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?
I cannot see where Karp says that. Do you have the quote?
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.
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.
Like "papers and effect", "shall make no law", stuff like that's pretty hard to screw up if you're not trying.
> “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
GIGO
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)
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.
orionblastar•2mo ago