4 ms·

> What we've learned about the NSA programs indicates that the government internally tries to toe what well-defined lines exist without crossing them. ?? Is th

> What we've learned about the NSA programs indicates that the government internally tries to toe what well-defined lines exist without crossing them. ?? Is this before or after Clapper lies under oath to congress? is this before or after the Senate Torture report came out along with the revelation that the NSA tampered with evidence. I struggle to understand how you rationally form such a conclusion. We only know this occurs because of a whistle blower who his own government now calls a fugitive. You truly believe the government constrains itself and follows the law in "well-defined lines", I really struggle with taking you seriously, the government has greatly warped common sense -- do you recall the torture memos, the strange legal reasoning that calls torture "enhanced interrogation techniques", do you believe the "disposition matrix" lives within well-defined lines? How would you even know sense so much of even the LEGAL reasoning is secret and above purview. Outrageous dangerous claims you are making and it is disgusting.

rayiner 12y ago
We live in a world where the government can drop a nuke on Japan, vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians (including some American POWs), and that's 100% legal. What exactly is "common sense" in such a world, and why does waterboarding or drone strikes run counter to that "common sense"? The Constitution invests the executive with tremendous power to act in the interest of national security. That was one of the overriding purposes of the document, one written in response to the earlier federal government's failure to put down internal rebellion. That is, like it or not, one of the clearly-defined lines.
- shit_parade 12y ago
  >We live in a world where the government can drop a nuke on Japan, vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians (including some American POWs), and that's 100% legal. hahaha, ok maybe you are just insane. How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. Are you suggesting that during a declaration of war it becomes legal? Currently under international law that would not be legal unless agreed upon by the security council. The Constitution limits the scope and powers of the state and invests the remainder within the body of citizens, it is meant to limit abuse of power by the government. The US government seems little interested in such restraints these days. Are you going to defend torture as a clear well defined line the government follows, how about one part of government lying to another under oath, is that well defined, how about legal memos that are so secret they cannot be divulged, is that well defined? 0:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
  - rayiner 12y ago
    The Constitution is a domestic instrument. It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, and the founders were clear that it wasn't meant to do any such thing. Indeed, the concern during the drafting was not about how to limit the government's powers abroad, but how to ensure that it could still act as a sovereign entity abroad despite being limited domestically.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > The Constitution is a domestic instrument. The Constitution is the basis of all US government authority, it is not merely a "domestic instrument". > It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, Several provisions of the Constitution directly and explicitly concern what the United States can do abroad, and which institutions of the United States government are entitled to do those things, so that seems an implausible interpretation. > and the founders were clear that it wasn't meant to do any such thing. The founders were quite of different minds on many points, and you can often find founders on multiple sides of any issue (including matters of Constitutional interpretation.) Where's the evidence that the founders, collectively, were "clear" on this point? > As for "international law"--there is no such thing. The Constitutions grant of power to Congress to "To define and punish [...] offenses against the law of nations;" certainly seems to suggest that they thought that the "law of nations" was not a phrase that referred to something nonexistent. > The U.N. is not a sovereign entity No, its a product of treaty, ratified by the US Senate under the provisions laid out for such in the Constitution.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        "It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936). The U.S. cannot engage in war because the Constitution says so. It can engage in war because it's a sovereign country, and waging war is a characteristic capacity of sovereign countries. Admittedly, the U.S. has entered into certain treaties limiting itself in the conduct of war.[1] But in that case, the U.S. is bound not because of "international law" but because those treaties translate international law into domestic law. And it is bound only to the extent it has agreed to be by those treaties. [1] E.g., the Geneva Conventions: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/drone-strikes-the-legality-of-us-targeting-terrorists-abroad http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/drone-strik....
- shit_parade 12y ago
  How utterly disgusting, you will write that "What exactly is "common sense" in such a world, and why does waterboarding or drone strikes run counter to that "common sense"?" You are simply a stooge, a lawyer in DC suckling at the government teat, you have the gall to defend torture as nothing but common sense. Sickening, go head and down vote me, you are worthless trash and a fascist.

rayiner 12y ago

We live in a world where the government can drop a nuke on Japan, vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians (including some American POWs), and that's 100% legal. What exactly is "common sense" in such a world, and why does waterboarding or drone strikes run counter to that "common sense"? The Constitution invests the executive with tremendous power to act in the interest of national security. That was one of the overriding purposes of the document, one written in response to the earlier federal government's failure to put down internal rebellion. That is, like it or not, one of the clearly-defined lines.

shit_parade 12y ago
>We live in a world where the government can drop a nuke on Japan, vaporizing tens of thousands of civilians (including some American POWs), and that's 100% legal. hahaha, ok maybe you are just insane. How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. Are you suggesting that during a declaration of war it becomes legal? Currently under international law that would not be legal unless agreed upon by the security council. The Constitution limits the scope and powers of the state and invests the remainder within the body of citizens, it is meant to limit abuse of power by the government. The US government seems little interested in such restraints these days. Are you going to defend torture as a clear well defined line the government follows, how about one part of government lying to another under oath, is that well defined, how about legal memos that are so secret they cannot be divulged, is that well defined? 0:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
- rayiner 12y ago
  The Constitution is a domestic instrument. It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, and the founders were clear that it wasn't meant to do any such thing. Indeed, the concern during the drafting was not about how to limit the government's powers abroad, but how to ensure that it could still act as a sovereign entity abroad despite being limited domestically.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The Constitution is a domestic instrument. The Constitution is the basis of all US government authority, it is not merely a "domestic instrument". > It does not limit what the United States can do abroad, Several provisions of the Constitution directly and explicitly concern what the United States can do abroad, and which institutions of the United States government are entitled to do those things, so that seems an implausible interpretation. > and the founders were clear that it wasn't meant to do any such thing. The founders were quite of different minds on many points, and you can often find founders on multiple sides of any issue (including matters of Constitutional interpretation.) Where's the evidence that the founders, collectively, were "clear" on this point? > As for "international law"--there is no such thing. The Constitutions grant of power to Congress to "To define and punish [...] offenses against the law of nations;" certainly seems to suggest that they thought that the "law of nations" was not a phrase that referred to something nonexistent. > The U.N. is not a sovereign entity No, its a product of treaty, ratified by the US Senate under the provisions laid out for such in the Constitution.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      "It results that the investment of the federal government with the powers of external sovereignty did not depend upon the affirmative grants of the Constitution. The powers to declare and wage war, to conclude peace, to make treaties, to maintain diplomatic relations with other sovereignties, if they had never been mentioned in the Constitution, would have vested in the federal government as necessary concomitants of nationality. Neither the Constitution nor the laws passed in pursuance of it have any force in foreign territory unless in respect of our own citizens." United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 318 (1936). The U.S. cannot engage in war because the Constitution says so. It can engage in war because it's a sovereign country, and waging war is a characteristic capacity of sovereign countries. Admittedly, the U.S. has entered into certain treaties limiting itself in the conduct of war.[1] But in that case, the U.S. is bound not because of "international law" but because those treaties translate international law into domestic law. And it is bound only to the extent it has agreed to be by those treaties. [1] E.g., the Geneva Conventions: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/drone-strikes-the-legality-of-us-targeting-terrorists-abroad http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/drone-strik....
shit_parade 12y ago
How utterly disgusting, you will write that "What exactly is "common sense" in such a world, and why does waterboarding or drone strikes run counter to that "common sense"?" You are simply a stooge, a lawyer in DC suckling at the government teat, you have the gall to defend torture as nothing but common sense. Sickening, go head and down vote me, you are worthless trash and a fascist.