Germany defends "strictly legal" cooperation with NSA
Source: Reuters via First Post
BERLIN Angela Merkels government said on Monday that its cooperation with American intelligence was fully regulated by strict legal guidelines after a magazine reported that the U.S. National Security Agency was in close cahoots with German spies.
Germanys opposition, with an eye on Septembers election, when the chancellor will seek a third term, demanded that her government explain how much it knew about U.S. surveillance tactics ahead of talks with Washington about the NSA.
In the light of the latest media reports, it is even more urgent to ask what Germanys secret services and above all what the Chancellery knew about eavesdropping activities, said the Social Democrats (SPD) chancellor candidate, Peer Steinbrueck.
Der Spiegels report that the NSA works with Germany and other Western states on a no questions asked-basis undermines the chancellors indignant talk of Cold War tactics revealed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden ...
Read more: http://www.firstpost.com/world/germany-defends-strictly-legal-cooperation-with-nsa-940079.html
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)struggle4progress
(118,320 posts)Germany was a dictatorship
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Amonester
(11,541 posts)But liberals (around 50% of the population) still are the good guys.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Want to see a media type freak out and act like you should be banned for ALL time from getting on the air?
Make the statement I just made.
Mind you that claiming this country is Conservative can be said all day every day despite all the actual issue polls showing it's not.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)And they live mostly in urban areas.
Most media types are in cahoots with the corrupt plutocrats at the top, otherwise they'd get fired (and they know it).
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)legal doesn't always mean right.
And, in Snowden's case, right doesn't always mean legal.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The Courts in Nuremberg had to work around the legal concept that a country can kill off its own citizens if it so decide. That was an iron clan International Rule. Thus the Courts preferred to punish the organizers of the Holocaust for killing people outside Germany (that was clearly illegal) and for violating the Treaty Germany had signed in the 1920s outlawing aggressive wars rather then the Holocaust itself. Subsequent cases generally involved the actual Nations where the Holocaust took Place (Poland mostly, for most European Jews lived in Poland before WWII) or by Israel to get around this concept that a nation can kill off its own citizens if it wanted to.
Now, that whole concept was outlawed under various post WWII, UN and Geneva Convention Treaties, but at the time the Holocaust occurred it was technically Legal for Germany to kill of its own citizens.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)How can you charge someone with a crime that wasn't a crime at the time they were committed?
It's one thing to make something a crime after something happens to stop the NEXT GUY but to convict someone on a law you create on the spot is just not done. ESPECIALLY in the case of a capital offense.
Europe has a long history of tyrants killing off every single citizen of a conquered people on a whim.