6 ms·
US courts generally won't reign in the executive as long as the executive says "national security". They often won't even hear the case (for instance there has
by LatteLazy 6y ago
US courts generally won't reign in the executive as long as the executive says "national security". They often won't even hear the case (for instance there has been no ruling on the legality of most NSA activities). This is how the internment of Japanese Americans in ww2 worked: an executive order is law until a court will overturn it and they generally won't interfere in anything to do with foreign policy, national security, espionage etc...
- jimbob45 6y agoCome on, man. Don’t give credence to the US internment camps. There is a legitimate argument to be made that TikTok is funneling private US data to China, weakening natural security. There is no evidence to suggest that interning US Japanese in any way contributed to national security. Grindr got sold off by the same reasoning and no one complained because it’s a legitimate concern.
- edmatoma 6y agoWhat is the legitimate argument here?
- joshstrange 6y agoHow is the comment you are referring to giving "credence to the US internment camps"? It's using it as an example of how you can get away with whatever you want, including really terrible things like our internment camps or family separation for that matter, if you do it by EO and whisper "national security".
- jimbob45 6y agoBecause the TikTok national security concerns are plausible and the internment camp security concerns weren’t at all. One is plausible, if debatable. The other is a bald-faced conscious lie.
- joshstrange 6y agoSo your issue is with comparing the two of them? You believe that they are apples and oranges, one clearly bad and the other up for debate? I will not pretend that we will look back on the TikTok debate and be appalled by it in the same degree but let's not forget that we considered internment camps to be "debatable" and Americans overwhelmingly supported them [0]. What we call "plausible, if debatable" now is not what future-us will necessarily call it. I think the original commenter was simply pointing out the extremes of the "power" behind using "national security" as justification. [0] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/main/us-public-opinion-on-japanese-internment-1942 https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...
- colejohnson66 6y agoAlso, the NSA thing isn’t helped by courts generally not allowing illegally obtained evidence. And considering practically all NSA cases are based on leaks such as Snowden’s, the evidence is “illegally obtained” and can be thrown out.