4 ms·

I would go quite that far. But our political system is pretty much rigged to ensure that the government is fairly subservient to the USA. Also, intelligence se

by krylon 12y ago

I would go quite that far. But our political system is pretty much rigged to ensure that the government is fairly subservient to the USA. Also, intelligence services, due to the secrecy in which they operate, have a tendency (to put it mildly) of developing an agenda of their own which may not always be aligned with the government's agenda. The scary thing is, this headline does not even surprise me any more, it does not shock me, and it does not even make me angry. It is just another piece in a vast puzzle that adds to the overall picture but does not change it substantially.

tempodox 12y ago
But our political system is pretty much rigged to ensure that the government is fairly subservient to the USA. How so?
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  "subservient" may be a bit too harsh a term. In history it was far more profitable to ally with the US than with any other superpower. That goes double because especially in the decades just after WWII nobody would trust Germany with enough weapons to defend itself, and so there really were only two choices: Ally with the US, or be swallowed by the Warsaw pact. They did have the invasion plans, by the way.
  - tempodox 12y ago
    The U.S. wouldn't have let any country fall prey to the communists, so keeping Germany with “the west” was very much in their own interest. Hell, they used planes for years to keep even half a city (west Berlin) from falling to the communists. Your arguments don't convince me.
    - saiya-jin 12y ago
      1968, Czechoslovakia. True, armed conflict would utterly devastate my homeland, but your statement is only partially true. And some form of devastation happened anyway, in mind of people living there. Results will be felt for generations.
bayesianhorse 12y ago
The German government is between a rock and a hard place. The USA are our allies. We depend on them for our national security for all sorts of reasons. And the most pertinent risk is indeed global terrorism. Without the help of the US intelligence sources, we couldn't stop remotely as many terrorist cells. So the government may have had two bad choices: Either risk to have a major terrorist attack happen on their watch, or cooperate with the US more closely than the public would want. The government may not even have had that choice since a lot of the actual fault may lie in relatively low levels of the BND, and only the oversight was inadequate. (Like it is in the US even more so)
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  They rejected 40,000 US requests that were deemed outside the co-operation agreement and have now discovered 2,000 which are "suspicious". The article suggests the agreement excluded German and US organisations, the "suspicious" 2k were relating to other European institutions. It sounds like a case of it being within the written agreement but that the agreement was too broad, or at least should have been changed with the shift in political rhetoric.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > And the most pertinent risk is indeed global terrorism. I'm not sure what a "pertinent" risk is, but it's the most media-friendly. But compared to the consequences of climate change, or even the current economic crisis, it should really be downgraded. I don't have hard stats regarding the increase in suicides due to the crisis, but there is no way the number of terrorism-related deaths in Europe is even in the same ballpark. > Without the help of the US intelligence sources, we couldn't stop remotely as many terrorist cells. Really? How many is that exactly? The only country which seems to be regularly try new terrorists cells is the US, and the scenario seems to be the same every time: an FBI informer helped radicalize and provided weapons to some youths with lots of personal issues, which turns into another success of law enforcement.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    It's similar to people being afraid of flying, and in the same time don't mind hitting highway in crappy old car. Things blowing with people inside/around just works much better with our primary instincts. If you're clever enough, you can realize this and actively fight it, but you'll end up feeling alone and surrounded with bunch of idiots. No-win scenario.

by krylon 12y ago

tempodox 12y ago

But our political system is pretty much rigged to ensure that the government is fairly subservient to the USA. How so?

bayesianhorse 12y ago
"subservient" may be a bit too harsh a term. In history it was far more profitable to ally with the US than with any other superpower. That goes double because especially in the decades just after WWII nobody would trust Germany with enough weapons to defend itself, and so there really were only two choices: Ally with the US, or be swallowed by the Warsaw pact. They did have the invasion plans, by the way.
- tempodox 12y ago
  The U.S. wouldn't have let any country fall prey to the communists, so keeping Germany with “the west” was very much in their own interest. Hell, they used planes for years to keep even half a city (west Berlin) from falling to the communists. Your arguments don't convince me.
  - saiya-jin 12y ago
    1968, Czechoslovakia. True, armed conflict would utterly devastate my homeland, but your statement is only partially true. And some form of devastation happened anyway, in mind of people living there. Results will be felt for generations.

bayesianhorse 12y ago

The German government is between a rock and a hard place. The USA are our allies. We depend on them for our national security for all sorts of reasons. And the most pertinent risk is indeed global terrorism. Without the help of the US intelligence sources, we couldn't stop remotely as many terrorist cells. So the government may have had two bad choices: Either risk to have a major terrorist attack happen on their watch, or cooperate with the US more closely than the public would want. The government may not even have had that choice since a lot of the actual fault may lie in relatively low levels of the BND, and only the oversight was inadequate. (Like it is in the US even more so)

cmdkeen 12y ago
They rejected 40,000 US requests that were deemed outside the co-operation agreement and have now discovered 2,000 which are "suspicious". The article suggests the agreement excluded German and US organisations, the "suspicious" 2k were relating to other European institutions. It sounds like a case of it being within the written agreement but that the agreement was too broad, or at least should have been changed with the shift in political rhetoric.
mercurial 12y ago
> And the most pertinent risk is indeed global terrorism. I'm not sure what a "pertinent" risk is, but it's the most media-friendly. But compared to the consequences of climate change, or even the current economic crisis, it should really be downgraded. I don't have hard stats regarding the increase in suicides due to the crisis, but there is no way the number of terrorism-related deaths in Europe is even in the same ballpark. > Without the help of the US intelligence sources, we couldn't stop remotely as many terrorist cells. Really? How many is that exactly? The only country which seems to be regularly try new terrorists cells is the US, and the scenario seems to be the same every time: an FBI informer helped radicalize and provided weapons to some youths with lots of personal issues, which turns into another success of law enforcement.
- saiya-jin 12y ago
  It's similar to people being afraid of flying, and in the same time don't mind hitting highway in crappy old car. Things blowing with people inside/around just works much better with our primary instincts. If you're clever enough, you can realize this and actively fight it, but you'll end up feeling alone and surrounded with bunch of idiots. No-win scenario.