4 ms·

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibition

While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain. It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US. When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose. Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity

bane 3y ago
As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally. I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control >> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally. No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.
  - bane 3y ago
    Why doesn't it?
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments. If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all
      - bane 3y ago
        But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.
        bane 3y ago
        > The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be. If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?
Dalewyn 3y ago
You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American. In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location. We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.
- morkalork 3y ago
  Is this the same line of reasoning that lead to things extraordinary rendition and black sites in GWOT? Non US citizens on non US land, thus the government can do whatever they want like detain people indefinitely and "enhanced interrogation"?
  - orochimaaru 3y ago
    Yes. Those people and lands involved in the act are outside the purview of the US judicial system. Keep in mind I'm not discussing the morality of this. Just that whatever happens there cannot be brought to court in the US.
    - salawat 3y ago
      Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly. It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will either summary judgement the case. Or leave it conspicuously unreviewed. Or, at the end of the day, a Presidential pardon will be conferred at the appropriate/most convenient opportunity. Or actions will just be undertaken with the understanding that the participants will be operating deniably, in which case it is quite literally the Government unilaterally deciding that breaking the law is the only way.
oyashirochama 3y ago
It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships. Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.

bane 3y ago

As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally. I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.

phpisthebest 3y ago
I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control >> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally. No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.
- bane 3y ago
  Why doesn't it?
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments. If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all
    - bane 3y ago
      But your justification is that the U.S. Constitution has global reach. ergo, U.S. law has global reach.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.
        bane 3y ago
        > The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be. If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?

Dalewyn 3y ago

You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American. In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location. We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.

morkalork 3y ago
Is this the same line of reasoning that lead to things extraordinary rendition and black sites in GWOT? Non US citizens on non US land, thus the government can do whatever they want like detain people indefinitely and "enhanced interrogation"?
- orochimaaru 3y ago
  Yes. Those people and lands involved in the act are outside the purview of the US judicial system. Keep in mind I'm not discussing the morality of this. Just that whatever happens there cannot be brought to court in the US.
  - salawat 3y ago
    Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly. It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will either summary judgement the case. Or leave it conspicuously unreviewed. Or, at the end of the day, a Presidential pardon will be conferred at the appropriate/most convenient opportunity. Or actions will just be undertaken with the understanding that the participants will be operating deniably, in which case it is quite literally the Government unilaterally deciding that breaking the law is the only way.

oyashirochama 3y ago

It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships. Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.