The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf] • Hacker News Board

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 6:32 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your war argument boils down to "who gives authorization and to whom". International law is both a fairly novel and fluid concept, and as with product guarantees, grants of legitimacy or otherwise vary greatly in there effects. Much of the UN's power lies in the Secretary General's authority to give a stern talking to of those chuffing the General Assembly, subject to approval by the Security Council or veto by any o…

Why do cats have the capacity to kill mice? Because they're cats. Nobody gives them the right to kill mice. It's silly to even ask the question. They may choose to do it or not. But having the capacity to do so is characteristic of their very existence. That's basically the premise of Curtiss-Wright. It rejects the idea that the federal government requires an affirmative grant of power to exercise sovereign powers ab…

[deleted]

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#62

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Mar 08, 2015, 6:49 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your war argument boils down to "who gives authorization and to whom". International law is both a fairly novel and fluid concept, and as with product guarantees, grants of legitimacy or otherwise vary greatly in there effects. Much of the UN's power lies in the Secretary General's authority to give a stern talking to of those chuffing the General Assembly, subject to approval by the Security Council or veto by any o…

Why do cats have the capacity to kill mice? Because they're cats. Nobody gives them the right to kill mice. It's silly to even ask the question. They may choose to do it or not. But having the capacity to do so is characteristic of their very existence. That's basically the premise of Curtiss-Wright. It rejects the idea that the federal government requires an affirmative grant of power to exercise sovereign powers ab…

Put a cat in a context in which it's subject to the authority of another entity and that specific cat might well find that it is expected to behave in a specific way toward mice -- either to kill them or not. And that the cat might be rewarded and/or sanctioned based on that activity. I'm not arguing that this is a legal context, but that rights and obligations exist within a power and control context, which might or might not exist.

Regards C-W, your quoted passage states specifically "unless in respect of our own citizens". Which is to say that U.S. law, under C-W, can specifically govern the actions of the US and/or its citizens.

The recent record also seems clouded. There have been individuals whose extradition to the US has been sought (or secured) for actions occurring principally or totally outside the U.S. The case of Manuel Noriega comes to mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega#Criminal_prosecu...

"In April 1992 a trial was held in Miami, Florida, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in which Noriega was tried and convicted on eight counts of drug trafficking, racketeering, and money laundering."

There's also Executive Order 12333 2.11:

"No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination."

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/execut...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/04/us.assassination.policy/in...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333

Further, your use of C-W doesn't support your previous statement: "[The Constitution] does not limit what the United States can do abroad". It simply states that there do exist powers which, even if not explicitly listed in the Constitution, would exist. Not that the Constitution could not specify, define, and/or limit such powers.

Which in fact it does -- the United States cannot engage willy-nilly in international agreements with other nations, or engage in acts of war. Both of these require specific actions of affirmation vested in the Legislature: Declaration of War by the full Congress, treaty approval by the Senate.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#63

Post by shit_parade » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 7:48 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #23

shit_parade wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

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 ove…

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.

Re: The TSA's FAST Personality Screening Program Violates the Fourth Amendment [pdf]

#64

Post by shit_parade » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 7:52 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #34

shit_parade wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 internati…

> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing. > Are you suggesting that during a declaration of war it becomes legal? While there are some prohibitions in treaties in force or what is accepted as customary international law on conduct during War (though fe…

>> How is that legal, are you invoking the Bush doctrine[0] of pre-emptive strikes, although to call that legal is a stretch. >The nuclear bombing of Japan was not a pre-emptive strike. Pearl Harbor was a thing.

The OP is using the present tense(unless he edits his comments), perhaps he would like to edit what he wrote to suggest that in the past it was considered a legal action to drop a nuclear weapon on a nation the US was at war with, but if the OP continues to use the present tense I can only continue to believe he is INSANE to believe it is CURRENTLY legal to drop nuclear weapons on ally nations.

The OP never responded to what he so clearly believes are "clearly-defined lines." and he will not respond to direct challenges of 1: clapper lying under oath, 2: US engaging in torture and refusing to prosecute. We can even give a historical example, was imprisoning US citizens of Japanese decent and confiscating their property within a "well defined line" no, it was simply a government run amok with fear and hatred trying to defend itself.

Go read some more Hobbes and Locke.