NSA, Drone Strikes, and Obama's 'Ethical Collapse' (Dar Al-Hayat, Saudi Arabia)
"What would make President Hollande of France praise fugitive
Edward Snowden, who is wanted by the United States? ... The U.S. surveillance
scandal has arisen in such a way as to expose the extent of the administration's
deception, or, at best, the extent to which America has departed from the principles
set down by Obama for his government. ... Such practices deprive the White
House of any claim that it clings to ethics in the exercise of politics. In
fact, they render it ethically bankrupt, particularly after it has begun to
deal with heads of state as if they were mere terrorists and drug traffickers."
France President François Hollande, one of the least popular French leaders in recorded history, who leads a country with formidable intelligence services of its own, must take a populist line on NSA surveillance. Is there more than spy envy involved in his public criticism of NSA practices?
It
is being confirmed that the information contained in leaks by former U.S.
National Security Agency IT analyst Edward Snowden is true. Or at least, heads
of state are dealing with it as if it were. With the NSA having monitored about
80 million telephone calls made by French citizens, even President François
Hollande is describing the leaks as useful, and says that the press should
continue publishing them. Hollande says this with full knowledge that Snowden
is a refugee in Russia and wanted by the United States on charges of treason, and
hence would face a stiff penalty before a U.S. court. What would make the
president of France praise a fugitive wanted by the United States?
One
of the documents published recently, according to the newspaper The Guardian, revealed that it was the U.S.
administration that provided the NSA with the telephone numbers of 35 heads of
state. (In other words, every head of state who would take the risk of speaking
to President Barack Obama on the phone is placing his phone number on the U.S.
surveillance list!) Furthermore, it has come to light that among these are two
of America's closest allies, Brazilian President DilmaRousseff in Latin America and German Chancellor
Angela Merkel in Western Europe.
President
Obama's administration only makes things worse for itself with its response to
the world’s objections to these practices. It says that such practices are
widespread, that every country seeks to obtain information, and that the
purpose of monitoring phone calls is to combat terrorism … By this logic, Rousseff and Merkel among those suspected of terrorist
activity or drug trafficking, as are the millions of French citizens whose
phones have been tapped ... !
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The
paradoxical element of this is that it comes from a Democratic administration
whose president, in both of his electoral campaigns, intentionally focused on
placing ethics at the core of his politics. On the other hand, he also made one
of his foreign policy goals an attempt to reach a new understanding with other
nations in order to avoid wars and establish peace. The U.S. surveillance
scandal has therefore arisen in such a way as to expose the extent of the administration's
deception, or, at best, the extent to which the United States has departed from
the principles set down by Obama for his government.
At
a time when the administration, under the slogan of abstaining from the waging of
war, engaged in the complete political abandonment of Afghanistan and Iraq to
the benefit of its declared adversaries, it has, in the name of combating
terrorism, chosen to engage in practices that violate human rights in the
extreme, as has been documented by American and international human rights
organizations.
Most
prominent among these violations are death sentences issued on charges of
terrorism against individuals in various parts of the world, particualrly
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen, carried out by missiles launched by unmanned
drones. Despite objections to this arbitrary practice raised by U.S. human rights
advocates, the Obama Administration holds that drone strikes spare it the
burden of land intervention and manually hunting down suspects. These operation
have proven incapable of distinguishing between suspects and innocents and kill
far more civilians, among them women and children - and without Washington
appearing to reconsider the practice. In fact it clings to it, even if it
violates the most basic principles of human rights, and despite the most
vehement objections voiced by the governments of countries where such strikes
are carried out.
At
the same time, President Obama’s administration has resorted to commando
operations and kidnappings of suspects in several parts of the world, without
any consideration for the sovereignty of the countries concerned - or for any
legal framework at all.
Such
practices deprive the Obama Administration of any claim that it clings to
ethics in the exercise of politics. In fact, they render it ethically bankrupt,
particularly after it has begun to deal with heads of state as if they were
mere terrorists and drug traffickers.
History
will record that Obama was able to reform health care in such a way as to
benefit America's poor. It will also record that he allowed the surveillance of
heads of state, especially friends of the United States, and caused the most
profound crisis of confidence between his country and its allies.
