| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
about:black - The NSA-investigation committee in the German parliament |
| | Investigating the German secret service |
|
<
< | Even though the investigation committee set up unanimously by the German parliament in March 2014 is titled "NSA", the main focus lay from its very beginning on investigating the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst = BND). Public discourse suspected the BND to use mass surveillance which is illegal because they lack a specific initial suspicion, see sections 152, 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The pressure stemming from these suspicions was evidently high enough to unite the parliament in this question despite the government's interest in upholding good German-American relations. By demonstrating their will to examine possible infringements, the governing faction could at least temporarily restore their voters' faith in its integrity. |
>
> | Even though the investigation committee set up unanimously by the German parliament in March 2014 is titled "NSA", the nominal main focus lay from its very beginning on investigating the German Federal Intelligence Service (Bundesnachrichtendienst = BND). Public discourse suspected the BND to use mass surveillance which is illegal because they lack a specific initial suspicion, see sections 152, 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The pressure stemming from these suspicions was evidently high enough to unite the parliament in this question despite the government's interest in upholding good German-American relations. By demonstrating their will to examine possible infringements, the governing faction could at least temporarily restore their voters' faith in its integrity. |
| | Though doubting the German Federal Intelligence was somehow more morally intact than other Intelligence Services had little factual grounds, many Germans seemed to hope the investigation committee would prove just that. |
| | The committee has found that the BND collects vast data throughout the European Union and also Afghanistan. The BND should that be an internationally appreciated partner in trade. |
|
<
< | What can yet be expected of the NSA-investigation committee? |
>
> | Conclusions |
| | |
|
<
< | Investigation committees concerned with various other subjects in the past have not been able to find answers to all open questions but they have proofed to yield answers to some of the most significant questions. However, this investigation committee has to fight greater obstacles than its precursors did. In addition, the technological knowledge of its members is rather limited. They are dependent upon supporting experts to ask the right questions in the investigations. There are already plans to hear more independent experts like members of the CCC (Chaos Computer Club).
Hopefully, with the expert's help - which may make many of Snowden's documents more useful to the committee - proof will be found to what the BND and its international counterparts are and have been doing. Incontestable and comprehensible facts, found by the committee as part of the German legislature would force other branches to react and might also cause international reactions. If it fails to do so, such facts should at least be able to bring mass-surveillance back into public discourse and might finally trigger stronger reactions. |
>
> | Heaps of blackened material analyzed in the investigation committee really prove only one thing: A investigation committee whose majority is composed of the same parties backing the chancellor is unlikely to make any progress given all evidence and many witnesses have to be approved by the chancellery. Although the opposition is working hard to achieve the committee’s nominal objective, it is unlikely to succeed. Rather, the "NSA" investigation committee proves to be a full success for the government; torn between openly admitting to mass surveillance and taking a public stance against it, the investigation committee is a beautiful option to not commit to either, to pursue Angela Merkel’s long-standing policy of apathetic adjustment to political reality to wait it out and pacify the electorate. Setting up the investigation committee calmed the public as it suggested that "something" was being done about the NSA scandal - something to recover to the blissful feeling to not being listened to when communicating over technological devices. At the same time, the investigation committee allowed the government to continue their secret service activities as well as their amicable relationship with the United States. Because the investigation committee has operate over such a long time frame, the public’s interest and media coverage has subsided to barely recognizable minimum. It would be thrilling to see this strategy turn on the government, for instance if a good rhetorician could explain the technological possibilities and realities as a witness in the committee at best causing a public outcry about the international governments’ practices. Sadly, this is highly unlikely to happen as the petty dispute about hearing Edward Snowden as a witness has shown. Most likely the investigation committee will silently cease to exist once the Parliament’s turn is over in Fall 2017. |
| |
|
|
<
< | All of this seems to be dependent on eliding a political reality. It isn't going to happen, and you know it isn't going to happen. The government and the services have both political control of parliamentary outcomes and sufficient "national security" clout to shut down the conversation. At best, Germany will fail to enact permanent authorization for the services to do whatever the fuck they want, in the Franco-British form. At worst, Thomas de Mezière will get for the services the same deal they're getting in the other "major" European powers. And no one wants to offend the Americans about this right now. |
>
> | At best, Germany will fail to enact permanent authorization for the services to do whatever the fuck they want, in the Franco-British form. At worst, Thomas de Mezière will get for the services the same deal they're getting in the other "major" European powers. And no one wants to offend the Americans about this right now. |
| | So once again, the issue this draft doesn't come to grips with and
the next one should is, what's the point? Surely it isn't whether a |
| |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
>
> |
To improve the essay, I tried to frame it. Revising the text, I found that beginning already pointed sufficienty towards the issue (the government’s "easy way out"), so I decided to leave it mostly unaltered and to add a new conclusion. In the Conclusion, I connect the findings of the text to paint the bigger picture. I hope you approve of the change! I’m looking forward to feedback on this second draft!
|
| | \ No newline at end of file |