Listening to a discussion about Section 702 authority reauthorization as all normal people do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forei...ct_of_1978_Amendments_Act_of_2008?wprov=sfti1 And the key point this executive branch official keeps making, as in I’m pretty sure he has said it at least five times this interview, is that 4th Amendment privacy protections don’t apply to ‘non American persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States at the time of collection’ and okay… yeah… I’m not a 4th Amendment expert and that sounds so lawyer-speak that I’ll just accept that that is the current legal understanding but legal doesn’t necessarily mean right. SHOULD constitutional restrictions on the government apply to everyone? Why or why not? Practically speaking how would universal application look like and would it be better or worse for Americans? The world as a whole?
Too messy. Easier to give everyone an American style constitution. We were supposed to do that, but the robber baron scum love their slave labor.
It'd be nice if they applied these things at all. You know what they do to get around the 4th amendment? They have the British (or other Five Eyes members) spy on their citizens and pass them the info. And vice versa. They don't give a fuck.
From what I understand this actually works into the "Three Eyes" method of spying on everyone all the time for the UK, US and I think Australia. The whole design is that they can't spy on their own citizens directly, but two of the other three governments can spy on non-citizens, and then the other two happily trade that data without much restriction. Supposedly we worry about China gathering info on US citizens in the US, but if the UK anti-terrorism people want to monitor me as a supposed terrorist I am sure they can, and if I happen to say anything against the US I am sure the UK would pass it on. Of course, I am not Muslim or brown so the UK probably does not care to spy on me, but IIRC the three eyes represent three predominantly white nations who do not particularly consider white supremacy a real terrorist group even though they should.
Okay. So I’m with you in that Five Eyes is probably one of the least talked about but materially substantive alliances that no one knows about* but that’s not how it works. They all divide up the [basically non-NATO] world and each is in charge of SIGINT (Signals Intelligence - electronic communications) for their area but the United States isn’t a region in the UKUSA Agreement (the formal name, at the time Canada, Australia and New Zealand didn’t even have the pretense of being real countries). *My undergrad degree is in International Political Economics and I seriously didn’t know about it until I was in country and noticed most everything was headed: [Classification] // NO FORN // AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/US EYES ONLY and like what? New Zealand but not NATO/ISAF? New Zealand isn’t even here?!?!? Wut?!?! Then you add in the only recently disclosed situation which where in the initial minutes of 9/11 the head of the NSA called and then faxed his counterpart at GCHC and said that if NSA leadership went dark the GCHQ head was in charge of US SIGINT until US leadership could be reconstituted and… that’s… that’s not SOP. Setting aside the fact that these monarchists and their moose fucking cousins were until Jan 6th the only people to sack our Capital you can’t just give control of the crown jewel of US Intelligence to a foreigner. [Seriously though, probably not the worst decision at the time. Yeah; maybe technically speaking it is some *light* treason but if it were required by circumstances to happen it’s not like you’re alive to go to jail and in such an emergency having Privates Smithy and Johnson arguing over who really is in charge of the NSA probably isn’t good.]
Okay, I am Daytoning my own thread but folks seriously don’t appreciate Five Eyes and it’s derivative AUKUS. The United States for the first time in its history is GIVING AWAY our nuclear secrets. Up till this point the frogs, monarchists, mandarins and muscovites all figured out nuclear propulsion on their own (kinda sorta in terms of the frogs - the Charles de Gaulle doesn’t practically live in Toulon for no reason). But for the first time in our history, due to the threat of China we have decided to literally give our nuclear secrets to another nation. We aren’t building and selling Canberra SSNs from Bangor or Newport News or Pascagoula we are seriously teaching these descendants of whores and criminals how to build them on their own. It is legit a threshold no one is talking about. These kangaroo fuckers will join the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and China as both builders and operators of SSNs (India bought their’s from Russia).
First of all if an executive branch lawyer is talking, they're probably lying. That goes for whoever the executive is. It seems to me that if it's an official government action, then the constitution applies. If you go back and read up on the Alien and Sedition Acts or the War of 1812, I believe similar discussions were being had back then. But don't take my word for it because I'm not a lawyer or a historian and I know nothing about history. Lastly, the FISA courts should be disbanded.
Secondly at this point one of you needs to change your AVs as y’all are seriously proving Horseshoe Theory correct and I’m forced to double check every time how seriously I should take a post which is legit kinda annoying.
For the vast majority of Constitutional rights, the question is really immaterial — with regard to the limits on government power that are put in place by, say, the First and Second amendments, the U.S. government simply has no ability to exercise that power over someone who is neither a citizen nor physically located here, so it's a moot point. Obviously the Fourth Amendment is different, because the U.S. government does have the ability to snoop on non-citizens outside the U.S. borders. My first instinct is to say that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to non-citizens located elsewhere. This is partly realpolitik — I want us to be able to spy on other countries, because being able to do so is in our best interests — and partly because if the U.S. government violates the Fourth Amendment rights of a guy living in Indiana, the U.S. government has the ability to actually harm him using the information gained that way, while the government lacks similar jurisdiction over, say, a Saudi national living in Riyadh. The complications come about if: 1) A foreign national in a foreign country is corresponding with a person to whom the Fourth Amendment clearly does apply. Joe Blow in Muncie doesn't lose his Fourth Amendment rights just because he's sending an email to Heinrich Blasen in Munich. Plus, with the international nature of internet routing, the Fourth Amendment would become useless if it could be circumvented just by acting outside U.S. borders. 2) A situation comes up wherein the U.S. government actually would have the ability to exercise jurisdiction over the person targeted this way. (Say by seizing money in Heinrich's U.S.-based Paypal account, or by issuing a warrant for his arrest if he ever comes to the U.S.)
You can believe me or not but I state that I have neither voted for, endorsed, or donated money to the junior senator from Kentucky. HOWEVER, in this case, as loath as I am to admit it he might have an objection worth listening to. Juat throwing this out there but maybe this isn’t just a Section 702 issue but an ‘incidental collection’ issue. Again not a lawyer but it seems like from what I’ve read ‘incidental collection’ does a whole lot of heavy lifting. If Section 702 were to be reauthorized (which for real at a minimum this should a bigger discussion than Sydney Sweeney’s big naturals) maybe we narrow down incidental collection?
