Vladimir
Putin defends the U.S. on spying programs, drones and Occupy Wall
Street
Russian
President Vladimir Putin called the massive U.S. surveillance
programs, revealed last week by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden,
“generally practicable” and “the way a civilized society should
go about fighting terrorism.” His comments, made in a far-ranging
interview to the state-backed news network RT, seemed to defend
programs that have been deeply controversial in the United States and
much of Europe, offering an endorsement that the Obama administration
is probably not thrilled to receive.
He
said of the New York city police response to Occupy Wall Street, in a
comment that seemed consistent with much of his sympathy toward
controversial U.S. programs, “That’s the way it’s done in the
U.S., and that’s the way it’s done in Russia.” That’s not
really true, of course – the United States doesn’t sentence
people who sing anti-Obama songs to labor camps – but it is
unlikely to convince many U.S. critics of NSA or drone programs.
“He
told us nothing we didn’t know before,” Putin said of Snowden,
apparently declining the opportunity to criticize the United States,
a surprising move given his government’s sometimes stringent
attacks on U.S. policy, for example during the recent controversy
over American adoptions of Russian children.
Putin
explained that government “surveillance of individuals and
organizations,” like that revealed by Snowden, “is becoming a
global phenomenon in the context of combating international
terrorism, and such methods are generally practicable.” He allowed
that “security agencies” must be “controlled by the public”
and that tapping phones should require court approval (the NSA is
required to ask a court’s permission for each case, although that
court has never actually said no). With such oversight, Putin said,
“That’s more or less the way a civilized society should go about
fighting terrorism with modern-day technology. As long as it is
exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates
intelligence activities, it’s alright.”
Putin’s
only disagreement with the United States seemed to be President
Obama’s argument, in explaining the programs, that “You can’t
have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and
zero inconvenience.” Putin responded, “Yes you can.” He argued
that requiring intelligence agencies to “obtain a warrant for
specific policing activities domestically” would satisfy both
security and privacy. This sort of thinking might make sense to the
Kremlin, but is probably not what either Obama or U.S. civil
libertarians have in mind when they talk about preserving privacy in
the fight against terrorism.
Later
in the interview, when asked about the U.S. use of drones, Putin
declined another opportunity to criticize the United States. Although
I’ve seen a number of RT segments strongly criticizing the Obama
administration’s use of drones and particularly its civilian
causalities, Putin seemed to wave off the charge. “I’m sure the
United States does not target civilians on purpose,” he said. “And
the drone operators you’ve mentioned are people, too, and I think
they understand all those things. But you still need to combat
terrorism.”
Putin
did argue that, when it comes to drones, “you need to put drones
under control, you need to lay out certain rules of engagement in
order to prevent or minimize collateral casualties. It is extremely
important.”
He
also mentioned Occupy Wall Street, comparing it to the Russian
political opposition and apparently drawing parallels between the New
York city police who cleared “Occupy” protesters from Zucotti
Park and Russia’s own crackdown on the opposition. “At a certain
point we saw the police cracking down on the Occupy Wall Street
activists. I won’t call the actions of police appropriate or
inappropriate,” he said. “If there are people who act outside the
law, then the state must use legal means to impose law in the
interests of majority. That’s the way it’s done in the U.S., and
that’s the way it’s done in Russia.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.