3 ms·

I do find arguments based on strict legality to be just a tad strange. Just because something is strictly legal doesn't mean that it's right, nor that it's in

I do find arguments based on strict legality to be just a tad strange. Just because something is strictly legal doesn't mean that it's right, nor that it's in the spirit that the law originally intended. I mean, it was legal to exterminate Jews in Nazi Germany, send millions to death camps in Soviet Russia and starve 10s of millions to death in Communist China. Strict legality is particularly low bar to pass. What happened to the spirit of the law? What happened to public discussions of the law? What happened to proportional use of the justice system? What happened to basic human rights? Maybe I'm just naive, but when people hide behind the "Well it's legal! A secret court said so!" charade, even when they know that that it doesn't follow the spirit of the laws that they currently operate under, it just pisses me off. It's kind of like when someone cheats a system using a secret loophole that was clearly not intended to be used for that purpose. The person then turns around and says that it's a perfectly legitimate move. They then move forward on the assumption that the mere existence of said loophole gives them carte blanche to just do whatever they hell they want to do. It appears as though the NSA has hacked the legal system.

genwin 13y ago
> ... even when they know that that it doesn't follow the spirit of the laws that they currently operate under, it just pisses me off. Same here. A lot of this was going on in the 2000s. I'd ask them, so if it was legal to kick toddlers in the face, you'd be okay with that? They define "sheeple".
austenallred 13y ago
Bingo. The entire NSA hearing a few days ago was NSA directors pointing out under which law they perform each action. They could do it, because according to US law it is legal. The much more deep rooted question is "is this good?" Every aspect of law in the United States can be changed and rewritten according to the conscious of the people, though this takes a long time to do. Legality is temporary. Under ideal circumstances we would debate "right vs wrong" and change laws accordingly.
- alexqgb 13y ago
  There's also a big difference between new law - which can be batshit insane - and settled law, which has both passed constitutional muster and become widely accepted. Trying to reconcile "consent of the governed" with "secret law" goes in the opposite direction.
  - aclevernickname 13y ago
    I thought NSPD-51 solved all of that, putting the Executive Branch above the constitution, so it's actions didn't have to pass muster. I wish I was kidding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Presidential_Directive_51 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Presidential_... http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html

genwin 13y ago

> ... even when they know that that it doesn't follow the spirit of the laws that they currently operate under, it just pisses me off. Same here. A lot of this was going on in the 2000s. I'd ask them, so if it was legal to kick toddlers in the face, you'd be okay with that? They define "sheeple".

austenallred 13y ago

Bingo. The entire NSA hearing a few days ago was NSA directors pointing out under which law they perform each action. They could do it, because according to US law it is legal. The much more deep rooted question is "is this good?" Every aspect of law in the United States can be changed and rewritten according to the conscious of the people, though this takes a long time to do. Legality is temporary. Under ideal circumstances we would debate "right vs wrong" and change laws accordingly.

alexqgb 13y ago
There's also a big difference between new law - which can be batshit insane - and settled law, which has both passed constitutional muster and become widely accepted. Trying to reconcile "consent of the governed" with "secret law" goes in the opposite direction.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  I thought NSPD-51 solved all of that, putting the Executive Branch above the constitution, so it's actions didn't have to pass muster. I wish I was kidding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Presidential_Directive_51 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Presidential_... http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html http://www.marjoriecohn.com/2007/05/unitary-king-george.html