Your argument boils down to giving up our supposedly better values in order to defeat the "evil guys".
I also refuse to accept that our future is under the hegemony of any single nation. So far the only country we have proof of going for hegemony is the USA. Russia and China are concerned with their borders and it's trivial to verify my assessment Is correct. Just compare military expenses and amount of military bases owned across the world.
Russia is invading a neighboring country, and from talking to Lithuanians, the Russia people seem rather keen on returning to the "good old days" of the Soviet Empire.
Except very extreme fringes, every big party will bend over to do whatever USA tells them to do, regardless of what their voting base thinks.
See how they are changing the laws so that it's legal to send kurds in turkey to die.
I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying that the statement "my most immediate concern..." is incorrect. What's more likely: 1) demands from Swedish citizens to the USA actually stopping the USA from using Sweden in its geopolitics? Or 2) Demands from Swedish citizens to the government they empower?
If it's only the extreme fringes, then maybe most people in Sweden simply don't have much of a problem with it or don't care either way, or have more immediately pressing problems to deal with, or something else. Whatever the reason, if you don't like it then your most immediate problem is dealing with the roadblocks to getting your government to stop doing it.
You might write all the long comments you like, and suggest me to vote (lol, i see that's working very well in USA as well), but the fact remains.
Assange is just one example, merely an outlier. Random immigrants, perfectly productive and integrated into the country, including children, are being deported everyday for no special reason. Families are being separated, careers are being destroyed, just because they want to look "strong".
On the other hand, not a single criminal or terrorist is deported; why? Because they will make a fuss. Because there is a bunch of spoiled Swedish people who never experienced hardship with nothing better to do than to defend outdated ridiculous socialist/communist ideas, and they will kick and scream if a criminal is deported. And the coward government is afraid of having to deal with that.
Deport a working, honest immigrant, and they will not say anything. They comply, go out, and try again. If you're one of them, that is what you should be concerned with.
Uuuh??? They are the ones talking about taking away citizenship from people (with dual citizenship I hope, otherwise it's against human rights), exactly to be able to deport even swedish citizens.
At this point becoming a citizen would become completely meaningless.
And they got voted in power, so I guess they have support from the majority of people.
The US government is the most destructive force in history
Stable? We had an honest-to-god raid on the capitol just a few years ago.
At the very least I’d be a little bit nervous about the prospects of democracy if the organizer of that raid gets re-elected.
Don't get me wrong; I'm center-left and democrat-aligned, but with all due respect, if you cannot see how your country has an incredible foundation, you are naive and has a shallow understanding of the world.
I also doubt European countries have the capacity to intercept private calls between top level USA govt officials.
They surely would keep that capability secret.
Like the USA itself couldn't? Strongly doubt, the amount of recent leaks we're just discussing proves me right. No nation could have such an espionage system in place without it ever leaking out in some way.
The French: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/04/france-electro... The Germans: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/germany-arrests-foreign...
Lets not forget that most of the EU is wrapped up in the Pegasus spy scandal: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-watergate-the-pegasus-spyware-scand...
Playing holier than thou with intelligence services is a losing game. There is no holy intelligence service and there is no nation without an intelligence function.
You can search all you want but there is no evidence or proof whatsoever of EU countries spying USA top government officials.
The question here is how can you call yourself an ally in good faith when you spy on your allies?
There's plenty of evidence of the EU spying on allies. I can't tell if your implication is "Europe can't maintain smart enough computer scientists and engineers capable of spying on the US" or "Europe has the moral high ground and doesn't spy on allies".
Both are naive.
Nonsense. https://www.france24.com/en/20131024-nsa-france-spying-squar... https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-spied-on-white-hou...
The second is based on some yet unreleased documents that Der Spiegel claims to have reviewed years ago.
Still no evidence to be found, only claims.
If you're willing to believe a US whistleblower -- whose evidence you can't personally verify -- you have to be open to believing the _former head of the agency_.
Familiarize yourself with this concept https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
Realpolitik are the reason why I consider the USA and NATO a bunch of hypocrites, altho the USA surely championed the practice.
They fill their mouth with good intents, justice, peace and all that is good in public but act like criminals behind the scenes.
At the very least, countries like Russia and China seem to be much more open about their practicing Realpolitik.
That's a lie so big it's visible from space.
Nations spying on nations (even allies) feels terrible but in practice is probably a net good for all. It reduces uncertainty, and uncertainty has historically been a major trigger for armed conflict as one side feared the other side was preparing to strike, so struck first to gain the initiative in case their fears were well-founded. History has shown that judgment to be inaccurate in some significant cases. Wars have also been avoided by good intel.
