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.
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.
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].
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.
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.
I agree that we've never been critical enough of America's strikes on innocent people. The difference though is that you can make the case that there was an ongoing war in which these strikes were ostensibly made in an effort to improve the outcomes of a congressionally-approved war.
Presently though, America is not at war with small boats in international waters, so it's a eyebrow-raising (or absolutely disturbing) in similar yet also different ways. They can't even pretend it was necessary or adherent to policy in this case.
So if Osama bin Laden was on a small boat in international waters, then it would be “wrong” to attack the boat?
Anyway, the point isn’t to justify extrajudicial killings, whether they occur in the Middle East or international waters.
The point is that, logically, you should feel the same way about both. “It’s ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a cave but it’s not ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a small boat” isn’t logical. It’s ok to believe both are wrong or both are right. That’s consistent. It’s inconsistent to believe one is right compared to the other, though.
Which brings me to the ultimate point, which is, if you feel that the boat bombings are a violation of law that should cause Trump to be removed from office, then you should also believe that Bush, Biden, and Obama should have been removed from office. And, if you believe Trump should be removed from office but not Obama, then you’re letting a media narrative influence your rational judgement.
If you need further evidence of Trump’s exceptionalism in the media, consider Hacker News. If you tried to discuss Obama’s Middle East bombing, your conversation would be flagged as political discussion. Yet discussing Trump does not receive the same treatment. The thing I dislike most about Trump is that every apolitical corner of the internet I enjoy has put political stakes in the ground.
It was War on Terror, no? As a direct response to murder of thousands of citizens… (not condoning it though, America loves to murder people though I’ve heard a lot in October during election campaign that this time will be different…)
If you use War on Terror as justification, then why not use War on Drugs? How many citizens have died due to illegal drugs? How many lives have been ruined?
How many historical examples of civilians being misidentified as combatants does it take before we question whether these strikes have all been drug boats?
Focusing on acts of the current administration is sensible because the current administration can be stopped from similar future acts. Bush, Obama, and Biden are already prevented from future similar acts. It's also reasonable to protest more when the quality of the acts has changed.
Certainly, extrajudicial killings aren't new, but claiming the victims are drug dealers instead of terrorists is new, as is doing it at sea instead of on land. Above and beyond soverignity concerns and treaties about such things, there are many treaties and standards of maritime conduct and violating them seems to be more offensive than on land.
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?
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.”
Relevant quote, for your own judgement:
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.
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.
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)
You missed the rest of it.
> “So you keep pushing on making it constitutional. I’m totally supportive of that,” Karp said.
When he says "push to make it constitutional" what he means is push to make them comply with complex rules.
Which in context means, you keep pushing to make the military be sure they are operating within the bounds of the constitution.
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
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?
Why is this flagged?
There is a reason why they are war crimes and not Constitutional.
[flagged]
I agree that we've never been critical enough of America's strikes on innocent people. The difference though is that you can make the case that there was an ongoing war in which these strikes were ostensibly made in an effort to improve the outcomes of a congressionally-approved war.
Presently though, America is not at war with small boats in international waters, so it's a eyebrow-raising (or absolutely disturbing) in similar yet also different ways. They can't even pretend it was necessary or adherent to policy in this case.
So if Osama bin Laden was on a small boat in international waters, then it would be “wrong” to attack the boat?
Anyway, the point isn’t to justify extrajudicial killings, whether they occur in the Middle East or international waters.
The point is that, logically, you should feel the same way about both. “It’s ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a cave but it’s not ok to bomb people the country doesn’t like in a small boat” isn’t logical. It’s ok to believe both are wrong or both are right. That’s consistent. It’s inconsistent to believe one is right compared to the other, though.
Which brings me to the ultimate point, which is, if you feel that the boat bombings are a violation of law that should cause Trump to be removed from office, then you should also believe that Bush, Biden, and Obama should have been removed from office. And, if you believe Trump should be removed from office but not Obama, then you’re letting a media narrative influence your rational judgement.
If you need further evidence of Trump’s exceptionalism in the media, consider Hacker News. If you tried to discuss Obama’s Middle East bombing, your conversation would be flagged as political discussion. Yet discussing Trump does not receive the same treatment. The thing I dislike most about Trump is that every apolitical corner of the internet I enjoy has put political stakes in the ground.
I'd say that many of the people upset now didn't like that either but it at least had the pretense of bothering with a declaration of war.
The US has not had a congressional declaration of war since WWII.
OK, AUMF. Sorry for the imprecision.
When did we declare war on Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia?
Frankly speaking, bombing a wedding is way worse than bombing a drug boat.
It was War on Terror, no? As a direct response to murder of thousands of citizens… (not condoning it though, America loves to murder people though I’ve heard a lot in October during election campaign that this time will be different…)
If you use War on Terror as justification, then why not use War on Drugs? How many citizens have died due to illegal drugs? How many lives have been ruined?
I would say it is pretty hard to take that seriously as a justification when they’re also letting Juan Orlando Hernandez go.
except there is no war on drugs - quite the contrary - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/12/02/trum...
and if you were serious about war on drugs you’d start in America, not Venezuela
How many historical examples of civilians being misidentified as combatants does it take before we question whether these strikes have all been drug boats?
Amazing that we’ve decided to be more perturbed at people getting worked up over war crimes, rather than being perturbed by all war crimes.
I’m perturbed by partisan politics dividing the country.
It's because they're ramping up for the midterms
Focusing on acts of the current administration is sensible because the current administration can be stopped from similar future acts. Bush, Obama, and Biden are already prevented from future similar acts. It's also reasonable to protest more when the quality of the acts has changed.
Certainly, extrajudicial killings aren't new, but claiming the victims are drug dealers instead of terrorists is new, as is doing it at sea instead of on land. Above and beyond soverignity concerns and treaties about such things, there are many treaties and standards of maritime conduct and violating them seems to be more offensive than on land.
[flagged]
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?
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.”
> 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.