wanted to do anyways...

    2. Re:Interesting double edge sword there. by Kohath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It does confirm one thing: the US intelligence agencies aren't "the good guys". The good guys wouldn't condemn Germany to suffer otherwise preventable terrorist attacks for spite. Thanks to Germany for confirming this and making it known to all.

  3. This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defense by wjhoffman1983 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Without getting into the moral implications of such a threat by the US, this is the cost Germany et. al. pay when letting the US foot the defense bill. The US defense budget pays for a large portion of the defense of the first world. If they don't want to be beholden to the whims of the US, don't depend on the US for defense.

  4. Unintended consequences by Ken_g6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By trying to prevent its allies from giving Snowden asylum, the USA has forced him to take asylum with a relatively unfriendly nation, Russia.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
  5. Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they aren't outsourcing it, the situation with defense was forced upon them, and who wants a fully armed german military? Europe burned down twice because of that.

  6. Impossible Fair Trial by JimSadler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We should give Mr. Snowden a medal for providing the information. It is blatantly obvious that the full power of the US government would make any fair trial impossible. And the really stupid part of it all is that alerts and warnings work both ways. If we deprive Germany of terrorist information you can bet that Germany would also not notify the US if their agencies picked up any information about an attack against an American interest. Further is the US wants to win the war against terror we have a simple way to make the Arab region very interested in hunting down terror nuts. Simply block 100% of the oil shipments out of the mid-east. That would cause every government and person of power in the region to eagerly hunt down terrorists with a great zeal. We could also seize all assets held outside of the mid-east. We could also keep the mid-east from importing anything at all.

    1. Re: Impossible Fair Trial by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By "fair trial" do you mean to be tried in accordance with the law? Don't put me on the jury, because it seems clear to me that he did break the law by divulging classified information - and lots of it. In fact, he wouldn't be the popular hero he is if he hadn't broken the law. (Nobody becomes a popular hero by working secretly behind the scenes at NSA to reform the system from within.) So, I think even a fair trial would convict him. (Then again, that's why you shouldn't put me on the jury.) We could then expect his supporters to claim that the trial was unfair.

      However, note that I'm referring only to the legal issue here. Whether or not what Snowden did was "right", "good", "moral", etc. is a different question that I know that many people here feel strongly about. But that's a separate issue.

      Regardless, you can't simultaneously lionize him for having the guts to break the law in order to do what he and others see as the right thing, then expect him not to be convicted for breaking the law because "the full power of the US government would make any fair trial impossible."

    2. Re: Impossible Fair Trial by meta-monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are whisteblower protection laws that permit one to claim as a defense "yes, I did the act but it was justified because..." and if the jury believes the reasons to be justifiable, there's no crime and therefore no conviction.

      However, matters of national security are specifically excluded from the whistleblower protection law. So he would not be allowed to argue, at all, that his actions were justifiable. If his lawyer tries to argue Snowden was justified, "objection, irrelevant." And it would be.

      This is the problem with the "well, if he's such a patriot, he should come back and stand trial and let a jury of his peers decide if what he did was good!" He is literally not allowed to argue that what he did was good.

      Without preconditions, the one and only chance he would have is, as the Coward notes, jury nullification. But, they would have to arrive at the decision to nullify essentially on their own, because Snowden would not be allowed to argue that his actions were justifiable, thereby making the case for nullification.

      Now, he could have a fair trial with the condition that he's exempt from the prohibition on use of a justification defense in the case of national security. IANAL, but I imagine that would require an act of congress, passing an amnesty law, as I don't think the executive or judicial branches have the authority to make the necessary agreement.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  7. to read it another way by nimbius · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US, a country that couldnt prevent 9/11, shut down its own government twice, couldnt stop the Boston Marathon bombers, couldnt protect against the fort hood shooting, cant pass legislation to protect itself from school shootings, and cant prosecute detainees in or close the prison at guantanamo bay is threatening to withhold intelligence information from the country it routinely wiretaps and spies on anyway?

    im sure if Germans knew about this, the question of the day would be, "Who the fuck cares."

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  8. The only reason US wants Snowden ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is for revenge and the mistaken idea that punishing Snowden would be a deterrent.

    Snowden is no hacker any more than Manning is. Both were inside the perimeter and walked off with the goods.

    The Snowden documents (not Snowden himself) will reveal more as time goes on.

    The best tactic for US is to just leave Snowden alone to minimize the publicity.

    In the matter of threatening Germany, that's no surprise -- and it worked.

    Move along, nothing to see ...

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  9. hypocrisy by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    who, this germany?:

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/paral...

    http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...

    americans are and should be angry at the NSA

    but other countries complaining about the NSA is hypocrisy

    if i was german, would i be worried about the NSA? or the BND and the BfV?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    if you live in a country outside the USA, and your biggest privacy concern is the NSA, you're a moron: your own country is doing everything the NSA is doing, and in many countries, far worse. obviously, they can also abuse you a lot easier than the USA can. and they do

    again: i don't have a problem with americans complaining about the NSA. americans SHOULD complain about the NSA. but i do have a problem with other countries complaining about the NSA when they do the same or worse

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:hypocrisy by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      in addition, spies & traitors in US ranks that forswear their vows should be punished. NSA leadership that authorized unconstitutional, treasonous spying on the American public, I'm looking right at you.

      FTFY.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  10. Re:Diplomacy, bullying, what's the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyway, Snowden would be stupid to trust Germany. Only sovereign on paper, Germany is America's lapdog.

