The NSA as it exists is essentially the government telling you the 4th Amendment is just for show. The NSA takes broad measures under the blanket of "national security" and through its 5 Eyes partners, can pretty much do as it pleases, either with US Citizens, or foreign citizens.
EDIT: Former NSA directors have deliberately lied under oath to Congress about their activities and actions...with no penalty or rebuke. The NSA are above the law and constitution.
The NSA does not reveal what technology it uses or how they use it. Snowden had to leak that information, for it to come to light.
The public has no way of knowing if the NSA follows the law and the theoretically available technology for the NSA to use, means it's extremely unlikely they have restrained themselves from gazing into your private life at home.
I think Snowden proved that the NSA does routinely spy on the American public and the fact that the director of the NSA outright lied to congress under oath and never faced any consequence for it shows that the public will never be allowed to know the truth and that congress will never be able to stop them.
While what you say is true in practice, it is based on a completely incorrect reading of the constitution by the US Court system
The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world, not just the land that is the US, as such the government prohibition on search should apply to all government agencies world wide. In short if it illegal for the NSA to spy on someone in Michigan, it should be illegal for them to Spy on them in Spain.
It is very strange that this prohibition applies to all persons while with in the borders of the US, and also applies to US Residents living aborad, but magically some how does not applies to non-citizens outside the US.
When in reality The Constitution does not apply to people at all, it does not grant me or any one else rights, it is a document where we the people surrender some of our power, some or our natural rights to the government for a limited purpose.
Somehow we have flipped this script, to where the constitution lays out what the government "cant" do, instead of that intention of providing a very limited list of things the government can do, of which is prohibited from all other activity
As a matter of ethics and morality you're probably not wrong. As a matter of law it's important that there is a distinction because it would cut both ways. Saying U.S. law that restricts the behavior of the United States Government should apply globally also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.
I mean, we'd appreciate your income tax, but you might not like all the gun ownership.
I am American, and 10000000% support the right to private gun ownership. I believe we should have less not more gun control
>> also implies that U.S. law in all other respects should apply globally.
No it does not imply that at all, again you are reversing the position I am talking about. In fact US Law probably applies too much to other nations via International Trade Agreements to other nations already.
Because my comments were about limiting the US Government, not other governments.
If the US Constitution would bar the NSA from spying with out probable cause on everyone, not just US Citizens, then that has absolutely zero bearing on if the EU wants to have gun control. I am not even sure how there is a connection to the 2 at all
The US Constitution bounds the legitimate powers of the US government; it is not, except by its own terms (or those read into it) geographically bounded, but it is bounded by subject matter.
> The constitutional prohibitions should be applied to all government actions no matter where they are in the world
I don't disagree with you, but what is the philosophical reason why? I know the reason, but I'd really like people such as yourself and the GP to voice it. Because it doesn't form a consistent philosophy in the same way that the current realization of U.S. law is not consistent, simply precisely the opposite of what you (and GP) are saying it should be.
If you disagree, the at least answer this question, why is it the way it is today which is the de facto way it works?
It specifically is made for the citizens of the US to be protected from overzealous government mandates. It doesn't care about foreign powers due to them being...foreign and all potential enemies regardless of national friendships.
Also all constitutions are social contracts that are only as strong as the judicial branch is at restricting the government, so its really up to interpretation on that front.
You are massively confused. The Constitution gives certain powers to the government at the pleasure of the governed (read: Americans) and affords protections to them while providing none to foreigners (read: those who aren't governed by the US government). Re-read what I said and re-read the Constitution too if you have time, the Constitution's protections and guarantees apply to individuals and whether they are American.
In short, it is illegal for the NSA (or any part of the US government) to spy on Americans and legal to spy on foreigners, regardless of a given individual's location.
We generally draw the line using physical location because keeping track of whether you ended up with info on an American while spying somewhere outside America, say France or Japan, is utterly impractical. That doesn't mean the legal lines are drawn like that, though.
Is this the same line of reasoning that lead to things extraordinary rendition and black sites in GWOT? Non US citizens on non US land, thus the government can do whatever they want like detain people indefinitely and "enhanced interrogation"?
Yes. Those people and lands involved in the act are outside the purview of the US judicial system. Keep in mind I'm not discussing the morality of this. Just that whatever happens there cannot be brought to court in the US.
Oh, it can. Fruitlessly, but it can. U.S. law covers all U.S. citizens, regardless of physical location. Just because you're in Mexico doesn't mean you have carte blanche to bribe or commit crimes. This is an explicit point ground into all Federal employees yearly.
It's just that the operations in question will invoke "National Security" and "sovereign immunity" arguments sufficient to ensure the judiciary will either summary judgement the case. Or leave it conspicuously unreviewed.
Or, at the end of the day, a Presidential pardon will be conferred at the appropriate/most convenient opportunity.
Or actions will just be undertaken with the understanding that the participants will be operating deniably, in which case it is quite literally the Government unilaterally deciding that breaking the law is the only way.
I can understand a federal employee being placed under this considering they are representing the US and said crimes are committed while acting on behalf of the US government. But does it extend to private citizens? If you commit crimes outside the US I don't think you can be tried for it in the US. You could be extradited to the place where you committed the crime. But I don't think the government can prosecute you in the US.
So, I do get what you're saying. If it were federal employees directly participating they can be prosecuted in the US.But if this is done through a web of contractors it will be hard to prosecute.
>> If you commit crimes outside the US I don't think you can be tried for it in the US.
You can, on common example is Sex crimes, a US Citizen can (and have been) charged with violations of various sex crime laws for actives that occurred outside the US in courts INSIDE the US, even if the activity was not a crime in the nation the activity took place in. aka "Sex Tourism" [1]
You can also be tried for Foreign crimes such as bribery in the US if you were bribing a Foreign official this applies to business as well as government.
> Americans are Constitutionally guaranteed a right to privacy in the home
Not really. It's been inferred from the text by courts, but it's been a bit of a leap, and the Supreme Court can overturn the earlier interpretations at any time. "Many originalists, including most famously Judge Robert Bork in his ill-fated Supreme Court confirmation hearings, have argued that no such general right of privacy exists."
Roe v Wade was based on a purported right to privacy (I don’t understand the legal contortions that link abortions to privacy).
When they overturned Roe v Wade last year they simultaneously overturned the previous rulings that established a (limited by international standards) right to privacy in the US.
That's what's blocking instatement of a new director, so no, it won't have any effect on the data collected on foreigners.