Palantir CEO Says Making War Crimes Constitutional Would Be Good for Business(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
Palantir CEO Says Making War Crimes Constitutional Would Be Good for Business
https://gizmodo.com/palantir-ceo-says-making-war-crimes-constitutional-would-be-good-for-business-2000695162
46 comments
Yeah, I mean, I think Alex Karp is a bit of a creep, but the point he’s making is the opposite of what the headline is implying.
Yes, of course, famously no ambiguity in the constitution.
If you're not being deceitful and seeking to violate people's rights for your own purposes (i.e. a politician or someone in that orbit) it's pretty clear.
Like "papers and effect", "shall make no law", stuff like that's pretty hard to screw up if you're not trying.
Like "papers and effect", "shall make no law", stuff like that's pretty hard to screw up if you're not trying.
The Constitutionality of the attacks is orthogonal to their status as war crimes. (The Constitution doesn't concern itself with war crimes beyond the fact that they're crimes. Its writing almost predates the concept.)
What Trump can do without Congressional approval is a constitutional question. Whether it's a war crime is a legal one. I'm not sure how much Palantir can help with the first. I'm fairly certain it would be useful with the latter; Helen Mirren starred in a film that was essentially about this [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film)
What Trump can do without Congressional approval is a constitutional question. Whether it's a war crime is a legal one. I'm not sure how much Palantir can help with the first. I'm fairly certain it would be useful with the latter; Helen Mirren starred in a film that was essentially about this [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_in_the_Sky_(2015_film)
You missed the rest of it.
> “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
> “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
Which in context means, you keep pushing to make the military be sure they are operating within the bounds of the constitution.
When he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.
You could have the most precise surgical robot half way around the world, but you just put a dimentia riddled senior or drunken asshole, it don't matter the precision.
GIGO
GIGO
I feel like the headline kind of misleads since what he actually says is, essentially, "yeah, go nuts trying to limit it, then they need to buy from me." Which is still crass but not what the headline suggests.
We are finally making data dashboards that provide insights into war crimes compliance.
Does it really matter if they are constitutional or not when there's zero penalty for committing them?
[deleted]
Required reading on Palantir and its cousins, Dataminr etc. : "IBM and the Holocaust, The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation."
The book is good because of the extensive historical documentation of IBM practices, Nazi procurement orders, and the eagerness that IBM leaders displayed in fulfilling those orders, even though they knew the purpose:
> "The racial portion of the census was designed to pinpoint ancestral Jews as defined by the Nuremberg Laws, ensuring no escape from the Reich's anti-Semitic campaign. In addition to the usual census questions, a special card asked whether any of the individuals grandparents was Jewish."
In a not-so-unique historical inversion, the Israeli government is now using American tech firms like Palantir to assist in their ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide programs in the West Bank and Gaza, which have certainly not ended, ceasefire or no, as any reading of the statements of Israeli government officials, bloggers, online commentators etc. demonstrates (even though Twitter no longer provides translations of Hebrew to English, it's not hard to decipher the intent).
As far as Palantir and Dataminr's agenda? Same as IBM's - delivering value to their shareholders.
The book is good because of the extensive historical documentation of IBM practices, Nazi procurement orders, and the eagerness that IBM leaders displayed in fulfilling those orders, even though they knew the purpose:
> "The racial portion of the census was designed to pinpoint ancestral Jews as defined by the Nuremberg Laws, ensuring no escape from the Reich's anti-Semitic campaign. In addition to the usual census questions, a special card asked whether any of the individuals grandparents was Jewish."
In a not-so-unique historical inversion, the Israeli government is now using American tech firms like Palantir to assist in their ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide programs in the West Bank and Gaza, which have certainly not ended, ceasefire or no, as any reading of the statements of Israeli government officials, bloggers, online commentators etc. demonstrates (even though Twitter no longer provides translations of Hebrew to English, it's not hard to decipher the intent).
As far as Palantir and Dataminr's agenda? Same as IBM's - delivering value to their shareholders.
There is a reason why they are war crimes and not Constitutional.
Why is this flagged?
in case you forgot, Palantir and all associated with it are capital E Evil
hippo22(5)
So Karp wants to profit from murder? I honestly wish I were surprised by this.
No, he is saying that if you want a precise answer (constitutional) you need precise information, which Palantir can offer.
That is what the article says. But it is also quite different from what the headline implies.
I think it's a question of what it means to make something constitutional, and also how to refer to that thing.
If the headline was Palantir CEO Says Making Boat Attacks Constitutional Would Be Good For Business, it would be easier to read it both ways; change the boat attacks so they comply with the constitution, or change the constitution so the boat attacks are no longer prohibited.
It's just a little harder to say change the war crimes so that they comply... But if they comply, are they still war crimes? And if they are still war crimes, and we entered a treaty to prohibit war crimes, and the constitution says treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, how can it be constitutional to carry them out?
If the headline was Palantir CEO Says Making Boat Attacks Constitutional Would Be Good For Business, it would be easier to read it both ways; change the boat attacks so they comply with the constitution, or change the constitution so the boat attacks are no longer prohibited.
It's just a little harder to say change the war crimes so that they comply... But if they comply, are they still war crimes? And if they are still war crimes, and we entered a treaty to prohibit war crimes, and the constitution says treaties are the supreme Law of the Land, how can it be constitutional to carry them out?
However sloppily expressed I think the intent is clear: he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws concerning their conduct, but they’re drumming up business for me, so I don’t mind.”
> he is saying “I don’t think it’s important that they comply with laws
I cannot see where Karp says that. Do you have the quote?
I cannot see where Karp says that. Do you have the quote?
> “Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract.
Make your own judgment but I thought that it was a reasonable inference if his answer is about how he’s got dollar signs in his eyes that he doesn’t see a moral imperative here.
Make your own judgment but I thought that it was a reasonable inference if his answer is about how he’s got dollar signs in his eyes that he doesn’t see a moral imperative here.
> That is what the article says. But it is also quite different from what the headline implies.
Sure, but that’s on the reporter and the reader.
Sure, but that’s on the reporter and the reader.
At the New York Times’ DealBook Summit on Wednesday, Karp was asked about the worries over the unconstitutionality of the boat strikes.
“Part of the reason why I like this questioning is the more constitutional you want to make it, the more precise you want to make it, the more you’re going to need my product,” Karp said. His reasoning is that if it’s constitutional, you would have to make 100% sure of the exact conditions it’s happening in, and in order to do that, the military would have to use Palantir’s technology, for which it pays roughly $10 billion under its current contract.