11 ms·
> Why should an agency be allowed to spy on non-americans more anyway? Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. They may also be looked at more i
by brvsft 3y ago
> Why should an agency be allowed to spy on non-americans more anyway?
Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. They may also be looked at more in a more adversarial manner.
I'm not suggesting this is right, just what I'd guess the logic is.
- qup 3y agoI'll suggest it's right. I elected the government in large part to protect...us. I want them to spy on our enemies. And I want them to roast for spying on us.
- cmilton 3y ago>I elected the government in large part to protect...us. Protect you from who? >I want them to spy on our enemies. Who are these enemies, and how did we identify them as such? Do we just spy until we found one?
- argiopetech 3y agoAll enemies, foreign and domestic, specifically those operating within the federal borders of the United States, it's territories, and any foreign holdings (e.g., embassy grounds). Investigation should begin with crimes that have occurred, suss out those circumstances where there is a bigger picture, and attain warrants for further investigation. Lack of probable cause means no search, a right extended by Amendment IV to all people (at least within US holdings as described above, which is where I think the FBI should be operating). The fault here lies with Congress. FISA is their doing, and it expressly violates all clauses of Amendment IV. The FBI is at fault for swinging this particular bat in a room full of citizens, but they shouldn't have been given the bat to begin with. Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL.
- cmilton 3y ago>The fault here lies with Congress. The fault lies with the idea that there always needs to be an enemy.
- tekknik 3y agoWhat experience, metrics, literally any data are you basing this on? Do you believe Russia is a current enemy of the US? How about North Korea and China?
- cmilton 3y agoThe life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Enemies to the US aren't necessarily enemies to me. Should I be forced to inherit these enemies? I agree with self defense. However, I'm not sure this is always the case.
- rootusrootus 3y ago> The life I've lived would be my experience. I have had zero direct interactions with any of these enemies. Is that perhaps a direct result of the USG protecting you from them?
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago> Why FISA hasn't had a Supreme Court challenge on constitutional grounds is beyond me, but IANAL. Not for lack of trying. Apparently it's very hard to show standing[1]. This is going to need a legislative solution, or none at all. [1] https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes-it-harder-to-challenge-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act https://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172998760/supreme-court-makes...
- chmod775 3y ago>I want them to spy on our enemies. Do you have friends too? Does being spied on by the states mean you're their enemy?
- aa-jv 3y agoAmericans do spy on their friends. And, even worse: they use their friends to spy on their other friends. Basically, anyone "not a Fed" in the USA, is an enemy. And even then ..
- koonsolo 3y agoWhat about EU? Are we enemies?
- lynx23 3y agoOf course we are. Asking nicely will only get you a lie as an answer.
- ethbr0 3y agoIn geopolitical terms, every country is an enemy (in the sense that I believe parent used it) precisely because every country is autonomous. "It" may decide on courses of action that are in its best interests but detrimental to others, even if it has no history of that behavior. Same reason the US had war plans targeting essentially the entire world in the interwar years -- you never know. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_plans#List_of_color_plans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_wa...
- koonsolo 3y agoWar Plan White means your own citizens are also considered enemies, which means you also need to spy on them.
- ethbr0 3y agoIndeed! But that's where Constitutional protections come in, and why the Bill of Rights was added.
- tastyfreeze 3y agoThe Bill of Rights only codified natural rights that exist for all. It is not a grant of rights given by the government. The Bill of Rights is a statement from the people to the government. "These are some of our rights and you will respect them."
- laratied 3y agoThis is completely disregarding the reality that it is not obvious who is the enemy. When you can't tell who the enemy is then everyone is suspect and the later naturally arises.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoClassic self-fulfilling prophecy. I don't think the spying made any friends, on the contrary. And in effect it didn't increase security either because people are way more distrustful. It is an overall net negative strategy.
- pjc50 3y agoThis logic doesn't work because in many cases the spying is on things like communications. And you can't tell whose communications they are until after you've spied on them. Bytes don't have little US flag stickers on them. EU human rights law doesn't make this distinction between citizen and non-citizen.
- capitol_ 3y agoThis demonstrates why the Schrems II judgement was so important.
- raxxorraxor 3y agoIt think this ignores the simple economics of surveillance and information gathering. Mass surveillance of this type is always directed at a countries own sphere of influence, domestic and at close allies. There is little camaraderie between people in power and the average citizen. On the contrary, to keep the power, you must collect info on everyone that could become a danger to you. In racing teams your largest opponent is often your racing partner. Surveillance of foreign adversaries is best done by getting info on key players. Why would info on the average foreign citizen matter at all? It just isn't interesting information.
