Menu
US surveillance on rival countries is centre stage at the moment, as Angela Merkel and other EU leaders express outrage at the idea that their conversations have been intercepted by American eavesdroppers, but the truth, reluctantly but increasingly acknowledged, is that many developed countries do what they can to learn what others are planning, or concerned about. The excuse given for covert surveillance is to protect against terrorism, but the truth is more likely to be related to economic, trade, or political advantage.
It is ironic that a practice authorised by senior politicians against “the little people” is resented when it is used against themselves: could this be hypocrisy? If President Obama has authorised the phone tapping of millions of citizens in the US and worldwide, including his opposite numbers, I wonder how he would feel if he discovered all his phone calls were being overheard and logged by, for example, President Putin or David Cameron: "touché" or a diplomatic furore? I leave it to you to judge.
[caption id="attachment_2152" align="alignright" width="150"]
Barack Obama[/caption]
The truth is that the extent of tit for tat electronic surveillance is far greater than has been admitted, even now. It seems likely that you and I and anyone with a phone, computer or an email address are being scanned, watched and logged by a number of countries not just the US or the UK, but these often ally countries do not want to admit to a global practice that undermines the principles of freedom, privacy and democracy they advocate in public, and which calls into question their honesty and integrity, and which is all about control and advantage. Any new agreements about intercept boundaries, as demanded by the EU now, will be worthless promises if they cannot be guaranteed – and history is not encouraging in this regard, as we are seeing now.
It is not surprising that the governments which are the worst offenders are the loudest critics of Edward Snowden, whose revelations have blown open these hidden truths, to their great embarrassment. There is more to come, and increasingly the excuse that this intrusive surveillance, US or otherwise, is needed to protect the people is, rightly, questioned by the people. Whistleblowers suffer often for their courage in speaking out, and it has been this way for many centuries, but, when they speak from principle and with good intent, people will listen, and see the lie.
[byline]]]>
If you enjoyed this article and found it helpful, please pass it on to anyone you feel may be interested to read it too.
You can register here if you would like to receive my blogs and newsletters regularly via email.
I am a spiritual teacher, channel and writer with a special interest in esoteric philosophy and the world in transition, who loves nature and wildlife. My aim is to help your human and soul journey through spiritual wisdom, spiritual connection and the raising of consciousness.
There are two items here that come to mind for me, Claire:
First, this is an expanded form of signals intelligence (SIGINT). During the Cold War, the U.S., its allies and the USSR, for instance, all engaged in the collection of SIGINT. Noiwadays, it appears that the definition has been expanded well beyond what was collected by all parties, something that has not been for the better.
Second, it's more than just the American NSA that has had its hand caught in the cookie jar, as it were: the Canadian CSEC and GCHQ in Cheltenham, for instance, have also been caught being less than savoury in this type of affair. One has to wonder if the extent of this type of spying is making previous Russian and Chinese intelligence efforts look tame in comparison.
As for the spiritual aspects, one has to wonder about the karma being incurred. It's rather like the old American saw about the military and intelligence being a contradiction of terms.
Thank you, William. Yes, this is a worldwide issue not just an American one - but it may be the Americans are better at electronic surveillance than other countries! Good the truth is out, or some of it, at least.