party like it's 1998

Seriously? They're hyping this scoop now? I know the headline says "sex tape" and that will always be popular. But it's still hard for me to believe that anyone gives a shit about that particular matter now. Are they just trying to resurrect the early glory days of bullshit Republican scandals in anticipation of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign?

(via Memeorandum)

predictive search

While I understand why technophiles would think this is an exciting possibility, I doubt if it will catch on in the near future. Basically, it would have to be really really good to not be annoying. No matter how good the program is at snooping and how expert the algorithm is at piecing stuff together, it's still going to misread the signs on occasion. And that is what will kill its appeal for most people.

We already have a lot of programs that try to guess what we want. Think of autocorrect or all those annoying functions in Microsoft Word. Both have spawned an entire subculture of complaints. The problem is that even if the computerized guesswork is mostly good, the user is only going to remember the times it fucks up. Despite all my bitching, autocorrect usually guesses right, probably 95% of the words I type. But I tap out a lot on my phone, so that 5% failure rate comes up every second or third sentence. Although the technology is highly successful with a 95% accuracy rate, the user feels like it is failing all the time. Even if the screw up rate was significantly reduced, to only 1% or a half percent, it will happen too often for the user to feel like it is a success.

A predictive search app like the ones described in the NYT article have to be on all the time. After all, the idea is that it will run constantly in the background and remind you of stuff that you haven't even thought of asking about yet. But always on means that any small chance of error will quickly pile up. Unless it is virtually perfect, the user will suffer through constant reminders of its shortcomings. Which is why I don't think it will fly.

Endgame for Egypt's Latest Crisis

I keep wondering about al-Sisi's plan for the endgame of Egypt's current constitutional crisis. He has pledged to hold new parliamentary elections within the next six months, with presumably a new presidential election sometime afterwards. Meanwhile, the Egyptian military is engaged in a crackdown against both the supporters and leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. If Egypt has a real (by that I mean fair) election, the MB is likely to win, which would put the very people who the military is cracking down upon theoretically in charge. So what is al-Sisi planning to do? Here are all the scenarios I can come up with:

1. Al-Sisi has no intention to hold free elections. Maybe he will hold fake elections, or maybe he will just delay them endlessly, leaving him in charge of Egypt for the indefinite future. In other words, al-Sisi is the new Mubarak, or maybe Pinochet. It's not clear to me how the world will tolerate that outcome without at least the appearance of a free election.
   
   
2. Al-Sisi will try to hold a free election, but will ban the MB. That's actually difficult to do effectively, because the MB candidate doesn't have to run as the "Muslim Brotherhood candidate." The people who would otherwise call themselves "Muslim Brotherhood" could run under the banner of a different Islamist party, or come up with a new party name that is understood to be an alter ego of the MB. Which would make the military spend the pre-election period chasing alleged MB sympathizers around, shutting down one alter-ego party after another. But because the Muslim Brotherhood has such a substantial percentage of the Egyptian population supporting them, if too many parties are excluded from the race, the election will no longer be viewed as real, which will give the Western powers the choice of either pretending the election really is free when everyone knows it is not, or rejecting the legitimacy of the election. I think it's highly unlikely for the West to do the latter. Which means that scenario #2 actually turns into the fake elections scenario under #1.
   
   
3. After this initial crackdown, al-Sisi will reconcile or reach some kind of arrangement with the MB that allows them to participate in politics going forward. But if that's the plan, what is the point of this crackdown?
   
   
4. Al-Sisi thinks he can wipe out the Brotherhood as a political force, and then it will be okay to hold free elections, with little fear of a MB win.
   

Am I missing anything? I don't see any other possibilities.

If al-Sisi is not delusional, he's probably going for #1, a fake election with enough of a veneer of fairness for the west to tolerate it. But I'm afraid he's actually trying for #4, even though it can't work. Mubarak spent three decades trying to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood and yet they emerged after that long crackdown as the most popular political group in the country. How can al-Sisi hope for a different outcome in just 6 months? If he really wanted to discredit the MB, he should have let Morsi serve out his term.

not working

"This is a preparation for eliminating the Brotherhood," said Emad Shahin, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo.

Isn't that what the Mubarak regime tried and failed to do? It spent decades trying to wipe out the MB from Egyptian society, but still the Brotherhood managed to decisively win both the parliamentary and presidential elections after Mubarak was chased out of power. I don't think "eliminating the Brotherhood" is in the cards, which means the generals are going to have to find a way to live with them. Why aren't they getting that?

