They may not be unsolvable problems, but by and large, they are problems that have to be solved by throwing money at them. A lot of money.
As it is, an actual ship would probably have to be built in orbit, because building it down here and then sending it into orbit, assuming it could even get off the ground, would be expensive.
So, you're right; it's not necessarily a problem of technology, but one of logistics; and the fact that most nations are not really willing to work together to accomplish this.
I'm no sure how Article 1, Section 9 (re: ex post facto) doesn't apply. While the text doesn't explicitly say it, this section is to protect citizens from retroactive prosecution by the government. Key being, "by the government".
These wiretaps were performed at the behest of the government. So, if the government orders something illegal to be done, then why shouldn't Article 1, Section 9 also prevent the legislature from passing laws to protect themselves when they commit a crime against the citizenry?
The Constitution supplies framework for the government, but is intended to do so in a way that does not leave citizens vulnerable to the government.
Ideally, this is where judicial review would come into play, but I'm not holding my breath.
Slashdot Mirror
They may not be unsolvable problems, but by and large, they are problems that have to be solved by throwing money at them. A lot of money.
As it is, an actual ship would probably have to be built in orbit, because building it down here and then sending it into orbit, assuming it could even get off the ground, would be expensive.
So, you're right; it's not necessarily a problem of technology, but one of logistics; and the fact that most nations are not really willing to work together to accomplish this.
I'm no sure how Article 1, Section 9 (re: ex post facto) doesn't apply. While the text doesn't explicitly say it, this section is to protect citizens from retroactive prosecution by the government. Key being, "by the government".
These wiretaps were performed at the behest of the government. So, if the government orders something illegal to be done, then why shouldn't Article 1, Section 9 also prevent the legislature from passing laws to protect themselves when they commit a crime against the citizenry?
The Constitution supplies framework for the government, but is intended to do so in a way that does not leave citizens vulnerable to the government.
Ideally, this is where judicial review would come into play, but I'm not holding my breath.