Not in the sense that intelligence agencies follow every law of every place they operate (does anyone think they do?), but in a more practical sense - there is no legal mechanism for enforcing rules on the IC externally, and while it's not outside of the realm of possibility, I'm not super convinced we need one.
What lawsuit? Would you like to wager how likely it is that an American will be convicted?
Treating the law as "a list of rules everyone follows or they get in trouble" is a model that works for when you have a state to judge and enforce the rules. It does not work when organizations like powerful nation states are interacting with one another. A similarly non-traditional-law model can be seen in banking, where fines and settlements are often reached without a judicial process.
Der Spiegel filed a complaint as stated within the article. Not a lawsuit but the start of one.
"As a target of the surveillance, SPIEGEL has requested more information from the Chancellery. At the same time, the magazine filed a complaint on Friday with the Federal Public Prosecutor due to suspicion of intelligence agency activity."
Fines and settlement by the way are in quite a lot of countries part of an actual judicial process.
Ah, a request and a complaint! How did it go, do you think? "Dear Chancellor, Snowden said the Americans spied on our paper and told you our source in your organization. Could you provide us with some more evidence so that we can make a legal case against them, please?". Even if the Chancellor wanted to pursue American spies, do you think she has enough evidence to prosecute anyone?
If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are?
Fines and settlements negotiated without a case ever being made public is an example of the laws working differently than they do for most. The banking example isn't much like foreign intelligence activity, of course, but it's similar in that powerful organizations' relationships with laws is different than yours or mine.
>If you don't want to answer about the chance of conviction, what do you wager the chances of a prosecutor simply bringing a case to a German court are?
And rightfully so! I think forcibly kidnapping someone on the streets of Italy is different than an allied intelligence agencies dropping each other tips about leakers.
Whether allied or not, foreign intelligence agencies spying on German citizens in Germany are unlawful and occasional "help" in the form of informal tips should not make them above the law. NSA should not get preferential treatment over CIA in EU courts and US agencies in general should not get preferential treatment over say China.
I'm talking about what is, not what should be in some perfect world we have no practical way of achieving.
Intelligence agencies are above the law not because they offer tips to each other, but because they have the resources and practice to be careful and not to leave enough evidence to be used to charge anyone.
There's also something fundamental to the nature of dealing in information - you can send anonymous tips, or suggest something while maintaining plausible deniability. I'm sure the source here didn't hand German intel a notarized letter saying "I'm John Doe of the CIA and we've been tapping Der Spiegel phones and this dude's definitely their source on the inside".
Spooks are not gods, it's public's attitude towards them that makes them god-like. German gov't could have started investigation and at least informed Spiegel. They might have found some leads. If not, at least security audit would have made them more aware of threats. Surely the same (hypothetical) entrypoints that NSA/CIA used, could have been used by other organizations or governments. Spiegel covers a lot of international news and certainly has a lot of sources around the world to protect.
Certainly not gods, but immensely powerful organizations with varying moral frameworks and political interests all acting without the convenience of a global system of legal and moral guidance that you and I operate in. Have you ever had to hassle about what's fair to put in a lease? Probably not, since the legal system provides for a pretty rigid API between landlords and tenants. The world we live in is a large series of such APIs, which are constantly and modified via our political and legal systems. The space ICs operate in simply does not have such rules nor anyone to enforce them.
In a world where information is power and without a justice enforcer more powerful than the actors, an unknown leaker is significantly more of a threat than an allied IC. An ally will keep your secrets, and mutual secret-keeping reinforces alliances [1]. Journalists, on the other hand, are the gossip queens of the information trade, as they reap their rewards by telling secrets to everyone without much regard for when it's convenient. They are useful only as long as their access can be controlled.
The entry points NSA/CIA used are being watched by them, or maybe even honeypotted. The space of potential attacks is enormous and it's a waste of resources for the Germans to look for them (if that's even legal) as long as America remains an ally.
Please don't take what I am making as moral judgement of one way or another here, just as the practical analysis of the system I imagine these organizations to operate in.
1. Similar to high school cliques or criminals where mutual blackmail creates alliances where there is no access access to the normal judicial system, contracts, etc.
Have you followed what's happening in Germany right now at all? If not, please read up on it, it's worth it.
Fines and settlements can be reached for common people too - you can agree not to proceed with litigation and settle out of court. There is nothing wrong with that if both parties agree. Yes, I agree that sometimes it feels wired how the banks are treated, but you and I could settle out of court too if we wish.
Yes, I have, and I've clearly reached a very different understanding. Is there some point you're trying to make, aside from an ad hominem? What would you say are the chances that a prosecutor brings a case against an American for the tip-off about the leaker covered in the article?
Stop nitpicking words. Do you really disagree that banks who are negotiating with the IRS or DoJ have a different relationship with the law and prosecutors than the average prosecutee being offered a plea deal? The relationship between legal costs and settlement costs alone makes for a very different game.
Have you also followed the news, that there is a huge ongoing investigation running within the german government? I am not talking about only that Spiegel incident when I ask if you followed the news. There is a large uproar within the german people about what has been uncovered so far regarding dragnet surveillance, surveillance of politicians and now journalists.
I do not know the chances but I do hope that there will be more light what happened between the BND and the NSA. And I also hope that some folks at the BND will be put to jail for what they allowed to happen on german soil.
I am not nitpicking words. I do not disagree that banks have a different relationship, no. I see that as well. But I also see and accept that corps as well as private persons can settle out of court. (Thas has nothing to do with a plea deal). Settling out of court mostly is done on private terms, i.e. money or patents or whatever exchanges hands, where I think a plea deal is more about going to jail for less than what would be at risk with a trial.
Watch Citizenfour, the documentary about Edward Snowden.
As it is, the NSA is not permitted to spy on domestic data. How do they get around that? The data of US citizens is moved to a data warehouse abroad. Oh, it is not in the USA anymore, now it's fair game! It's a huge loophole.
There has been talk of foreign governments colluding with the US government to get around domestic spying laws going many years back. I'm pretty sure I heard about it when the tech community was abuzz with Echelon and Carnivore. The Echelon furor was back around 2000.
Did you read what I wrote? Getting around of not being able to spay on your own soil buy letting some other nation state collect all the thingsTM does not make it legal. Because that other nation state would break the law too.
My example was for Germany as this is the focus of this thread.
> Getting around of not being able to spay on your own soil buy letting some other nation state collect all the things does not make it legal
Not preventing someone from spying on your citizens, possibly encouraging them, and not prosecuting that entity once the matters become known, - looks certainly illegal to me.
