Why are you making it sound like that's some profound revelation? Law enforcement is allowed to run stings, serve warrants and make arrests, you aren't. The military is allowed to invade countries and drop nukes, you aren't. Yes it is legal when they do it and not some average Joe who wants to play hero. That's how the world works, and it is a good thing.
> Why are you making it sound like that's some profound revelation?
I've never claimed any of my musings are profound revelations. That's an exercise left to the reader.
> Law enforcement is allowed to run stings, serve warrants and make arrests, you aren't.
Specifics matter. "The Government" is not some monolithic entity. Even "law enforcement" could be local, State level, FBI, CIA, or some other part of the executive branch. Each has its own restrictions on when and how it can operate.
> The military is allowed to invade countries and drop nukes, you aren't.
> Yes it is legal when they do it and not some average Joe who wants to play hero.
It's an untested open question whether it's legal for them to do it to US civilians or infrastructure that they know is owned by US civilians.
It might be the right thing to do. The world might be better for it. It might even be decided one day that they do in fact have that power (there's a pretty clear argument that stopping a botnet qualifies as "Hot pursuit": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_pursuit).
> That's how the world works, and it is a good thing.
There's plenty of "ends justify the means" situations involving the government that are not good things applied more generally. Hence, specifics matter.
> Whoever, within the United States, knowingly begins or sets on foot or provides or prepares a means for or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition or enterprise to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII, so it looks like the entirety of the U.S. military is in violation of this. It's looking more and more like what actually gets prosecuted is a political decision.
Yes, this is true, but in a far more boring way than you imagine. Prosecutors have huge latitude on what to prosecute, and the police on what to direct investigatory resources to. At every point, the unconscious and sometimes conscious politics of the people making those decisions are in play. That’s what makes reforming the system so hard.
Am I reading this wrong or are foreign heads of state that produce nuclear weapons technically committing a crime which the US considers itself to have jurisdiction over? If so why aren't they arrested when they travel to the US?
Where would this leave Elon Musk and his possible servicing of Putin? He'a got money so I know he'll be fine but still kind of shocked such a high-profile government contractor can get away with this kind of thing with no collateral damage to their business or personal effects
