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.”
> “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.
