3 ms·

> The rest of us out here that make up the majority of the world have the NSA breaking our laws with impunity. When the rest of the world starts upholding thin

by mpyne 12y ago

> The rest of us out here that make up the majority of the world have the NSA breaking our laws with impunity. When the rest of the world starts upholding things like First and Second Amendment principles even for their own citizens, I will worry more about the U.S. reciprocating by extending Fourth Amendment principles to those who seek to harm the people of the U.S. But that is still a long ways off it seems. Are women in takfiri-controlled areas able to freely protest or even attend schools yet? The ironic thing is that you say you don't even "get a say", but you do. Our President has had to focus attention on foreign intelligence programs to try and appease non-American audiences, precisely because of the fact that non-Americans "get a say", which is something that the Chinese and Russian leadership will never have to worry about. Do you protest SORM to Putin? If you've ever (directly or indirectly) used a .ru site, or a site hosted in Russia, you should.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> I will worry more about the U.S. reciprocating by extending Fourth Amendment principles to those who seek to harm the people of the U.S. Fourth Amendment (and Fifth Amendment) protections protect the US from a government pretending to be protecting them from "people who seek to harm the people of the US" without actually doing so. While the direct targets are the most obvious victims of denials of due process protections, the more significant victim is the public at large -- due process protections increase the cost of security theater so as to limit the extent to which it is easier for the government to cut corners and engage in show punishments of scapegoats for propaganda purposes rather than do the hard work of finding the real guilty parties. And for real, organized, enemies against which legal process is inadequate, well, that's what declarations of war against specific enemies. But permanent, open-ended, unconstrained war -- and arbitrary executive use of war-appropriate processes -- against whomever the current executive thinks might be a threat is another thing altogether.

by mpyne 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> I will worry more about the U.S. reciprocating by extending Fourth Amendment principles to those who seek to harm the people of the U.S. Fourth Amendment (and Fifth Amendment) protections protect the US from a government pretending to be protecting them from "people who seek to harm the people of the US" without actually doing so. While the direct targets are the most obvious victims of denials of due process protections, the more significant victim is the public at large -- due process protections increase the cost of security theater so as to limit the extent to which it is easier for the government to cut corners and engage in show punishments of scapegoats for propaganda purposes rather than do the hard work of finding the real guilty parties. And for real, organized, enemies against which legal process is inadequate, well, that's what declarations of war against specific enemies. But permanent, open-ended, unconstrained war -- and arbitrary executive use of war-appropriate processes -- against whomever the current executive thinks might be a threat is another thing altogether.