3 ms·

The government only has the powers granted to it by the constitution. If the power for the executive to unilaterally conduct searches was not given to it, then

by c3534l 5y ago

The government only has the powers granted to it by the constitution. If the power for the executive to unilaterally conduct searches was not given to it, then it doesn't have it. Just because it doesn't say the government can't surveil foreigners doesn't mean they can - it has to specifically say the government is granted the right to surveil foreigners. And there's really very little reason to think that a power never granted to the government in the first place in the case of Americans was actually, somehow in secret, granted in the cases of non-Americans.

andred14 5y ago
The 2020 election is proof that currently what is written in the constitution does not matter
salawat 5y ago
Note: military surveillance should notcross with Law Enforcement surveillance. They are two different things in the eyes of the judiciary. The military can get away with surveillance under the mandate of defending the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. The product of that surveillance, however, is not permissible as far as I know in a court of law unless it's specifically UCMJ. Not a lawyer though. If one is around willing to enlighten us on this odd question, it'd be much obliged.
clairity 5y ago
i'd also generally agree with this, but not everyone does, so let's spell it out more clearly, even if somewhat redundantly.
ncmncm 5y ago
Government exercises exactly the powers it claims and is not restrained from exercising. E.g., the US Constitution does not grant the Executive branch the power to torture prisoners taken without due process. Instead, persons nominally overseen by the Executive branch exercise those powers exactly until they are exposed and stopped. The main use of surveillance is, always and everywhere, extortion. We see this daily among local, state, and federal police, abusing it to coerce the public to become informants; among prosecutors to coerce false admissions of guilt; and among spooks to convert formerly free individuals to "assets", and to enforce silence about abuses. It is used to coerce judges to issue unjust orders and decisions, to coerce witnesses to remain silent, and to coerce elected officials to vote against the interest of their constituents, or even to step down from an elected position or not to seek re-election. It is used to coerce awarding contracts or custom to undeserving suppliers, or to coerce lower prices in services sold. Coercion need not be based on surveillance of the person coerced; it can come from surveillance of parents, siblings, offspring, friends, business partners, customers, service providers.

by c3534l 5y ago

andred14 5y ago

The 2020 election is proof that currently what is written in the constitution does not matter

salawat 5y ago

Note: military surveillance should notcross with Law Enforcement surveillance. They are two different things in the eyes of the judiciary. The military can get away with surveillance under the mandate of defending the United States from all threats, foreign and domestic. The product of that surveillance, however, is not permissible as far as I know in a court of law unless it's specifically UCMJ. Not a lawyer though. If one is around willing to enlighten us on this odd question, it'd be much obliged.

clairity 5y ago

i'd also generally agree with this, but not everyone does, so let's spell it out more clearly, even if somewhat redundantly.

ncmncm 5y ago

Government exercises exactly the powers it claims and is not restrained from exercising. E.g., the US Constitution does not grant the Executive branch the power to torture prisoners taken without due process. Instead, persons nominally overseen by the Executive branch exercise those powers exactly until they are exposed and stopped. The main use of surveillance is, always and everywhere, extortion. We see this daily among local, state, and federal police, abusing it to coerce the public to become informants; among prosecutors to coerce false admissions of guilt; and among spooks to convert formerly free individuals to "assets", and to enforce silence about abuses. It is used to coerce judges to issue unjust orders and decisions, to coerce witnesses to remain silent, and to coerce elected officials to vote against the interest of their constituents, or even to step down from an elected position or not to seek re-election. It is used to coerce awarding contracts or custom to undeserving suppliers, or to coerce lower prices in services sold. Coercion need not be based on surveillance of the person coerced; it can come from surveillance of parents, siblings, offspring, friends, business partners, customers, service providers.