    It's strange, but during the 80s, Italy as a major lapdog of the US (having important NATO bases and naval bases for the US 6th fleet and 688 nuclear submarines stationed in Sardinia) had one of most ballsy (and crook) prime ministers of the last 40 years. Bettino Craxi had the balls to go against the US when Italian interests were at risk. He even went as far as having a military showdown between Italian military special forces and US navy Seals in Sigonella air base. The US forces retreated and Reagon was furious. One of the major air bases from which the US military launched missions against Libyia. Nowadays no European politician (prime minister or president) would dare defy the Amercans. How sad. And I say this as a European.

  11. Manning, traitor. Snowden, patriot by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all about motivations. Manning was just fucked up and betrayed his trust. Snowden had a point to what he was doing.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  12. I see a problem here and it isn't Snowden/Germany by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Canada there is huge pressure from the US for us to pass bill C-51 which might as well be called Orwell's law. There is endless talk about this country being dangerous or that country. But it seems to me there is exactly one country on this planet that is causing problems for just about every democracy or not.

    What I love about these tools that think that they should be able to spy on us to "protect" us. Yet in Canada we have a motorcycle gang that all wear special clothing, have special tattoos, and hang out in known HQs; yet our national police force can't shut them down with every law needed already in place. Prisons which have pretty well no constitutional protections for privacy or intercepted communications are filled with drugs. So even if they manage to completely remove privacy and rights they have proven themselves incompetent at doing their jobs with simplistic criminals.

    What hope do they have against actual terrorists with an IQ over 90? Or lone wolves who communicate with exactly nobody?

    My assessment of all these laws is that they are there to protect vested interests. The politicians want to protect their friends in big business in the name of national security/stability. But my guess is that they mostly want to protect themselves from the erosion of power that is happening through the internet where the press and other investigators can find out what corruption is happening. Thus the ideal situation is that whistleblowers will be nervous about contacting the press because they don't know if their communications are secure. That even politicians will be nervous about trying to reduce the power of the security services because not only might they be listening but that the security services will be well placed to leak data about they or their friends.

    Remember that this sort of power is very insidious. For instance when the government goes to appoint someone to a watchdog or judicial position that will oversee the security services the security service does a "background check" this is not only to make sure that the person isn't an enemy spy but to protect the politicians from embarrassment if it turns out that their potential appointee is unsavoury in some way. This could be something like anti women views or even something like they are 60 and often date 20 somethings. Thus if the person is going to a hanging judge and is happy to give the security service free reign they can give the person a clean bill of health during the "background check" but if the person has long been a defender of privacy and generally anti authoritarian then they will compile a list of rumours and innuendos that suggest the person will be an embarrassment.

    Thus as we hear about judge after judge giving their blessings to insanely unconstitutional behaviour, and we hear about watchdogs that aren't watching keep in mind about who vetted these people in the first place.

    What scares the shit out of these people is when they don't have control over them as in the case of politicians in other countries. This is where they have to play hardball. But my simple question is how many politicians in various G7 countries have had information "leaked" about them by the US security services? Leaked during elections where they were successfully running against right wing hardliners that the US would prefer to win?

  13. Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The US imposing military will is hardly the same as countries FORCED BY INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO NOT REARM expecting defense from its allies..

    Remember that little thing with all the jewish people going to camp? well germany's not been allowed to have a military build up.

    Umm, Germany has the eighth largest military in the world. Or were you unaware of that?

    Japan has the ninth, in case you were interested.

    Aside from the Big Three (US, Russia, China), Germany is behind India, UK, France, and South Korea. Which puts them about where they were in 1939 (what, you didn't know that the Wehrmacht in 1939 was smaller than the French Army, much less the combined Anglo-French forces they faced in 1940?).

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  14. Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    The need for that imposition died of old age roughly 15 years ago.

    The only reason Germany ran wild twice was because we (the victors of WWI) botched the unholy shit out of things the first time, basically wrecking Germany and creating a power vacuum.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  15. Re:This is the cost incurred for outsourcing defen by painandgreed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only reason Germany ran wild twice was because we (the victors of WWI) botched the unholy shit out of things the first time, basically wrecking Germany and creating a power vacuum.

    I'd say it was a bit more complicated than that. The issues were not Germany's alone, nor that of the losers, nor even the occurance of the Great Depression. The entire 20's and 30's was a three way battle between the idealogies and factions of Democracy, Fascism, and Communism. Italy, Spain, Austria, and Germany fell to fasicsm before WW2 even started.Before they did, there was a see-saw battle in the streets. The foundations of the Nazi party gained prestige when they helped overthrown a communist coup in Bavaria. There was even debate in the US along those idealogical lines.

  16. Re:I see a problem here and it isn't Snowden/Germa by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's easy to blame the US but we didn't create most of the problems facing the world. Europe did with colonialism. Though the US is responsible for the rise of ISIS, the political boundaries that aided the creation and much of the problems of the middle east are related to the divvying up of the middle east by Europe after WWI and the subsequent colonization that took place later. The problems Europe created will haunt us for a long time to come, probably several hundred years.

    Up until WWII the US was neutral and outside the fucking around in the western hemisphere pretty well minded their business. We didn't create the problems, we've just been dealing with them. And you should fear greatly the day people like me get our way and turn this country back neutral and start looking out after our own and stop caring about everyone else. Europe, Canada and many others will be in for a shitstorm when they have to start paying for their own defense.