Hacker News Reader

As a non-American you are fundamentally unimportant to America, and are fair game for whatever they see fit. If they want your communications, your wealth, your life, they will have it. Wiretaps, asset freezes, drone-strikes.

The only thing that non-Americans can try to do is not engage with American businesses, but this doesn't really work either, as from the jingoistic perspective taken by US leadership and media this would be the "unfree world" "ganging up" because "they hate our freedom", and would only lead to yet more of the same, deeper isolation, and the vicious cycle continues.

It's very much worth noting that this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. The Chinese are at it, the Brits are at it in league with the Americans and the rest of their gang, and you can be sure anyone else with a capability is using it.

The same pattern applies elsewhere, and any external effort to apply pressure is propagandised into an attack, justifying the further reduction of liberties and increase of surveillance activities.

So what to do? The only thing I can perceive is the amputation of the power wielded by our senile and demented states by simply rendering them irrelevant through citizen-led governance. This is already happening, slowly, and the collapse of less entrenched governments which is ongoing all over the planet is reflective of exactly what happens when the populace just stop believing in the elite's power, and instead their own. The wheel turns, and gathers momentum.

Curious: what are some examples of citizen-led governance beginning to render states irrelevant? Likewise, where are you seeing a collapse of less entrenched governments all over the planet?

Snowden doesn't hate America he wants it to be better. A lot of his fans just want to see it destroyed, he is not that dumb.

> Would you think it would be totally ok if other countries take similar stance towards US companies and persons?

I would be surprised if other countries don't take a similar stance. Not that that justifies it.

Some countries do.

As an example Sweden passed a law that allows them to record all the traffic that crosses their borders. The problem is that practically all of the connections from Finland to central Europe goes trough Sweden. And Sweden absolutely certainly gives all of that data directly to NSA willingly.

They are now planning a direct cable from Finland to Germany mostly due to that change in Swedish law. Thankfully Germany seems to be rather annoyed by constant spying, perhaps partly due to East Germany's history with massive domestic spying.

There is a big difference between having that attitude or desire and having $70 Billion Every. Single. Year. to implement that desire.

Most places don't have 1% of that budget. Some places have no surveillance budget at all.

Or, look at it this way: If you took away 99% of the NSA's budget, how much intrusion into privacy would we be talking about.

> A foreiginer is not a person as defined in the constitution

That is not correct, foreigners are indeed persons under and are subject to the equal protection clause [1] under the 14th amendment of the Constitution, which explicitly refers to "persons" and not only to "citizens".

The whole reason for Guantanamo is that it is outside of US jurisdiction, and it was argued that the constitutional protections do not apply there. It's pretty clear that suspects would have full Constitutional rights on US soil; whether they do in Guantanamo is still being contested (the US gov't holds that they do not).

IANAL, nor a Constitutional scholar, etc.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

Exactly whose jurisdiction does Guantanamo fall under if not America?

And why are the laws of that jurisdiction not applied to those people?

> Exactly whose jurisdiction does Guantanamo fall under if not America?

Cuba's, under the particular concept of territorial jurisdiction stemming from the Supreme Court ruling in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), that the Executive Branch sought to leverage when it established the detention facility at Guantanamo.

It is worth noting, however, that this broad application of the Johnson v. Eisentrager precedent in Guantanamo was generally rejected by the Supreme Court in cases including Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) and Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).

Why doesn't Cuba do something about the situation at Guantanamo? They are already embargoed indefinitely. I don't understand why they don't address the situation there.

> Why doesn't Cuba do something about the situation at Guantanamo?

Like, what? Start a war with the US? There's a pretty obvious reason not to start a war with a country who you are close enough to that there aren't many logistical barriers to them bringing their military force fully to bear on you, and whose annual military budget is on the order of 10 times your GDP.

Cuba's jurisdiction over Guantanamo is a legal fiction that the prior administration tried to leverage (largely unsuccessfully, given the Rasul and Boumediene decisions), not something that has real substance.

> But on a more serious note. Would you think it would be totally ok if other countries take similar stance towards US companies and persons?

They do. The world is interconnected, and countries do things to give themselves an advantage.

Back the ye olden times, the methods for this kind of stuff were often less subtle. Countries would visit your nation with big battleships. Or they would slap big tariffs on imports, etc. The British and Russian Empires engaged in "the Great Game" throughout the 19th century for dominance of central asia.

>A foreiginer is not a person as defined in the constitution, this was the justification for why those in Guantanamo did not get a fair trial

Do you have a cite for this? I don't recall reading that in the constitution anywhere.

Also, who was doing the 'justifying'? Certainly not the government, since they would never argue from the premise that Guantanamo wasn't fair to begin with (rather, IIRC, they argued that since Guantanamo Bay wasn't in the US, US laws didn't apply -- which is complete bullshit but still not nearly the same as stating that the US doesn't consider foreigners to be persons as a matter of law.)

It seems that wisdom prevailed and at 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush it was ruled to be unconstitutional. However not surprisingly it did not appear widely in media.

But we still have Fourth Amendment. Basically it doesn't apply to normal people outside US simply because we are not US citizens. Therefore the term people on the constitution cannot mean "people" in general.

Or your Government is breaking it's own laws. I don't know. They are not my laws nor have we been educated on them. You probably know better.

I don't personally see a problem with a country defining its laws as applying only to itself - the US would have no right to assert that the Fourth Amendment applies to foreign nationals not on US soil anymore than the EU would have to assert that their laws apply to random US citizens.

Although... I think the backlash happening here is right and understandable - other countries certainly do have the right to decide under what terms the US can interact with them (although not always the means to carry it out.)

That said, I think Guantanamo bay demonstrates that foreigners do have rights in the US, since one of the reasons it exists is to create a legalistic "black hole" whereby the detainees don't have access to the rights they typically might.

I think "your Government is breaking it's own laws" is closer to the truth.

it is a common error. when the constitution means citizens they say "citizens" and when it means people it says "people".

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...

says

"foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake"

The NSA has largely accomplished this level of foreign surveillance with the consent of foreign governments. Perhaps if foreign citizens pushed their own government to resist, the NSA would have a harder time getting access to data streams.

This as a great example: http://rt.com/usa/160024-nsa-intercept-bahamas-phone/

I wouldn't exactly call that consent. Sure they got access. But it was not supposed to be that wide nor used for everything. The mistake seemed to be that they accidentally trusted an allied country.

But it indeed seems that any collaboration right now with US government is going to mean full NSA access beyond what was originally negotiated.

In case of my country the desire not to collaborate with NSA indeed will affect my voting behaviour.

Virtually all Western nations cooperate with the NSA. Good luck getting your country to cut off their nose despite their face. "The West works together for intelligence gathering" doesn't work as a narrative, at all, everyone wants to pretend that their country is not complicit.