- shadowgovt 3y agoI strongly suspect that post-January 6, the ease with which Americans can draw that border has decreased. You poll 10 random Americans on whether they think the government should have all powers necessary to defend against another January 6th riot and I don't know what they'll say.
- kernal 3y ago1 person was murdered on January 6 and she was a Trump supporter killed by a careless trigger happy cop that was known for leaving his gun in the bathroom >A spokeswoman for the department told Roll Call that Lt. Mike Byrd will be investigated after his Glock-22, which has no manual safety to prevent unintended firing, was found “during a routine security sweep” by another officer in a bathroom on Monday. https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/431924-capitol-police-officer-left-weapon-unattended-in-capitol/ https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/431924-cap... 30+ people were killed during the riots of 2020.
- tremon 3y agoYou are aware that you are conversing with many such "enemies" every day, through venues like this site? What about US citizens that regularly converse with your enemies? Can they be spied on too?
- aa-jv 3y ago>Non-Americans don't have the same rights as Americans. It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is causing so much calamity in the world today, alas. Americans should really, really not accept this state of affairs - either American lives are human lives, and are thus as valuable as any other human life, or they aren't - and therefore international law need not apply to Americans in other aspects of life, either. The efforts to which an American citizen will proclaim their exceptionalism over the rest of the world and duplicity in applying that exceptionalism is a major cause of the diminished trust that the world feels for the USA, today.
- tekknik 3y ago[flagged]
- rs999gti 3y ago> the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Not actual law or legally binding.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> It is precisely this violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Pretty much all countries distinguish citizens from non-citizens. This isn't an American thing. And you're committing a category error, namely that rights Americans have aren't a superset of any internationally agreed rights. They are.
- lynx23 3y agoThere you have it, all the reasons you ever need to explain why foreign countries are not very thrilled about the prospect of having to share personal data about their citizens. Given this attitude, and the evidence of misuse, why should any sane country cooperate willingly and put their citizens at risk?
- pseudo0 3y agoAmerican law enforcement also has the power to throw Americans in jail. Therefore it is much more important to strictly regulate what information they obtain and how they obtain it when it pertains to Americans. Non-Americans generally don't run the risk of having their civil rights violated by US agencies (barring extraordinary cases, eg. extradition requests). And even then, extraditions can be contested if the evidence was obtained through improper means.
- argiopetech 3y agoConstitutionally, I believe this is largely untrue. Non-citizens can't vote or hold federal office, but are otherwise granted the privileges assigned to all people by the remainder of the US Constitution. This likely (IANAL) only applies within the bounds of US borders/territories/holdings, but that's where the FBI should only be operating, IMHO. The exceptions written to this by Congress (FISA, USA PATRIOT, etc.) are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
- indymike 3y agoOne of the differences in the US is that evidence obtained by espionage is rarely admissible in court. Often spying bypasses constitutional and legal protections and renders evidence unusable. In the US, cases get dismissed all the time because evidence was "fruit of the poisonous tree" where law enforcement attained evidence unconstitutionally or illegally. This evidence is not allowed in court. This often renders the work of agencies like the CIA, DIA and NSA fairly useless BUT NOT ALWAYS useless for law enforcement. A lot of the problem with FISA and PATRIOT act is they create loopholes in the line between espionage and law enforcement.
- dfxm12 3y agoSee also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
- indymike 3y agoParallel construction is unethical and often is unconstitutional. https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/may/14/parallel-construction-building-criminal-cases-using-secret-unconstitutional-surveillance/ https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/may/14/parallel-...
- tastyfreeze 3y agoI agree. The ethos of the US is described in the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Our laws, particularly those restricting government power, apply equally to all humans.
- ethbr0 3y agoSpecifically in this context -- 9/11 and perceived ongoing threats from international terror. A shocking and terrible event happens, a report identifies that intelligence agencies collectively had all the pieces to prevent it but were unable to see the entire picture due to compartmentalization, and the country decreases that compartmentalization. Cause, reflection, and effect. After that, it's been the intertia of "hidden privacy erosion" vs "visible perception of safety." (Yes, actual safety has poor statistical support) But democracies generally discount hidden evils and multiply visible goods when voting.
- yonaguska 3y agoNot to detract from your point, which I agree with- it's very arguable that the order is wrong. The Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11- it just needed a catalyst to allow it to be passed.
- mcculley 3y ago> The Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11 Do you have a citation for this assertion?
- cronix 3y agoFeel free to watch this interview with Bill Binney, who was technical director of the NSA at the time. He goes over it in detail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3owk7vEEOvs
- mcculley 3y agoI am aware of ThinThread. The assertion made was "The Patriot Act was written and ready before 9/11". Do you have any specific pointers into where in this 2 hour 35 minute video that claim is made? Or better yet, does anyone have a pointer to anything in writing?
- 3y ago