Es ist vergebliche Liebesmüh, auf das “Erstaunen” und die “Überraschung” der deutschen Politik angesichts der “ungeheuerlichen” Spionagevorwürfe gegen die lieben Freunde einzugehen. Entweder sind die jetzt lautstark Jammernden schlichtweg nur strohdumm oder aber sie gehen ihrem Job nach und machen Politik wie gewohnt. Pragmatismus zeigen sie offensichtlich nur sporadisch – z. B. beim Asylgesuch von Snowden. Und beim Spionieren ertappte US-Diplomaten hatte schon unser aller Ex-Kanzler Kohl stillschweigend gen Heimat verabschieden lassen. Aber das weiß natürlich die jugendliche Online-Redaktion in unseren Leit- (oder sagt man Premium?) Medien nicht mehr… Wie auch: Bachelor-Studiengänge in Politikwissenschaft erklären einem so etwas nicht mehr. Tiefergehende Recherche wird wohl immer mehr ein Fremdwort und ich habe es nur meiner großen Geduld zu verdanken, daß ich Mitarbeiter der NSA beim abendlichen Verbuddeln von Unterlagen fotografieren konnte:
Neben diversen Analysen und klaren Beschreibungen der von den USA durchgeführten Wirtschaftsspionage gegen befreundete Staaten, verfasst von den dortigen Behörden selbst (was ich im übrigen nicht verurteile, denn es gehört zum großen Spiel dazu und alle machen es!)…wie gesagt: Neben dem gibt es auch immer wieder kleine Highlights in der Berichterstattung. Und dazu gehört für mich diese kleine, aber feine Reportage: http://mobandmultitude.com/2013/07/02/the-nsa-comes-recruiting/
Und da man nie wissen kann, wer was plant und möglicherweise sind Seite und Autor plötzlich offline, liefere ich vorsichtshalber das Wortprotokoll der Diskussion mit (kopiert von der oben genannten Adresse):
Rough Transcript
Me: You said earlier that the two tasks that you do: one is
tracking down the communications of your adversaries and the other is
protecting the communications of officials. So, do you consider Germany
and the countries the US has been spying on to be adversaries or are
you, right now, not speaking the truth?
Me: I mean do you consider European countries, etc,
adversaries or are you, right now, not telling us the truth and lying
when you say that actually you simply track – you keep focusing on that,
but clearly the NSA is doing a lot more than that, as we know, so I’m
just asking for a clarification.
NSA_F: I’m focusing on what our foreign intelligence requires
of [garbled] so, I mean you know, You can define adversary as enemy and
clearly, Germany is not our enemy but would we have foreign
national interest from an intelligence perspective on what’s going on
across the globe. Yeah, we do. That’s our requirements that come to us
as an intelligence community organization from the policymakers, from
the military, from whoever –our global so–
Me: So adversary –adversaries you actually mean anybody and
everybody. There’s nobody then by your definition that is not an
adversary. Is that correct?
NSA_F: That is not correct.
Me: Who is not an adversary?
NSA_F: Well, ok. I can answer your questions but the reality is—
Me: No, I’m just trying to get a clarification because you
told us what the two nodes of your work are but it’s not clear to me
what that encompasses and you’re being fairly unclear at the moment.
Apparently it’s somebody who’s not just an enemy. It’s something broader
than that. And yet, it doesn’t seem to encompass everyone.
NSA_M: So for us, umm, our business is apolitical. Ok. We do
not generate the intelligence requirements. They are levied on us so, if
there is a requirement for foreign intelligence concerning this issue
or this region or whatever then that is. If you wanna use the word
adversary, you ca– we
might use the word ‘target.’ That is what we are going after. That is
the intelligence target that we are going after because we were given
that requirement. Whether that’s adversary in a global war on terrorism
sense or adversary in terms of national security interests or whatever –
that’s for policymakers, I guess to make that determination. We respond
to the requirements we are given, if that helps. And there’s a
separation. As language analysts, we work on the SIG INT side of the
house. We don’t really work on the information assurance (?) side of the
house. That’s the guy setting up, protecting our communications.
Me: I’m just surprised that for language analysts, you’re
incredibly imprecise with your language. And it just doesn’t seem to be
clear. So, adversary is basically what any of your so-called “customers”
as you call them –which is also a strange term to use for a government
agency– decide if anybody wants, any part of the government wants
something about some country, suddenly they are now internally
considered or termed an ‘adversary.’ That’s what you seem to be saying.
[Pause]
NSA_M: I’m saying you can think about it using that term.
NSA_F: But the reality is it’s our government’s interest in what a foreign government or foreign country is doing.
Me: Right. So adversary can be anyone.
NSA_M: As long as they levy their requirement on us thru the
right vehicle that exists for this and that it is defined in terms of a
foreign intelligence requirement, there’s a national framework of
foreign intelligence – what’s it called?
NSA_F: nipa
NSA_M: the national prioritization of intelligence framework
or whatever that determines these are the issues that we are interested
in, these are how they are prioritized.
Me: Your slide said adversary. It might be a bit better to say
“target” but it’s not just a word game. The problem is these countries
are fairly –I think Afghanistan is probably not shocked to realize
they’re on the list. I think Germany seems to be quite shocked at what
has been going on. This is not just a word game and you understand that
as well as I do. So, it’s very strange that you’re selling yourself here
in one particular fashion when it’s absolutely not true.
NSA_F: I don’t think we’re selling ourselves in an untrue fashion.
