[NewsaHackO]

I wouldn't say it's clear. People keep pointing to the wording used in the statement to say it, but I wonder if it has to do with constitutionally; domestic surveillance of people in the US without a warrant is against the constitution, and surveillance of non-citizens outside the U.S is not. Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional?

[phs318u]

Sure they can. They can “temporarily” suspend parts of the constitution in times of “grave national peril”, and hand out presidential pardons in advance. But doing that would surely be considered dropping the last fig-leaf from the performance art of giving a fuck about the constitution.

[NewsaHackO]

I guess that my point is: Saying that you are against surveillance in general is a morally sound position, but would not be a defense if the DoD invokes the DPA, as one can't just refuse an order due to it being immoral. One can refuse an order if the order contradicts with the constitution.

[beej71]

> Can they even be compelled by the executive branch to do an action that may be unconstitutional?

Seems like legally the answer is "no".

But it also seems like practically the answer is "definitely".