But to follow that completely, you've also made no contract by your consent to give your government the power to arrest, prosecute, or employ various armed agents to use against another who has not so consented to your government.
It's true that's outside the scope of my comment. However, once again referring to the Declaration of Independence, the concluding paragraph includes comments that the notion of statehood includes these rights[1]:
as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Specifically, that's the role of the Head of State (The President) and the State Department.
====
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
My intent was to draw a distinction between the relationship between the US government and its own people and the relationship between the the US government and non-citizens. My use of the term "social contract" was a reference to the specific Enlightenment concept.
The distinction was drawn in order to help explain to people why reactions to domestic spying are different than reactions to, say, the CIA spying in Pakistan. Domestic spying gets a more visceral, widespread negative reaction because the social contract a between government and its own citizens is highly sensitive. It's the only thing preventing oppression and tyranny-- violations should always result in an immediate flurry of public discourse, political consequences, and push to address the breach. This is not to say that treaty violations and other interaction with foreign actors is not serious-- there was no shortage of outrage about for Abu Ghraib-- but people are one step removed in any such interaction in a way that they are not when the government has offended its own.
[1] Selective quote, yes. But most relevant to the point. The "Supreme Judge of the World" part is interesting and relevant to the discussion in general but I didn't have time to address it.
It's true that's outside the scope of my comment. However, once again referring to the Declaration of Independence, the concluding paragraph includes comments that the notion of statehood includes these rights[1]:
as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
Specifically, that's the role of the Head of State (The President) and the State Department.
====
Violating a treaty is violating a social contract. A social contract does not equal a constitution alone.
My intent was to draw a distinction between the relationship between the US government and its own people and the relationship between the the US government and non-citizens. My use of the term "social contract" was a reference to the specific Enlightenment concept.
The distinction was drawn in order to help explain to people why reactions to domestic spying are different than reactions to, say, the CIA spying in Pakistan. Domestic spying gets a more visceral, widespread negative reaction because the social contract a between government and its own citizens is highly sensitive. It's the only thing preventing oppression and tyranny-- violations should always result in an immediate flurry of public discourse, political consequences, and push to address the breach. This is not to say that treaty violations and other interaction with foreign actors is not serious-- there was no shortage of outrage about for Abu Ghraib-- but people are one step removed in any such interaction in a way that they are not when the government has offended its own.
[1] Selective quote, yes. But most relevant to the point. The "Supreme Judge of the World" part is interesting and relevant to the discussion in general but I didn't have time to address it.