While I happen to agree with you, I suspect that many Americans don't see anything wrong with using information like that.
Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about.
(It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)
I think the agreement or disagreement for many (not all) Americans would depend on how the question is phrased.
If you asked Americans a pretty balanced and transparent question such as:
"Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies,
such as the NSA and CIA, using intimate personal
information gathered via surveillance programs to
coerce/blackmail democratically leaders of other countries
if it helps strengthen the US economically and
politically?"
... it would probably result in much less support for such programs.
If you ask a much more vague question such as:
"Do you support the USG and its intelligence agencies,
such as the NSA and CIA, using information gathered via
surveillance programs to help strengthen the US
economically and politically?"
... I'm certain that the degree of support would be much higher.
Most Americans support strengthening the position of the US, but I'm sure that if you get into the nitty gritty details of how that is accomplished, especially when it involves violating human rights, then I'm certain Americans will agree that there should be limits on how the USG and its intelligence agencies achieve their goals. You can see this clearly by just considering recent US transgressions on human rights such as Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition and waterboarding.
In the US we have a narrative that we are "the good guys." Foremost that means things like living up to our ideals regarding democracy and human rights.
I think polling questions which remind people of those ideals will get results that indicate the ideals are more important than the country's economic interests. I also tend to think that such wording is a more honest phrasing of such questions because they acknowledge the tension between the ideals and the "dirty" realities.
I support it. I don't see what is so abhorrent since intelligence agencies were universally established for manipulation like that. I also have a hard time believing this sort of activities are specific to US agencies.
HUMINT assets in the government of countries we are actively hostile with makes sense, but you agree with this sort of behavior even when it involves allies?
Wikileaks Stratfor release confirmed that Stratfor - one hop from, and associated directly by some with the CIA - was simply paying elected politicians within Australia. They of course claim this was for information gathering and had no effect, but since when - with 24 hours in a day - does a second income stream and work commitment not corrupt your capacity to represent your constituents in the most active and honest way possible? It's clear it was a breach of trust on the part of the official in question.
Then you have US manipulation of EU structure and policy...
That's an interesting question. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it, but I'd hope it would be regulated either by mutual agreements between allied countries, or avoided due to potential adverse effects on the alliance.
How can there be "mutual agreements" on blackmail and coercion? That's just throwing feel good words out there.
> "I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it"
This is in context about the Iraq war, but the point remains:
[..] But then we ought to just be honest and say, "Look, we're a bunch of Nazis." So fine, let's just drop all the discussion, we save a lot of trees, we can throw out the newspapers and most of the scholarly literature, and just come out, state it straight, and tell the truth: we'll do whatever we want because we think we're gonna gain by it. And incidently, it's not American citizens who'll gain. They don't gain by this. It's narrow sectors of domestic power that the administration is serving with quite unusual dedication. -- Noam Chomsky (Talk titled "Why Iraq?" at Harvard University, November 4, 2002)
Which kinda goes hand in hand with this, in response to the comments saying "oh well, everybody does it":
Of course it's extremely easy to say, the heck with it. I'm just going to adapt myself to the structures of power and authority and do the best I can within them. Sure, you can do that. But that's not acting like a decent person. You can walk down the street and be hungry. You see a kid eating an ice cream cone and you notice there's no cop around and you can take the ice cream cone from him because you're bigger and walk away. You can do that. Probably there are people who do. We call them "pathological." On the other hand, if they do it within existing social structures we call them "normal." But it's just as pathological. It's just the pathology of the general society. -- Noam Chomsky
Any time the foreigner angle comes up in some form, there are always several prolific HNers who point out that the US govt is not obligated to treat fairly or generously with other countries. Its sole goal is to ensure that whatever is in the best interest of America comes about.
(It is of course arguable whether the approach is in US's interest in the long run; but I dont think the above is an uncommon view)