On the non-kinetic side, espionage better informs policymakers as international agreements are forged and followed. Uncertainty between nations is generally a bad thing for both nations.
We badly need to address nations spying on their own citizens, especially reciprocity arrangements to circumvent restrictions on such. But pending an unlikely utopia of humans all learning how to cooperate at scale for the first time in human history, nations spying on nations is probably a good thing for the planet.
Is there any evidence of this being true or speculation?
here is 1 such example off the top of my head: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
Getting corrupt spies to be exposed doesn't really seem to be a great datum to back your argument. He might have actually saved more lives indirectly since he stopped them from leaking secret Soviet information to the US. Anything else?
labeling the victims as "corrupt" is also weak
saying 'ok you're right but maybe it's a good thing' is weak
none of the arguments really seem great against the evidence presented. anything else?
Two corrupt spies being regularly tried and executed is definitely not "tons troughout history". That was your claim, not "someone killed as a result of an intel leak", and if all you have is other spies dying then I don't have any problem with it.
What I would have a problem with is civilian deaths resulting from leaks, but for what I see generally leaks reveal more often unauthorized civilian killings than they cause them.
but which do not actually matter here, because the example presented satisfied the condition of a person killed due to an intel leak:
- whether you agree with the killing
- whether it is 2 or 2 million
- what their profession is
- whether they are civilians
- whether you personally think they're corrupt
- what you personally have a problem with
literally none of your above views matter to the question here, because the question was whether an intel leak has ever gotten people killed (meaning >1), not "what do you, a random person on the internet, think about the fact that intel leaks have gotten people killed"
QED. anything else? Maybe the killings doesn't count because it's Tuesday, or some other new silly exclusionary criteria you made up?
I'm asking for stronger evidence because the example provided is not very good given the obvious vocational risk with being a spy. Presumably there are stronger examples available.
Also, whistleblower policy has been a subject of presidential campaigns (Obama 2008). Fixating on a false choice is going to draw the ire of many who have written books and debating this topic at great depth and length.
sorry you don't like the people in the examples (or maybe just don't like how they prove the claim right) but your opinion of them doesn't really matter, as my previous post says. The only thing that matters is that evidence was presented of >1 people being killed by an intelligence leak. QED.
any other stupid 1-upping games, to avoid the fact that the claim has been proven true?
Sources?
Abu Grahib for one. How did that leak cause anyone to die? It has probably saved lives or prevented further abuse by causing accountability.
Assange's "US Army manual for Guantanamo prison camp" leak. Who knows how much further abuse that prevented from happening?
Assange's "Video of US helicopter fire killing civilians in Iraq"
And so on, and so on. You could actually say in this case that there are "tons of cases troughout history" and I'm presenting several to you that had a large impact. Where are your tons of cases with large impact? We're still waiting.
There's overwhelming evidence that leaks cause more good than they do harm. Prove otherwise if you can.
Another question I have is, why are you more concerned by the potential deaths caused by a leak than by the deaths the leak is exposing?
maybe, maybe not, but completely irrelevant to the discussion, since we're evaluating one simple, objective, yes or no question you can find at the bottom of this post, not comparing anything
> Your claim being true (even tho your "tons of evidence" amounts to 1 weak case so far) or not, the opposite claim is a much stronger and compelling one.
the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 humans in history being killed by an intelligence leak, which, again, my example proves false (and is a ridiculous claim for you to make)
the rest of your post repeats, for at least the third time, nothing but irrelevant, mostly emotional opinions, trying to distract the topic at hand:
Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
Yes. QED
> the opposite claim to >1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak, is <=1 human in history being killed by an intelligence leak
No.
I'm debating if leaks are a net positive overall, so my claim is that it doesn't matter if leaks sometimes cause deaths as leaks save more lives than they take, especially the lives of innocents. And by the way my claim is 100% clear in all of my comments. If you choose to engage me then accept to debate my claim or stop wasting time.
> Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by an intelligence leak?
This is a ridiculous thing to debate on, and you know it really well. Next thing we're going to debate idiotic stuff like "Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by drinking too much water?"
If all you cared about was "winning" the debate on a technicality, congratulations! Shame that it doesn't amount to anything in the real world.
If the point was to have a constructive discussion and gain some additional insight on the topic, then this was a complete waste of time, at least as long as you refuse to listen what other people have to say and fixate on a technicality.
No.
You're arguing with the claim that intelligence leaks have killed greater than 1 humans in history.
Everything else is a distraction from that question. If you can't agree on a common set of facts, like that one, you aren't ready to graduate to the next discussion, whether it be a comparative discussion of benefits or anything else.