Also that's a really stupid name for a political party

Can I think that WikiLeaks is an incredibly useful organization, one that I am very glad exists (even though I don't always agree with everything they do), while at the same time having very little patience for the self-aggrandizement of Julian Assange (not to mention that he's an accused rapist)? If only WikiLeaks could ditch the guy, I would like the organization more. Maybe then it would stop wasting its time on ridiculous vanity projects like this.

And if WikiLeaks becomes a political party, it undermines its own credibility as a source for information.

not with a bang but with a Visa

I bet Snowden was pretty sick of eating three meals a day at Cinnabon.

UPDATE: I guess I spoke too soon. It sounds like he's still working his way through "Crime and Punishment" over his Cinnabon.

Seriously, I wonder what the guy does all day. He clearly isn't in the regular passenger transit area, or reporters would have pounced on him by now. So that means he must be sitting in some area that the general public doesn't have access to, which also means that he can't go to the restaurants or shops like other passengers. So how much space does he have? Is it any different from a holding cell?

the Deal

I'm in the finger lakes region this week. At first I was thinking of never mentioning that fact on this site and to continue trying to post like normal for the duration of my stay. You know, like the big bloggers do sometimes when they don't want to go through the rigmarole of guest bloggers and stuff. But it has already been a few days and I'm not posting like normal yet. And also, who cares? It's not like anyone is paying that much attention to me here. Plus this site is officially anti-guest blogger. This is my sandbox and all it is supposed to do is reflect the stuff I think about. If you plop me by a lake for a week, it is sure to affect my thinking somehow. So why hide it?

Anyway, that's the deal.

Sir Mix a Lot does Penzance

Apparently you can't get confirmed as Chair of the Joint Chiefs if you believe in civilian control of the military

Every once in a while, I am reminded that this country really dodged a bullet when McCain lost in 2008:

Senator John McCain said Thursday that he intended to block President Obama’s nomination of Gen. Martin E. Dempsey to another two-year term as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mr. McCain made his announcement after he and the general had a testy exchange over whether the Obama administration was doing enough to assist the Syrian rebels.

What exactly about Dempsey has gotten McCain's goat? It was this:

Mr. McCain opened his talk with General Dempsey with a pointed question: “Do you believe the continued costs and risks of our inaction in Syria are now worse for our national security interests than the costs and risks associated with limited military action?"

General Dempsey said the administration had been active in supporting Syrian rebel forces, and described his role as advising the president on the risks and benefits of military options. But he emphasized that only the civilian leadership could order military action

“I am in favor of building a moderate opposition and supporting it,” General Dempsey said. “The question whether to support it with direct kinetic strikes is a decision for our elected officials, not for the senior military leader of the nation.”

In all fairness to McCain, I don't think he's actually opposed to civilian control of the military. He's just opposed to the civilian who currently controls it. You know, the guy who was definitively elected twice by the American people, which happens to be another part of the whole civilian-control-of-the-military thing.

Rubio and immigration reform

The thing that drove me crazy about Marco Rubio was how he was always portrayed as the right's guy who could deliver immigration reform. He was portrayed that way because he is Hispanic, and immigration reform is viewed as a major issue with Hispanics. That's because a large proportion of the recent immigrants (legal or not) in this country are Mexican, which is the nationality of most Hispanics in this country.

But Rubio isn't Mexican, he is Cuban. And Cubans are a weird category under U.S. immigration law. Thanks to the cold war and our long-standing pissing match with Castro, Cubans are treated differently than everyone else in the world. If a Cuban makes it to the U.S., he or she can legally stay here under the "wet feet, dry feet" policy. It doesn't matter whether that person applied to enter the U.S. through the regular visa process, snuck in without a visa, or even has a passport. Cubans can only be illegal immigrants before they reach U.S. soil (when they are still "wet feet"). Once they set foot here, they become legal, in what amounts to a de facto automatic amnesty program.

The regular immigration rules simply don't apply to Cubans. No one else in the world gets such a good deal. If a British citizen showed up in Miami without his passport, he gets deported. If a Cuban does the same thing, he can stay, apply to be a permanent resident, and eventually citizen. Cubans are not part of the illegal immigrant community because there really aren't Cuban illegal immigrants. That means that the Cuban-American community is not directly impacted at all by the fucked-upedness of the current American immigration system. They are not clamoring for reform because they are already receiving the benefits of a reformed system that applies only to them.

