4 ms·

> As is, this is easy to sort out: the Bill of Rights restricts the actions of the US Government and no one else As a matter of law, this is correct. It's true

> As is, this is easy to sort out: the Bill of Rights restricts the actions of the US Government and no one else As a matter of law, this is correct. It's true that the Bill of Rights is only legally binding in America. But we are not here arguing that the Bill of Rights aught to be binding on the whole world. The argument is that Congress ought to treat the Bill of Rights as if it were binding on the whole world. These aren't just laws, they are foundational principles. Under the letter of the law, Congress isn't prohibited from secretly imprisoning and torturing random people on foreign soil, but that doesn't mean that this behavior is okay, it means they've found a loophole and they don't care about the principles.

Bartweiss 8y ago
I'm still confused about the connection back to Google in China, if that's implied here. I absolutely agree that the US government's behavior regarding detention, torture, rendition, and so on was horrifying and immoral, and it betrays an utter lack of conscience in most everyone involved. And, I agree that the acts remain dubiously legal at best. For American-administered treatment, the determination of combatant status was almost certainly done improperly to the Geneva standard. For foreign administration, the practice of extraordinary rendition itself was unambiguously illegal, and if "here, violate the Constitution for us" wasn't actually illegal, it was obviously counter to intent. The thing I still can't reconcile is how Google's action undirected by the USG is comparable to torture/rendition/etc done directly under government instruction. The Bill of Rights doesn't even bind non-government actors domestically, so I'm struggling to understand the appeals in this thread to 'enforce' it regarding Google in China.
- Rapzid 8y ago
  The common thread is taking a dump on our principals when it's expedient and occurs outside of the US. As well, the mental gymnastics people go through to rationalize and justify those actions.

Bartweiss 8y ago

I'm still confused about the connection back to Google in China, if that's implied here. I absolutely agree that the US government's behavior regarding detention, torture, rendition, and so on was horrifying and immoral, and it betrays an utter lack of conscience in most everyone involved. And, I agree that the acts remain dubiously legal at best. For American-administered treatment, the determination of combatant status was almost certainly done improperly to the Geneva standard. For foreign administration, the practice of extraordinary rendition itself was unambiguously illegal, and if "here, violate the Constitution for us" wasn't actually illegal, it was obviously counter to intent. The thing I still can't reconcile is how Google's action undirected by the USG is comparable to torture/rendition/etc done directly under government instruction. The Bill of Rights doesn't even bind non-government actors domestically, so I'm struggling to understand the appeals in this thread to 'enforce' it regarding Google in China.

Rapzid 8y ago
The common thread is taking a dump on our principals when it's expedient and occurs outside of the US. As well, the mental gymnastics people go through to rationalize and justify those actions.