Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA. That has been one of the main features of government throughout history. They put their own people's rights above the rights of foreigners. EDIT: And doing the opposite will generally be viewed as treason.

I am honestly not aware of anything that was revealed that would violate any international treaty the US agreed to, but will definitely listen if you have examples. I also have a hard time believing that any other country with the capability to do the type of international spying the US does wouldn't do the exact same thing (or isn't already).

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt."

Not "German". "Human".

If something is not restricted by international treaties, it does not mean it's ethically ok to do so. I can understand that the US would push the boundaries when it comes to enemies. But it is utterly painful what it has done to so-called allies.

Europe has a lot of historical debt to Canada and the US. However, 'betrayal' is the word that comes up describing what many Europeans feel.

This is where I think we get into problems. You seem to be suggesting that people should be allowed to reveal classified national secrets that are legal both nationally and internationally if they find them unethical. I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Different people will have wildly different views on what is ethical when it comes to war and espionage. That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties.

Definitely.

That is why it is important to codify these things into laws and international treaties.

But treaties (as we have seen in this case) often lag significantly.

In the end it is the judgement and the responsibility of the leaker. In this case, I think Snowden made a good call. For many reasons: e.g. the world had the right to know that virtually all internet traffic is tapped or tappable and that cryptography was intentionally weakened. Even if the US is your friend, that makes you vulnerable to criminal organizations and states that are not allies.

>Not under the US Constitution which is what governs the NSA.

US is a signatory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki_Accords

That is at the end of the first paragraph, so I am not sure what you are getting at with your post. Even ignoring that, I didn't find anything that jumped out in that short Wikipedia article. Can you expand on how you believe the US violated the Helsinki Accords?

1. a cornerstone of Helsinki is "fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief"

2. it is well established legal principle, incl. in US legal system, that mass surveillance violates such fundamental freedoms (by means of chilling effect in particular)

>>The Helsinki Accords, however, were not binding as they did not have treaty status.

There is also a binding treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rig...

and "U.S. Finally Ratifies Human Rights Covenant" http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1369.html

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-14-27_en.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Safe_Harbor_Priv...

The NSA is a foreign signals intelligence service principally, though not exclusively, supporting the military. I don't really see any argument that the existence of the NSA -- however much the case may be made of particular activities of the NSA violating various provisions of the Constitution -- is any less within the purview of Art. I Sec. 8 enumerated powers (particularly, the power to "raise and support armies") than any other non-uniformed part of the military support structure in the US government.

I can understand people being outraged at the idea of NSA spying and wanting specific programs to end immediately. Whether certain intelligence operations violate your Constitutional or philosophical rights to privacy is an issue that's important to democracy and should be debated vociferously. But there is no legal or moral right that entitles you to know what air force base controls our drone fleet, what the nuclear launch codes are or where our achilles heels are located.

Dumping troves of sensitive data is a bad idea, even if you want the NSA to be completely abolished. Snowden could have just as easily made a speech, instead of handing millions of unread classified documents over to private individuals.