While I think that any American should be able to advocate for immigration reform, including Cuban-Americans. But having a Cuban background does not give you any special insight into the plight of immigrants under the current system. On the contrary, it's the background that is likely to give you the least insight on that issue. Underlying the Rubio-immigration reform association is an unfounded assumption that all Hispanics are essentially the same. Rubio may have been interested in immigration issues on their own merits. But his ethnic background and community is not a reason to credit him with any leg up on the issue.

ACA vs. Imaginary System is not a Good Argument

I wouldn't use the word "great" to describe the ACA, but Matthew Yglesias does highlight one of the things that drives me batty when I read criticism of the health care law: "a lot of this criticism comes in the form of comparing the reality of the ACA to an abstract idealized system rather than comparing it to the status quo."

Is Obamacare really fucking  complicated? Yes, the pre-Obamacare health care system was really fucking complicated too. Are a lot of people ignorant about the health care law? Yes, but a lot of people had little idea how the pre-ACA system really worked either, including their own insurance policy. Have insurance rates gone up since the ACA was passed? Yes, but they also were rising before it was passed and it looks like the ACA will significantly cut costs in the States that are actually trying to enact the law rather than undermine it. There are plenty of things to complain about in the American health care system. It's just that a lot of the complaints directed against Obamacare are actually complaints about problems in the health care system that existed independently of that law.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the new health care law. It definitely has problems. But if you're going to make an argument that the law sucks and should not have been passed, the relevant comparison is what we have now versus what we would have had without Obamacare. If something sucks now under the ACA, you need to also argue that that thing didn't suck as much before the ACA was enacted or at least would not have sucked as much if it never was passed.

just nuke them already

In 2008, one of the major reasons that I voted for Barack Obama over John McCain is I wanted Obama to appoint the people who serve on the NLRB. It obviously was far from the only reason that I voted for Obama, but it was a big deal because I see the impact of NLRB appointments just about every day. I also realize that wasn't a big issue for most voters. But it was in the mix somewhere, and Obama won by a definitive margin. Then he did again in 2012.

So why the fuck would the democrats agree to let John McCain decide who gets nominated to serve on the NLRB? I know why, because they're democrats. They like to cave into the GOP. But it really galls me that McCain of all people, the guy who the American people clearly stated should not have the power of the executive, would have a role in selecting these presidential appointments.

Luckily, last night's negotiations seemed to have failed. I'm hoping the nukes are flying before the morning is out.

UPDATE: dammit.
UPDATE THE SECOND: more details. Of course the one thing the dems did throw to the repubs were the nominations that I happened to care the most about. Then again, I'm not super-attached to Griffin and Block if they are replaced by equivalent nominees and right away. But it really has to be "right away," like Obama should nominate someone else today. Delay while all NLRB actions are arguably illegal is causing all kinds of havok. This needs to get fixed yesterday. I doubt if things will actually move that fast, so nuking is still better than this.
UPDATE THE THIRD: the two replacement NLRB nominees have to be voted on by August 27th, which isn't horrible, but it still means another six weeks of NLRB action that will have a giant question mark hanging over it until the Supreme Court fucks it all up next year.

McDonalds Inadvertently Makes a Compelling Case That It Doesn't Pay a Living Wage

(via Levana on FB)

Welcome, but still half-assed

Steve Benen is wrong on this one, or at least he is to the extent he is implying that filibusters of judicial nominees is not highly destructive. While I will welcome it if Reid suddenly discovers that he has a backbone and uses the nuclear option to eliminate the filibusters of confirmation votes for executive-branch nominees, it doesn't make sense to preserve the filibuster for judicial nominees.

Executive branch nominees just serve for a relatively short duration. Judicial nominees have a lifetime appointment. The Republicans determination to filibusters so many judicial nominees means that the conservatives that W packed on the court will continue to dominate most federal courts. The damaged caused by the current abuse of the filibuster for judicial nominees will be felt for decades. In that sense, Judicial filibusters is just as much a pressing issue as the filibuster of executive branch appointments is.

Baheyya on the Egyptian Coup

I'm not sure if this was really the Egyptian military's plan all along, or if they just did what they could to foster discontent over Morsi and then took advantage of it when frustration boiled over. But this seems to be a really plausible reading of what happened.

Adrian Carton de Wiart: badass

Wow, that is the best opening paragraph of any Wikipedia entry ever.