Me: Well, this is a recruiting session and you are telling us
things that aren’t true. We also know that the NSA took down brochures
and fact sheets after the Snowden revelations because those brochures
also had severe inaccuracies and untruths in them. So, how are we
supposed to believe what you’re saying?
[pause]
Student A (female): I have a lifestyle question that you seem to be selling. It sounds more like a colonial
expedition. You know the “globe is our playground” is the words you
used, the phrasing that you used and you seem to be saying that you can
do your work. You can analyze said documents for your so-called
customers but then you can go and get drunk and dress up and have fun
without thinking of the repercussions of the info you’re analyzing has
on the rest of the world. I also want to know what are the
qualifications that one needs to become a whistleblower because that
sounds like a much more interesting job. And I think the Edward Snowdens
and the Bradley Mannings and Julian Assanges of the world will prevail
ultimately.
NSA_M: I’m not sure what the –
Me: The question here is do you actually think about the
ramifications of the work that you do, which is deeply problematic, or
do you just dress up in costumes and get drunk? [This is in
reference to an earlier comment made by the recruiters in which NSA_F
said: they do heady work and then they go down to the bar and dress up
in costume and do karaoke. I tweeted it earlier.]
NSA_M: That’s why, as I was saying, reporting the info in the
right context is so important because the consequences of bad political
decisions by our policymakers is something we all suffer from.
Student A: And people suffer from the misinformation that you pass along so you should take responsibility as well.
NSA_M: We take it very seriously that when we give info to our
policy makers that we do give it to them in the right context so that
they can make the best decision with the best info available.
Student B: Is that what Clapper was doing when he perjured
himself in front of Congress? Was he giving accurate information when he
said we do not collect any intelligence on the US citizens that it’s
only occasionally unintentionally or was he perjuring himself when he
made a statement before Congress under oath that he later declared to be
erroneous or at least, untruthful the least truthful answer? How do you feel personally having a boss whose comfortable perjuring himself in front of Congress?
NSA_F: Our director is not general Clapper.
Student B: General Alexander also lied in front of Congress.
NSA_F: I don’t know about that.
Student B: Probably because access to the Guardian is
restricted on the NSA’s computers. I am sure they don’t encourage people
like you to actually think about these things. Thank God for a man like
Edward Snowden who your organization is now part of a manhunt trying to
track down, trying to put him in a little hole somewhere for the rest
of his life. Thank god they exist.
Student A: and why are you denigrating anything else with
language? We don’t do this; we don’t do that; we don’t read cultural
artifacts, poetry? There are other things to do with language other than
joining this group, ok. [last line of this comment was directed at the high school students.]
NSA_M: This job is not for everybody. Academia is a great career for people with language.
Me: So is this job for liars? Is this what you’re saying?
Because, clearly, you’re not able to give us forthright answers. Given
the way the way the NSA has behaved, given the fact that we’ve been lied
to as Americans, given the fact that fact sheets have been pulled down
because they clearly had untruths in them, given the fact that Clapper
and Alexander lied to Congress — is that a qualification for being in
the NSA? Do you have to be a good liar?
NSA_F: I don’t consider myself to be a liar in any fashion and
the reality is I mean, this was billed as if you are potentially
interested in an NSA career come to our session. If you’re not, if this
is your personal belief and you’re understanding of what has been
presented then there is nothing that says you need to come and apply and
work for us. We are not here — our role as NSA employees is not to
represent NSA the things that are in the press right now about the NSA.
That’s not our role at all. That’s not my area of expertise. I have not
read–
Me: Right, but you’re here recruiting so you’re selling the
organization. I mean I’m less interested in what your specialized role
is within in the NSA. I don’t care. The fact is you’re here presenting a
public face for the NSA and you’re trying to sell the organization to
people that are as young as high schoolers and trying to tell us that
this is an attractive option in a context in which we clearly know that
the NSA has been telling us complete lies. So, I’m wondering is that a
qualification?
NSA_F: I don’t believe the NSA is telling complete lies. And I
do believe that you know, people can, you can read a lot of different
things that are portrayed as fact and that doesn’t make them fact just
because they’re in newspapers.
Student A: Or intelligence reports.
NSA_F: That’s not really our purpose here today and I think if
you’re not interested in that. There are people here who are probably
interested in a language career.
Me: The trouble is we can’t opt out of NSA surveillance and we
don’t get answers. It’s not an option. You’re posing it as a choice
like ‘oh you know people who are interested can just sit here and those
of us who are not interested can just leave.’ If I could opt out of NSA
surveillance and it was no longer my business, that would be fine. But
it is my business because all of us are being surveilled so we’re here.
NSA_F: That is incorrect. That is not our job. That is not our business.
Me: That doesn’t seem to be incorrect given the leaks. Right,
and the NSA has not been able to actually put out anything that is
convincing or contrary to that.
[pause]
Student A: I don’t understand what’s wrong with having some accountability.
NSA_F: We have complete accountability and there is absolutely
nothing that we can or have done without approval of the 3 branches of
the government. The programs that we’re enacting–
Student B: Did you read the NY Times? Did you read about the illegal wiretapping? Why are you lying?
NSA_M: Did you read the Senate judiciary report that said
there have only been 15 (?) instances, and they were all documented and
done correctly by the FISA courts–
Student B: I’d love to read the opinion of the FISA court that says that this program one
of the NSA’s programs was violating the 4th amendment right of massive
amounts of Americans, but it’s a big ‘ol secret and only people like you
who will not talk with their wives when they get home about what they
do all day are able to…[garbled]…protecting us from the ‘terrorist
threat’, but let’s let everyone here hear more information about
karaoke.
