3 ms·

The implicit assumption in your question here is that the government is entitled to do whatever it wants except when people can organise to the extent that a fo

by 1457389 13y ago

The implicit assumption in your question here is that the government is entitled to do whatever it wants except when people can organise to the extent that a formal censure, through voting or other means, can be devised. A state subject to popular veto rather than a popular mandate. This view gives far too much leeway for governmental over-reach, and goes against the spirit of documents like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The State is given a mandate by, for and of the People, and it should execute that mandate without overreach. A system where the government can do whatever they want subject only to rare popular veto (recall votes, impeachments, revolutions) is unstable and undemocratic, given the level of voter disenfranchisement we see today. Before you ask for proof of a popular veto against the NSA's activities, you should first support your assumption that these activities support the popular mandate in any way. I would submit that such a proof is impossible, given the total secrecy of these programs and lack of accountability. If people don't know what the government is doing in their name, even in broad terms (that don't harm operational secrecy), how can the government's actions be justified or permissible?

tptacek 13y ago
No, the implicit assumption in my question is that US-sourced industrial espionage tends, at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens.
- 1457389 13y ago
  From a constitutional standpoint, that is irrelevant. In a benevolent dictatorship that would be justification enough for any policy,no matter how restrictive or oppressive. If that is in fact the sole assumption you base your views on, there are larger problems in your argument than I anticipated. The real question in what is meant to be a constitutional democracy is whether there is a popular mandate for industrial espionage enabled by mass telecommunications surveillance. If you can't establish a clear connection between the popular will and a government policy then that policy shouldn't exist. As Snowden has stated repeatedly: >The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    "From a Constitutional standpoint"? The Constitution is completely silent on this issue.
    - 1457389 13y ago
      I brought up the Constitution because it is a direct counter to your assumption that policies are justified as long as they are shown "at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens". It is definitely more complicated than that, and I suspect you realise this but I don't understand why you don't address it in any of your comments. What I was getting at was that the US Constitution demands a genuine mandate from several branches of government for policies to be enacted. Through this mandate, the popular consent to be governed is ensured. Specifically, my major issue with the NSA's activities is that they were and are not accurately portrayed to the legislators and even the justices who were meant to oversee them. There were specific obfuscations by officials and by entire branches of the State that served to obscure the true purposes of these programs. The Constitution absolutely has something to say about the issue of officers of the State purposefully misleading other branches: I would direct you to the section on High Crimes and Misdemeanors: >The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors Notably, the original text appended "against the State" to the above, but the Convention dropped that part specifically because even a high crime for the perceived benefit of the State would be considered actionable. As Hamilton said in Federalist 65: >...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself
      - tptacek 13y ago
        This is a lot of verbiage that doesn't address the basic point I made that you're trying to rebut: the Constitution doesn't proscribe foreign surveillance of any sort, including industrial espionage, and the American people don't broadly oppose industrial espionage, because to the extent that Boeing outperforms Airbus in the global marketplace, they benefit, if only marginally.

by 1457389 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

No, the implicit assumption in my question is that US-sourced industrial espionage tends, at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens.

1457389 13y ago
From a constitutional standpoint, that is irrelevant. In a benevolent dictatorship that would be justification enough for any policy,no matter how restrictive or oppressive. If that is in fact the sole assumption you base your views on, there are larger problems in your argument than I anticipated. The real question in what is meant to be a constitutional democracy is whether there is a popular mandate for industrial espionage enabled by mass telecommunications surveillance. If you can't establish a clear connection between the popular will and a government policy then that policy shouldn't exist. As Snowden has stated repeatedly: >The consent of the governed is not consent if it is not informed.
- tptacek 13y ago
  "From a Constitutional standpoint"? The Constitution is completely silent on this issue.
  - 1457389 13y ago
    I brought up the Constitution because it is a direct counter to your assumption that policies are justified as long as they are shown "at least at some remove, to benefit US citizens". It is definitely more complicated than that, and I suspect you realise this but I don't understand why you don't address it in any of your comments. What I was getting at was that the US Constitution demands a genuine mandate from several branches of government for policies to be enacted. Through this mandate, the popular consent to be governed is ensured. Specifically, my major issue with the NSA's activities is that they were and are not accurately portrayed to the legislators and even the justices who were meant to oversee them. There were specific obfuscations by officials and by entire branches of the State that served to obscure the true purposes of these programs. The Constitution absolutely has something to say about the issue of officers of the State purposefully misleading other branches: I would direct you to the section on High Crimes and Misdemeanors: >The president, vice-president, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors Notably, the original text appended "against the State" to the above, but the Convention dropped that part specifically because even a high crime for the perceived benefit of the State would be considered actionable. As Hamilton said in Federalist 65: >...those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself
    - tptacek 13y ago
      This is a lot of verbiage that doesn't address the basic point I made that you're trying to rebut: the Constitution doesn't proscribe foreign surveillance of any sort, including industrial espionage, and the American people don't broadly oppose industrial espionage, because to the extent that Boeing outperforms Airbus in the global marketplace, they benefit, if only marginally.