Overclassification: Hypothetical Vacuum Cleaner Edition

I can't conceive of any reason that discussing the existence of a vacuum cleaner that may have been designed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would raise any legitimate national security concerns. I mean, even if we assume that might have "intended to use the plans to conceal secret information or trick his jailers," how does that justify classifying the very existence of the vacuum? It's not like the existence of the vacuum tells us what that secret information is.

And for that matter, why can they tell us that KSM "enjoyed the Harry Potter series"? Because the CIA searched every page after he finished to see if he scrawled any secret messages in the margins, doesn't that make the Potter books just like the vacuum? Maybe the existence of Harry Potter as a fictional character should be a state secret.

U.S. aid to Egypt will not be cut

It doesn't matter what the law says, there is no way that the U.S. will cut off aid to Egypt.

Egypt gets the second largest American aid package in the world (the first goes to Israel) and most of that aid is military aid. How did Egypt end up with such a nice deal? It's basically a bribe for abiding by the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.

The aid package is a significant portion of the Egyptian military's budget. If it is cut off, the military would really suffer. And that reality is why, even when the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that has long been against the Camp David Accords, gained power last year, Mohamed Morsi agreed to abide by the peace agreement. The bottom line is that the military would not have let him do anything else. And that's why the peace agreement with Israel is not at risk no matter who comes into power next. The generals know how to keep the gravy train running.

If aid is cut off for reasons beyond the Egyptian military's control (like if Rand Paul gets his way and Congress or the President does cuts it off), the peace treaty would probably not last long. Israel is very unpopular with the Egyptian public. Enforcing the treaty (not to mention Egypt's part in the blockage of Gaza) is a drag on the popular support of whoever is in power. Without the cash to make it worthwhile to buck public pressure, most Egyptian governments would find an excuse to back out of it. That doesn't necessarily mean that Egypt would declare war on Israel. But an Egyptian government freed from the constraints of the aid package might do other things that Israel wouldn't like that they can't do under the accord, like publicly renouncing peace with Israel, closing the Israeli embassy in Cairo, barring Israelis from entering Egyptian territory, barring tourists with an Israeli stamp in their passport from entering Egypt, re-militarizing the Sinai Peninsula, et cetera.

But that is also why neither Congress nor the President will cut off aid to Egypt. Both major American political parties consider Israeli security as one of the top, if not the top, American interest in the region. Both parties regularly fall all over themselves to show that they are looking out for Israel more than anyone else. As a critic of Israeli policy, I find that phenomenon to be very frustrating. But that's just reality. So long as aid to Egypt protects Israeli interests, that aid is secure.

The loophole

Germany has some of the toughest privacy protection laws in the world. They forced google to pull its street view images for the entire country and there remains a German-sized hole in the world street view coverage map. In the U.S., at least theoretically, people are protected by the Fourth Amendment against government searches. Of course, each countries' legal protections don't apply to surveillance of people outside their borders.

So if you're an American official and want surveillance data on your own people, what do you do? Call your German counterpart and offer a trade! You get German surveillance of Americans and give them American surveillance of Germans. Everyone gets the spy data they want and everyone abides by the letter of the law.

Which means that if we really want to protect privacy in any meaningful way, we need to deal with it on the international level.  But because in practice international law is more of a general guideline than real law, it's not going to work. Even if there are strong on paper protections, it probably won't be respected by signatory countries with national security on their mind.

Which means I don't see a plausible way to really protect people's privacy in the modern world.

National park

I thought the Congress could only create national parks inside U.S. territory. On the other hand, I guess those astronauts did plant a flag on the moon. If only the moon were made of guano that might have been legally binding.

(via memeorandum)

Bruni vs. Weiner

I just don't get why Frank Bruni, or anyone else, gets all indignant about Anthony Weiner. Other than the fact that his name makes some pretty obvious jokes, I never cared at all about his sex scandal. I would not have cared if he did not resigned from Congress and it doesn't bother me at all that he now wants to be mayor of NYC. And furthermore, I don't get why anyone, except maybe religious fundamentalists who are deep in a culture that condemns perceived sexual deviance, would care that much about this stuff.

And then there's Bruni's weird rule that politicians who have a sex scandal in their past may only seek lower office when they make their comeback. So it's okay for Eliot Spitzer to run for Comptroller, but not okay for Weiner to run for Mayor, Where does this rule come from? If it's just something that Bruni came up with himself, then why should the rest of us want to follow his arbitrary personal rule? And since when is Mayor, even mayor of the biggest metro area in the country, a higher office than U.S. Congressman? If I adopted Bruni's rule, I still would think that Weiner for Mayor is kosher.

