3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoThis 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.
- 1457389 13y agoWell, you seem determined to avoid actually addressing what I am saying. The Constitution harshly proscribes dishonest statements by officials to lawmakers. The surveillance policy was sold through lies and obfuscation to both Congresspeople and the general public. The American people may not broadly oppose espionage, but unless they broadly support it with actual foreknowledge of the specific policies, the lack of opposition is irrelevant. It is hardly surprising that no one is sure what to think in such an environment. Snowden's leaks have changed that to some extent, and hopefully they will continue to shed light on these policies so that an informed decision can finally be made. EDIT: And seriously you can't read a paragraph of text without getting snarky? You asked what the Constitution had to say and I responded in detail.
- tptacek 13y agoThe Constitution is a remarkably short document. Could you perhaps cite the place in that document where it "harshly proscribes dishonest statements"?
- 1457389 13y agoArticle II Section 4: 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. The term of art "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a specific set of determinants that are understood to include dishonest statements.