Skip to main content

View Diary: NSA bugged UN headquarters, European Union, and UN nuclear watchdog organization (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I've never understood (18+ / 0-)
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    why the homo sapiens in other countries are not considered "people" by our courts.
    •  They are... (7+ / 0-)

      considered people, but not as equal as a US citizen (the degree of that difference depends on how much money you have).

      "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

      by cardboardurinal on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:15:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Pretty much every single word (12+ / 0-)

      in that amendment can have its definition twisted to exclude or include anyone or anything. Ah, the beauty of the legal profession.

      "the people" - is this different than merely "people"? Does the "the" imply only "we the people" as in U.S. persons?

      "secure" - does snooping make us less "secure"? What does secure really mean?

      "unreasonable" - ah, the biggy; who defines what's unreasonable?

      etc.

      It is a bunch of shit, because we allow language to be bastardized to fit the need.

      I'm just Double Tapped the hell out.

      by pajoly on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:49:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  'We The People of the United States' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StrayCat

      So, the answer is because that's how the Constitution starts off.

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 12:52:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The idea is that our legal documents have no sway (5+ / 0-)

      in their countries. If they're in our country, it ought to apply, just like any other of our laws applies unless they happen to be in an embassy (or have diplomatic immunity).

      So if you're a foreigner here, it should apply to you, legally. If you're a foreigner elsewhere it doesn't legally apply, for some very good reasons that have to do with imperialism.

      Morally, I agree, it absolutely ought to hold sway over our government regardless.

      But for some of the same reasons I wasn't entirely OK with busting into Pakistan to get Osama bin Laden, it's not really OK for our laws to apply in other nations.

      Now, of course, we economically fuck over a lot of nations on a regular basis, so I guess in a way maybe they might welcome at least getting the benefit of the good stuff, since we often treat them like our provinces anyway, (this is less true in Latin America than it used to be, which is why we're getting so tetchy with Latin America) but I tend to think that it's better to keep a boundary and strengthen it, and hopefully have those countries get strong enough that they aren't just our "backyard" or whatever.

      The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:01:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  but I tend to think that being an Empire (5+ / 0-)

        has not been an unalloyed good for us. And I wonder if some of the good things it brought us might not have been procurable through other means.

        The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:01:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It doesn't even apply to me anymore... (6+ / 0-)

        and I have lived here my entire life...AND I'm white!

        If it doesn't apply to a white, Christian, fairly conservative, middle class, male, heterosexual, navy veteran living in rural America, who in the hell does it apply to?

        Oh, I'm sorry, now I remember, I'm not rich.

        "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

        by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 01:33:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  This is NOT the U.S. position: (8+ / 0-)
        The idea is that our legal documents have no sway in their countries.
        At least not when it comes to other U.S. laws.  The U.S. happily claims extraterritorial jurisdiction for things like antitrust laws.  In other words, if you violate a U.S. law while you're in another country, we can hold you legally liable for that violation here, even if what you did was perfectly legal in the country in which the act was committed.

        We do not, of course, recognize the application of foreign laws here in this country.

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 02:01:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They say "national security". (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          StrayCat, Johnny Q, WheninRome

          They mean, "international hegemony".

          Just remember to do that little substitution whenever you are reading anything that has anything to do with the operations of our state department or our intelligence services, and everything will become much, much clearer.

          To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

          by UntimelyRippd on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well...that seems a bit conflicted and confused (0+ / 0-)

          to me.

          I'm not being snarky; there may be a framework that explains this policy in a consistent and sensible way, but I don't know what it is.

          The party of Kennedy is also the party of Eastland. The party of Javits is also the party of Goldwater. Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 05:33:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is conflicted and confused. (0+ / 0-)

            It is also U.S. policy.  I think the basic legal theory is one of "effects" jurisdiction.  IOW, if you do an act in a foreign country that has an effect in the U.S., you may be subjected to liability under U.S. law.

            For example, when I was in private practice, I represented a British company that was a defendant in a penalty action brought by the U.S. Customs Service.  The penalty was based on the British company's alleged violation of the U.S. sanctions regime against Iran.  The company had violated no British law, and the transaction took place wholly outside the U.S.  None of this mattered to U.S. Customs, however.  The agency ultimately dropped the case, but only because the British government made quite clear it would not permit any kind of enforcement on U.K. territory.

            Many countries have protested the U.S. legal position.  Both Canada and the U.K. have enacted "clawback" legislation, which permits their companies to sue in the Canadian and British courts for damages if they are subjected to antitrust liability in the U.S. for actions that were legal under Canadian or British law.  So if a U.K. corporation is held liable in damages to a U.S. corporation for an antitrust violation, the U.K. corporation can sue the U.S. corporation (or its U.K. affiliates) in British courts to "claw back" those damages.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Tue Aug 27, 2013 at 10:54:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  There are laws. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StrayCat, SouthernLiberalinMD

        And there are principles.

        The various protections in the Constitution and its Amendments are an attempt to codify into law, a set of principles.

        The absence of the coded law doesn't exempt one from the ethical compulsion of the principles.

        Unfortunately, this rather straightforward truth is not understood by the vast majority of human beings, including almost everybody in the US government.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 03:20:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site