What are we there for?

The zero option seems like the only sensible option to me.

What's remarkable is not just that no one who supports a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan at this point has managed explain what exactly they are going to accomplish, it's that American politicians aren't even trying to make that case anymore. The establishment wants to stay in Afghanistan because... um, because leaving would be bad. If we can't articulate clear goals for our military adventures, we don't have clear goals. So there's no point and we should get out.

TV news is still king

I find this to be really surprising: "TV Is Americans' Main Source of News", mostly because I get almost none of my news from TV. While I realize I am an outlier when it comes to TV watching in general, I really was under the impression that internet sources had displaced the cable news channels.

Also, TV news sources, at least the ones you can get in the U.S., are mostly pretty terrible. CNN-International is much better than the dumbed down domestic CNN, which just goes to show how little the powers that be think of the American audience. So maybe part of my surprise was wishful thinking.

(via Memorandum)

Where my head still is

When I got wind of the Asiana Airlines crash yesterday, I initially read "Asiana" as "Astana". It's only one letter difference, though I also know that Air Astana doesn't have any flights to SFO (or anywhere else in the U.S.)

al-Hurra?

Why does al-Hurra still exist? Al-Hurra was the Bush administration's Arab-language news channel. The administration created the channel in an attempt to compete with al-Jazeera, which it viewed as anti-American. The ploy didn't work. Al-Hurrah has never been nearly as popular as al-Jazeera, or even its Saudi-financed competitor, al-Arabia, as it has always been tainted by its U.S. financing and the notion that it is little more than an American propaganda channel.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration's premises for the necessity of al-Hurra were never accurate. Al-Jazeera certainly has its problems--its ideological slant is a kind of soft pan-Arabism with a real blind spot when it comes to the problems of Qatar, the nation that funds the channel. But I have never thought it was not specifically anti-American, although it does not shy away from critical reporting about the U.S. The Bush administration was also incorrect in believing that al-Jazeera suffered from a lack of competition. That might have been true when al-J first formed in the 1990s, but these days there are a ton of Arabic-language satellite news channels, not just the indigenous pan-Arab channels like al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya, but also foreign based competitors like CNN-Arabic, BBC-Arabic, France 24-Arabic, Russiya al-Youm (Russia Today-Arabic), CCTV-Arabic (Chinese Central Television), and probably others that I have not encountered yet.

The Arabic language news field is quite crowded. Considering that that field already includes at least one American channel, CNN-Arabic, what is the point of spending tax dollars on another one?

What is that certain je ne se quoi?

I guess they didn't wait.

(video idea stolen from Baji on FB)

They're coming for our holidays

Earlier today, when the Egyptian military's 48 hour deadline expired (at 10:30am EDT) and nothing seemed to be happening, my first thought was that the military will give him an extra day. That way the coup would happen on July 4th. Then later on the Egypt could appropriate the day as a national holiday commemorating the start of, um, whatever happens next.

It's been less than five hours and the army is on the move. Still, Cairo is 6 hours ahead of the American East Coast when the U.S. is on daylight savings time. If they delay snatching Morsi by just a few hours it will be July 4th in Egypt. I'm telling ya. That's the plan. Because the entire world is just as American-centric as Americans are. You heard it from me first.

okay, that's pretty funny

Because Assad must just be trying to poke Morsi for this, or maybe this. Regardless, it's just a poke, right?

The world cries out for a new Snowden photo

Seriously. I am so tired of the above photo. I snatched it from this article but I could have grabbed the same image from countless others.

I know the guy has been in hiding for most of the time that he has been in the public eye. But surely someone can dig up a yearbook photo or an embarrassing pic from some social network site. C'mon people, work with me here!

Follow-ups

Farrah Halime's consideration of whether Mohamed Morsi should resign seems like a nice follow-up to my thoughts from yesterday. She makes a convincing case for a middle ground.

As for my other thoughts from yesterday, I think today's Snowden news pretty much puts them to bed. I guess he isn't going to be snatched up by Russia after all.

And longtime readers of this  blog (yes, both of you) should listen to this week's This American Life. Actually, shorttime readers and non-readers should too. The episode is about Kirk Johnson's efforts to get U.S. visas for Iraqis who worked for the U.S. and then had their lives threatened because of it.Kirk became a blog friend after I linked to his (now long defunct) blog and he gave me some tips about studying Arabic. For a little while, he was a fairly regular presence on this site. Then he got involved in The List Project and I did a little bit to try to promote that, but not really enough to make much of a difference. I don't think he reads this site anymore and, although we are Facebook friends, I have not been in touch with him for a while. But I remain an admirer of what he has done. The TAL piece is an overview of his whole "The List" effort. You should listen to it.