Your inability to acknowledge the simple truth to the question we're discussing only shows that you seem to be the one treating this as a debate, and you're the one insisting on "winning" by refusing to acknowledge even a basic set of facts.
Until you can do that, you're not ready for the next topic, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon that shared set of facts. "Alternative facts" don't count here.
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by having too vigorous sex?"
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by getting into a heated discussion about a stupid topic?"
"Yes or No, have >1 people been killed by riding a bike?"
I rest my case, this is a complete waste of time and I give it up.
by failing to acknowledge the answer (again: "yes") you fail to graduate to the next discussion, which, obviously, necessarily builds upon a shared understanding of facts
Espionage, gathering secret intelligence, is arguably a net good for the planet.
Because they're all doing it too. Any attempts at retaliation what have been hypocritical and met with callouts.
> Because they're all doing it too. Any attempts at retaliation what have been hypocritical and met with callouts.
Source? I can tell you already there is none. We have plenty of evidence that the USA is spying Europe and other allies, none of the opposite.
.0: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2014-01-...
.1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/germany-arrest...
https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/europe-spyware-scandal-...
As I've already answered you on another comment and as the very first line of the article you shared points out, Pegasus has been used for domestic espionage. The issue at hand is foreign espionage.
Like how Denmark helped the US spy on the EU?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/31/denmark-helped...
Yes, EU nations are somehow totally incapable of a thing every country is doing. That is naive.
Provide evidence please, but we both know there is none.
> Like how Denmark helped the US spy on the EU?
Yet another case of the US spying on its allies.
Edit: You keep editing your comment so it's hard to properly answer.
> Allies not OK, citizens OK?
I've already wrote you here[0] that I find both cases despicable, but we're simply talking about US foreign espionage here.
I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or just didn't bother reading.
Denmark was complicit in the US spying on Germany, Sweden and Norway.
https://www.dw.com/en/danish-secret-service-helped-us-spy-on...
France and Germany both have admitted they have spied on the White House.
https://www.france24.com/en/20131024-nsa-france-spying-squar...
https://www.dw.com/en/german-intelligence-spied-on-white-hou...
Germany has been found to helping the US spy on EU allies:
https://www.dw.com/en/parliamentary-report-finds-spying-by-b...
This is a childish and naïve stance.
Also, I'm not American. You can stop referring to me in the second person.
geopolitics 101? why would any country not have spies and passive surveillance of both enemies and allies that could one day threaten their power and economy?
You are just proving that the US is not behaving like a positive force for the world, which was entirely my point. I never said that European countries are saints. I just fear with good reason a US hegemony given their behavior.
How is 2/5 "almost all"?
The US hegemony is rightfully feared, but only because on their relatively unchecked power, not because of any inherent ethical superiority.
I never said that the US is or isn't a positive net on the world: I said that spying isn't evidence of your point. Because by your definition no country is positive net on the world.
Spoken like a true devil's advocate. Apparently you have no opinion, you just want to refute mine. The fervor with which you scrambled for evidence to only tangentially counter my argument suggests me otherwise, but oh well.
If all you want is evidence that the US is currently not a positive net for the world, you just need to look at the work CIA has done. You won't find anything comparable on any other country. And the fact that every nation has secret services means nothing. It's how powerful those services are and what they are used for.
By the way you realize that other countries being bad doesn't make the US any better? If nothing you're helping me prove that NATO altogether is a band of criminals, which I might have to thank you for, afterall.
I do have a point, you just don't like it. The point is thus: Europe spies on their allies and enemies just as much as the United States does.
> You won't find anything comparable on any other country. And the fact that every nation has secret services means nothing.
I think you may have forgotten that Russia exists.
> By the way you realize that other countries being bad doesn't make the US any better?
I never said it does. I said that spying on other countries isn't the deciding factor.
"Just as much" is simply false, as the extent and scope of USA espionage is unrivaled in Europe.
> I said that spying on other countries isn't the deciding factor.
Spying per se might be not, the intent behind it clearly does tho. You might spy to exert your power over or disrupt another country, or you might spy as a precautionary measure. We all know which country has the goal to make the world unipolar.
> I think you may have forgotten that Russia exists.
I obviously didn't, and I still believe Russia foreign interference isn't comparable with what the US has done.
As for being a positive force in the world, that depends what they do with the information. It’s a different concern.
They're basically vassal states. With no meaningful armies of their own, they rely on the US for their protection, so they're in no position to challenge it.
If there is one evil force conspiring for global domination that is the NSA and whichever institution they take order from. Thanks again, Snowden.
What I don't understand is the complete lack of response from countries like Italy and Germany once they found out being spied by an ally. Imagine what the USA would have done if the roles were reversed.