It makes sense that US Intelligence is spying on foreign entities -- that's their job. Foreign entities are not protected by the US constitution and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and have no right to privacy from the NSA, CIA, etc.
By your own standards the NSA by isn't doing their job, as they have been shown to be spying on US entities.[1]
> Foreign entities are not protected by the US constitution and are not covered by the Fourth Amendment and have no right to privacy from the NSA, CIA, etc.
The strongest justification, IMHO, for limiting spying to clear, identifiable enemies of the state that represent real threats - as opposed to blanket, dragnet surveillance of everyone, everywhere - does not come from the Constitution. The strongest argument comes from the basic principle that hypocrisy is bad, and we shouldn't engage in it on a personal or social or governmental level. By surveilling everybody, we lose the moral high ground on which to stand when criticizing the various dictatorships, tyrannies, and theocracies around the world that engage in massive surveillance in order to maintain their power. In short as the world's supreme military power, we owe it to the rest of humanity to do the right thing, act like adults and set a good example. Right now the NSA and the rest of the intelligence community makes our government look like a pack of lying hypocrites.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillanc...
Are you kidding me? It's almost comical, the straight face with which they act hurt that a foreign entity is spying on us and intruding in our networks.
In other news, foreigners don't look to the US constitution before deciding whether to be cross about being spied on.
Legal scholars disagree with you: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
... blatant... rediculous...
Let me know if you can't figure out where our wires got crossed and I'll try and clarify.
Only if you read things like "no person" (as in, among other places, the Fifth Amendment) to mean "no citizen", which isn't what the text says, isn't likely what was intended by the original authors, and isn't how legal scholars or courts have interpreted the language since its been written.
Now, there are rights in the Constitution that belong to citizens as such rather than persons in general, such as voting rights protected under, among other provisions, the 15th Amendment. But to say that foreigners don't have any rights under the Constitution is incorrect.
Only if you read things like "no person"...