5 ms·
No, this is actually a pretty anomalous situation on the face of it. Everyone knows that you can be sitting outside in the evening sun using your laptop in West
by leoc 13y ago
No, this is actually a pretty anomalous situation on the face of it. Everyone knows that you can be sitting outside in the evening sun using your laptop in Western Pakistan, and Barack Obama can send a Predator drone over the horizon to kill you without any US constitutional issue if you're not a US citizen. (Aside from maybe the War Powers Clause.) What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. So it's actually moderately suprising that non-resident aliens' US cloud data apparently doesn't enjoy the same US constitutional protections that their other US interests do.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago>What he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. Are you sure that would be unconstitutional rather than "only" a violation of various treaties and an act likely to cause powerful entities to respond politically?
- rdouble 13y agoProperty rights ranking above human rights is neither implausible nor inconsistent in the America that I live in.
- mpyne 13y agoGiven that Pres. Obama would be operating under his military authority as Commander-in-Chief if he did order such a drone strike, then it might very easily still be considered a war crime. The U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly talk to homicide but U.S. legal code does, and there's no requirement that your victim be a U.S. citizen. So even with the drone example it's not clear-cut that Pres. Obama has the legal authority to kill any foreigner he wishes.
- dllthomas 13y agoThe parent said "unconstitutional", not "illegal"
- mpyne 13y agoThe Constitution established the Congress and its legal precedent, including the superiority clause restricting International matters to Federal law. If you obey a law under U.S. Code or the Statutes-at-Large, it's because of the power granted to Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court by the Constitution. Or in other words, things that are illegal are illegal because they're also unconstitutional (assuming it's withstood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, if it makes it to that level).
- dllthomas 13y agoThat's an unusually broad and not terribly useful definition of "unconstitutional".
- mpyne 13y agoThe point is that the President falls under the laws (plural) of the land, not just the "initial commit".
- dllthomas 13y agoI wholeheartedly agree with that point. I don't think it's made well by muddying definitions.
- btilly 13y agoHow so unusually broad? Congress and the President derive their authority from the grants of power in the Constitution. If the courts cannot find an argument from the Constitution giving them authority, or if the courts accept an argument from the Constitution forbidding a particular action, then that is unconstitutional. Put an equivalent way, Congress and the President only have authority if there is both an argument from the Constitution saying that they have authority, and if no argument from the Constitution is accepted by the courts saying that the action they want to engage in is prohibited by the Constitution. (There is a grey area where the President does things forbidden by Congress. That can get interesting, particularly since the Supreme Court tends to try to stay out of it. If you want examples, examine conflicts between Congress and multiple presidents over the War Powers Act.)
- btilly 13y agoWhat he can't do is confiscate your 500 shares in AT&T or other US property without any legal proceeding. He just has to sue the shares for having had the bad taste to be owned by a suspected terrorist. See http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/seizure-fever-the-war-on-property-rights#axzz2WQfRUXB8 http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/seizure-fever-the-war-... for a description of prior art on this technique.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- leoc 13y agoYes, I have heard of problems with asset-forfeiture laws in the States. But apparently the amount of legal protection and redress you have against government asset forfeiture is still luxurious compared to what you have as a non-resident alien facing spying on your Google account: in the latter case it's basically none. (There's also the fact that US citizens seem to have (IANAL) as little protection as you, but that's cold enough comfort.)