Egyptian Democracy

I'm no fan of the Muslim Brotherhood or Mohamed Morsi, but I don't think it would be good for Egypt if Morsi were to be forced out of power right now. He was elected, which means he has legitimacy and is entitled to a certain amount of time to carry out his agenda before the people get to decide whether to fire him. I don't think a year is enough time. Under the Egyptian constitution he is supposed to have a four year term. He should be allowed to complete that term, unless there is some constitutional basis for removing him early.

This really isn't about Morsi. If it were, I would not have a problem with chasing him out of office right now. It's about how Egypt can establish a stable democratic system, where the losers in an election will respect the results and work towards winning at the next election rather than trying to overturn the order through some extra-constitutional process.

That's why a democratic revolution is so difficult. Once you chase out an unpopular leader, the people are going to want to chase out every leader after that whenever he or she goes through a period of unpopularity. Instead of relying upon a new democratic process, the people will logically go with the method that worked before when they got rid of the old regime. And so the original revolution that topples the tyrant ends up toppling subsequent elected leaders too. Which means you are left with chronic instability and mob rule until eventually people get sick of all the lawlessness, declare democracy a failure, and throw their support behind a strong man.

Once again, Morsi seems like a shitty leader. But if you're going to cultivate a democratic culture, removing him on an extra-constitutional basis would not be a step forward.
 

Russian Officials Think Russia is an Awesome Place to Seek Asylum for Someone Who Has Info They Want

Let me get this straight: Snowden allegedly has asked fifteen different countries for political asylum. He made the request in writing, but no one has seen the writing except Russian diplomatic officials. Those officials also won't disclose the names of the countries, but other Russian officials have said that Russia happens to be on the list.

Meanwhile, no one other than Russian officials can say that they have actually seen Snowden in the past week even though he's supposedly living in a normally bustling transit area of a major international hub.

This is just feeding the suspicions I mentioned this morning.

(via Memeorandum)

Snowden

It has been a while since there have been any public statements from Edward Snowden. The press keeps referring to him as being holed up in the transit area of Sheremetyevo International Airport. And yet for the past week the press has flooded that very transit area and no one has found him.

Apparently, there are a bunch of locked areas. But at this point isn't it increasingly likely that Snowden is somewhere else? Like maybe an FSB interrogation facility? That would be my guess.

And also, when Snowden missed his flight to Havana last week, what if he thought he would be on the flight but was snatched before he could board? At the time, I treated it like Snowden decided not to show up, but what if he didn't have a choice? Is there any reason to believe he hasn't been disappeared already?

Joining the Ranks of Outlaw Regimes

The revelation that the U.S. has been spying on European diplomatic personnel is a big fucking deal. Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA director claimed it would be a lesser fucking deal because:

'No. 1: The United States does conduct espionage,' Mr. Hayden said. 'No. 2: Our Fourth Amendment, which protects Americans’ privacy, is not an international treaty. And No. 3: Any European who wants to go out and rend their garments with regard to international espionage should look first and find out what their own governments are doing."

But what about No. 4: Hayden is missing the entire point.

Of course, the U.S. conducts espionage and of course all of the spied-upon Europeans do too. And we know that the Fourth Amendment is not an international treaty. But you know what is an international treaty? The Vienna Convention.

Article 22 of that document (pdf) requires that all diplomatic missions be "inviolable" and that their premises, including "their furnishings and other property thereon" (i.e. that would cover their computers and telephones) be immune from any searches from any other signatory governments. Article 24 requires that "The archives and documents of the mission shall be inviolable at any time and wherever they may be." Article 27 further states that "The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions." Article 30, Paragraph 2, extends those confidentiality protections to the private residence of diplomatic agents, and insures the privacy of "His papers, correspondence and, except as provided in paragraph 3 of article 31, his property, shall likewise enjoy inviolability" (Article 31, Paragraph 3 refers to circumstances in which diplomatic immunity would not apply in a criminal case).

The Vienna Convention was ratified by the U.S. in 1961. Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution that makes the Vienna Convention the "supreme law of the land."

The U.S. (justifiably) threw a fit when Iran stormed its embassy in 1979 and when the Soviet Union was caught bugging the U.S. Embassy during the cold war. The Europeans have every reason to get on their high horse now.