I doubt that the rest of the world shares your poor understanding of U.S history, traditions and government to think that domestic espionage is even legal in the United States, let alone acceptable or commonplace.
It's possible that Europeans who live in countries ruled by, or formerly ruled by, monarchies, would tend to accept a government whose power extends much further into lives of its citizens than most Americans would be comfortable with. Domestic espionage may in fact be acceptable in those countries as long as the protection of its citizens was the justification. That argument would not be a winning argument in the U.S.
This reason for the different standards is more than just the difference between the highly-regulated, highly-taxed (but with generous social benefits) "nanny" states of Europe versus the lax (or lawless), lightly-taxed (and stingy social benefits) of the U.S. The reason for the different views lies in each side's history. The U.S as a country was created by a rebellion against a benign, but autocratic authority. Those who rebelled did so because they felt that the British monarchy had no clear limits on its power over them as individuals. They wanted a government that had limits on its power, while guaranteeing them their own "inalienable" rights.
The framers of the U.S Constitution therefore were wary of a government wielding too much power over the individuals whose interests it served to protect. The U.S Constitution therefore sharply defined the limits of the government's power, and also clearly defined some of the rights of the individual upon which the government could not infringe. Against that backdrop, domestic spying completely violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment ensures the security of the individual in their home while prohibiting the government from making unreasonable searches and seizures of that home.
No one who has longed lived in America would ever expect the police to show up at their house one day to search it, just to "make sure" there was no contraband. While such a policy of blanket house searches would no doubt be effective against criminal activity, it would do so at the expense of the rights of the individual. Similarly, covert domestic operations by the CIA not only violates the Agency's own charter and U.S. law, it violates all notions of acceptable behavior of the U.S government versus its citizens. In fact rumors of such activity against anti-war activists nearly ruined the Agency in the late 60s. So much so, that it is inconceivable that anyone in the agency would risk a long jail sentence in order to conduct such activities against U.S corporations, of all the unlikely targets. |
