"Let’s be honest, we eavesdrop too. Everyone is listening to everyone else. But we don’t have the same means as the United States, which makes us jealous. "
That’s from Bernard Kouchner on Oct. 23rd.
Here’s the quote in context.
That’s pretty much what I assumed was going on; that other countries were either doing it less effectively than the US is/was, or that they wanted to, but we’re the only ones with the resources to successfully pull it of, or pull it off on the scale that we did.
I’m still much more disturbed about PRISM than this; I always assumed that we were spying on everybody- friend and foe alike.
Of course France is jealous - they’re not part of Five Eyes, and probably never will be.
I had that same thought while listening to a story about the ‘scandal’ this morning. I kinda wish someone from the administration had come out and said “yea, the real reason you’re mad is that you failed at tapping Obama’s phone and we succeeded at tapping yours”.
Besides, no matter what is said before congress, it’s not like they’re going to stop spying on each other.
I posted the same sentiment yesterday in another thread, from a different French former official.
Oh, good, other nations behave badly, too. That totally justifies our bad behavior. No need to ask probing questions about the value of the intelligence obtained illegally vs. the cost of obtaining it. Let’s just pat ourselves on the back, instead. America! Yeah!
I don’t think that’s it, but it was it little like one whore pointing indignantly to another and shouting ‘WHORE!’
Well, yeah. But we’re still a whore. Let’s be better than a whore, and then who cares what those whores call us?
Being a whore, in this instance, undoubtedly proves remarkably valuable.
As the original quote points out, this is less international indignance in the sense of any other government seriously saying “You’re better than that!” so much as it’s envy that we can do what they wish they could do.
What exactly would we lose if we just stopped the spying on allies altogether?
I just about fell off my chair when I heard the sixth grade level “everybody else does it” defense.
The only other people I know that use that one are usually criminal.
“Undoubtedly”: I doubt it. To continue the whore analogy, I like sex and I like earning money. I’ve seen some of the guys who sell themselves for crack, and I’m pretty sure I could make at least as much as they do. But I don’t do it: I voluntarily refrain from having sex for money. Why? Because there are risks (it’s illegal, there’s disease and violence), and they are greater than the rewards. Moreover, I have other access to both sex and money. Equally, our government has access to plenty of legitimate sources of information; the value is in collating and analyzing them. I’d like to see a cite that illegally obtained information is better than legally obtained information, and further that it is enough better to justify the risks.
Well, sure, but only care what the French think of us for practical reasons: the diplomacy game, in which we’ve lost a few points, and the hit to our economy that comes from fewer people wanting to deal with us. Both of these are quite minor, but they add up in the long term.
More important is being the country we want to be, not using our might to behave like a bully* in a china shop.
*Metaphor deliberately malapropped.
The (to me) obvious and invaluable foreign policy advantage that comes from knowing what the other guy is actually thinking and not just what he’s telling you. Be it trade issues, support for military action, wanting support for some global carbon initative or whatever.
That nice but, in this instance, the rewards seem greater than the risks.
Won’t happen since it’s obviously impossible to quantify in that manner.
That assumes either will happen which I doubt.
I want to be the country with the upper hand.
The “defense” is the idea that the intelligence gained is valuable and beneficial to the government in numerous ways.
The “every one does it” remark is just a reason to cut the false outrage and foot stomping. But even if no one else did it, the intelligence gained would still be extremely valuable (probably more so since we’d be the only ones having it).
That is your belief. That belief is unfounded, as you have just said that you have no evidence and it’s untestable anyway. Therefore, there is no reason for me to share your belief.
That doesn’t especially bother me since I’m not the one flustered about it and demanding it change (hint: it won’t).
To use the most blatantly obvious historical example, Cite.
Is “allies” really the right word though? I think we need one similar to “frenemies.” 
Years ago I made a pact with myself to never use that word and I’m not about to start now!
I know what you mean. Something that captures the contradiction though. I like ‘mallies.’ Phallies might work but might not be obvious enough.
IDK. No imagination this afternoon.