As things are, any non-US-citizen is under suspect by the US gov which is totally legal in the US. Now, just imagine the US outsourcing surveillance of homeland communications, say to the UK. Again, it would be totally legal in the UK — as in most countries — to monitor the communications of a foreign state. So the American people (same applies to other countries) shouldn't be concerned with domestic effects only. (As of writing this, most European democracies are co-operating with the US and are retrieving informations on their own citizens via US-intelligence.)
Exactly, this is the weirdest part to me. The US government feels alright with the fact that they have publicly declared anyone living outside the US a possible enemy. That is definitely not how I feel at all as a citizen and that viewpoint is obviously extremely dangerous. It seems like the US is becoming something like a xenophobic elderly person who isn't able to adjust to the times.
Thanks for saying this! ("That is definitely not how I feel at all as a citizen")
Yet another two cents: The idea of side-stepping national regulations isn't that farfetched: At least the UK and France are perfectly capable of operating their own systems (and are already employing them on a limited scale). So this isn't a constitutional affair of domestic interest only, but has a human rights aspect too.
And as a European citizen, I'm feeling pretty much under attack by this. I think, there's a foreseeable point in the future, where the remote threat of terrorism begins to wear and people are still feeling their exposure to a foreign surveillance they can't help about. Eventually this could possibly be the single major damage to the reputation of the US.
>The US government feels alright with the fact that they have publicly declared anyone living outside the US a possible enemy.
I disagree with this. The people who are tasked to prevent foreign powers from attacking, destabilizing or hindering U.S. intentions have a stated mission to prevent them from doing so and as such have that as a minimum starting point.
If you look at the other arms of the USG, namely the State department their charter is exactly the opposite, building partnerships, making friends etc...
So yes, the DoD and CIA view the rest of the world as hostile to the US by default. That's what they are there to defend against so it would make sense. That said, there are tons of building partnerships, humanitarian relief and international relations missions stemming from the DoD to foreign allies and partners. Its actually growing quite a bit - and likewise makes defending the nation against materiel proliferation, attacks, espionage etc... harder.
Sorry for the intervening (as this wasn't exactly a reply to my post).
I really would like Americans to understand that there is a great concern outside of the US about the directions the US, its government and its arms are taking.
The US had built a great reputation in 20th century as "the beacon of freedom" – and lost some of it during the G.W. Bush administration. Remember the very warm welcome Obama had when visiting Europe just before the inauguration (for example in Berlin)? This was really an expression of the wish to get back to terms as they used to be and to close the books over what seemed then to have been just an episode. Or take Obama's (quite premature) Nobel price as an example for yet another expression of this wish.
In the meantime things have changed. But it wasn't the change expected. From outside, it looks a bit like the US became out of balance. When naming the State department and other arms headed towards foreign policy, not much of them is perceived outside. (I really can't remember when the US State department was in the news last time, but it feels like to have been years ago.) What's perceived, is the intelligence, the DoD, drones, the NSA, etc. From outside it appears, as if the US with a self-description as the "blessed nation" has lost interest in co-operation on a large scale as it even targets its closest allies. What had been the epicenter of freedom, cool, and hip, now has started to feel a bit like a looming shadow. (It might be worth to note here that most political parties in Europe have their origins in the revolutions of 1848, which were essentially a revolt against surveillance and police control. Even in the social network age there are some of these values still alive and are nurturing some sensibility on this subject.) There's even saying of the cold war returning, but this time with the US featuring the bad guy. This is not, what the allies of the US have learned to expect from their partner. Nor is it, what its friends would wish them to be. This is not, how people would like to perceive the US, but eventually they start feeling being unable to help about it. There's a feeling of disappointment. And there's a great wish for co-operation and trust.
I think those are all totally reasonable and justifiable feelings. I agree in general that our military/intelligence arm has been carrying the US brand the loudest since 9/11. I think that was by design. I won't argue whether that is good or bad, because I could make the case either way.
My intent was to say that yes the self protective parts of the government are going to be inherently anti-foreign, by design. I think what your comment adds is basically replying to that with: "Ok, well if you guys make that part of your government the loudest and strongest part to the rest of the world, we probably will stop liking you guys, and will stop wanting to play with you."
I think that is a very valid criticism. It is one for the legislators and the public to take on however, not the arms of the government that are intended to protect it.
As things are, any non-US-citizen is under suspect by the US gov which is totally legal in the US. Now, just imagine the US outsourcing surveillance of homeland communications, say to the UK. Again, it would be totally legal in the UK — as in most countries — to monitor the communications of a foreign state. So the American people (same applies to other countries) shouldn't be concerned with domestic effects only. (As of writing this, most European democracies are co-operating with the US and are retrieving informations on their own citizens via US-intelligence.)