EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2824
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
His whole speech is awesome. He specifically states the he's there to protect the constitution, not a king, or queen, tyrant or dictator, nor individuals. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
On November 14 2020 03:46 Starlightsun wrote: At first I thought, shouldn't they serve the American people not the constitution? But then I remembered half of America wants Donald to be dictator after lost election. He speaks about protecting the liberty of the American people prior. Here's a tad bit longer version that includes it.. I can't seem to find the whole speech tho. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On November 14 2020 03:46 Starlightsun wrote: At first I thought, shouldn't they serve the American people not the constitution? But then I remembered half of America wants Donald to be dictator after lost election. The US military directly swears their oath to the constitution (as do elected officials). This is why military members are occasionally allowed to disobey direct orders in the US : if it's an unconstitutional order, it's considered an illegal order that is outside the chain of command. (They don't disobey them nearly as often as they should, but it does happen). This is the exact reason why the guy who did the My Lai massacre of civilians was convicted of murder, even though it was a direct order : it was in direct contravention of his oaths (same for the worst abusers at Abu Ghraib). Essentially, "just following orders" has never been a justification under US military rules (important caveat : this is only for officers. For enlisted, they're expected to follow all orders from their officers). (This dates back to a 1799 incident, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme ) | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 14 2020 03:55 Nevuk wrote: The US military directly swears their oath to the constitution (as do elected officials). This is why military members are occasionally allowed to disobey direct orders in the US : if it's an unconstitutional order, it's considered an illegal order that is outside the chain of command. (They don't disobey them nearly as often as they should, but it does happen). This is the exact reason why the guy who did the My Lai massacre of civilians was convicted of murder, even though it was a direct order : it was in direct contravention of his oaths (same for the worst abusers at Abu Ghraib). Essentially, "just following orders" has never been a justification under US military rules (important caveat : this is only for officers. For enlisted, they're expected to follow all orders from their officers). (This dates back to a 1799 incident, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme ) Enlisted are still only held to the standard of "lawful" orders. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On November 14 2020 03:55 Nevuk wrote: The US military directly swears their oath to the constitution (as do elected officials). This is why military members are occasionally allowed to disobey direct orders in the US : if it's an unconstitutional order, it's considered an illegal order that is outside the chain of command. (They don't disobey them nearly as often as they should, but it does happen). This is the exact reason why the guy who did the My Lai massacre of civilians was convicted of murder, even though it was a direct order : it was in direct contravention of his oaths (same for the worst abusers at Abu Ghraib). Essentially, "just following orders" has never been a justification under US military rules (important caveat : this is only for officers. For enlisted, they're expected to follow all orders from their officers). (This dates back to a 1799 incident, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme ) You do realize there was a whole company of army soldiers who murdered civilians in the My Lai Massacre right? The only person convicted was one of the platoon leaders, although more than twenty were charged. The example you're citing here is an embarrassment and you should read up on what you're talking about. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
Perhaps biased by podcasts and the specific 4 star retired generals I’ve generally heard interviewed, they seem both extremely competent and rather principled too, although sometimes those are not necessarily my principles. It’s a strange business the military, a real contradiction in the most dishonourable of acts humans can perform being conducted by generally honourable individuals. So at least as per accusations of hysteria, I’ve never really felt the military would ever get behind any kind of Trump coup so I was assuaged in that domain. The central crux of the matter is the mere intent, and indeed the seeming support people have for an attempt to cling on to power, regardless of its chances of success or failure. This is morally complicated somewhat by people who genuinely believe that the Dems tried to steal the election, I mean I can’t necessarily criticise their reaction merely their worldview being completey out of whack. Kwark said it both more eloquently and scathingly, even entertaining Trump’s death rattle is disgraceful. Had a fun ‘conversation’ with someone who accused me of being liberal sheeple who laps up fake news when I said I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump disputed the results. Not that I said I expected it 100%, merely that it wouldn’t surprise me if he did, fitting a pretty consistent pattern of behaviour we’ve been observing closely for 4 years (plus his prior history). Returned to that conversation with a strange mix of depression and smugness when he did that what, a few hours into counts coming in? Likewise it wouldn’t surprise me if we did get riots, politically motivated shooting incidents and all sorts. I wouldn’t put money on it, but my eyebrow would remain firmly in its neutral position if I heard such things happened. Credit to the conservative minded who have stuck by their principles and criticised Trump for his numerous transgressions but far too many have just sat by and let him run roughshod over political conventions, often not merely stepping over the line but doing a triple jump in obviously egregious fashion. | ||
KwarK
United States44368 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: You do realize there was a whole company of army soldiers who murdered civilians in the My Lai Massacre right? The only person convicted was one of the platoon leaders, although more than twenty were charged. The example you're citing here is an embarrassment and you should read up on what you're talking about. The convicted guy was pardoned too. Became a car salesman and never had to answer for shit. Army and government tried to cover it up too. Nixon had the New York Times (who he routinely used antisemitic slurs about) bugged to find out who was leaking war crimes. One soldier involved in the massacre wrote to the White House thinking that they didn’t know because the army covered it up and got himself investigated. The guy who got in the most trouble for it was the pilot who ordered his men to fire on American soldiers if they didn’t stop killing civilians. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:05 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: You do realize there was a whole company of army soldiers who murdered civilians in the My Lai Massacre right? The only person convicted was one of the platoon leaders, although more than twenty were charged. The example you're citing here is an embarrassment and you should read up on what you're talking about. That doesn’t seem to contradict his post at all, specifically the part at the end where ‘just following orders’ never being a justification under US military rules, with the caveat that this refers to the officer class and for lower ranks they’re expected to follow orders. So as per My Lai the person convicted was the officer and the rank and file got a pass (as they can actually use the ‘just following orders’ defence). Was my reading of Nevuk’s post anyways, could absolutely be wrong on that. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:17 WombaT wrote: That doesn’t seem to contradict his post at all, specifically the part at the end where ‘just following orders’ never being a justification under US military rules, with the caveat that this refers to the officer class and for lower ranks they’re expected to follow orders. So as per My Lai the person convicted was the officer and the rank and file got a pass (as they can actually use the ‘just following orders’ defence). Was my reading of Nevuk’s post anyways, could absolutely be wrong on that. Just going to reiterate that the bolded part isn't true. Source: I'm currently enlisted. There are actually a lot of examples of service members in the U.S. not following orders because they're unlawful or, conversely, being punished by the military for war crimes. The problem is that many of the most egregious incidents (e.g. My Lai Massacre) are heavily politicized and result in significant tampering by non-military officials (e.g. Nixon with My Lai, Trump with several convicted or charged war criminals during his administration). That isn't to say that the military would handle things perfectly if left completely alone (see sexual assault epidemic as an example), but the institution of the U.S. military has a lot of built-in tools, laws, and cultural norms that, if used as intended, can combat tyranny/military coups attempts/etc. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:17 WombaT wrote: That doesn’t seem to contradict his post at all, specifically the part at the end where ‘just following orders’ never being a justification under US military rules, with the caveat that this refers to the officer class and for lower ranks they’re expected to follow orders. So as per My Lai the person convicted was the officer and the rank and file got a pass (as they can actually use the ‘just following orders’ defence). Was my reading of Nevuk’s post anyways, could absolutely be wrong on that. I would start with Kwark's post and then maybe some history if you think anyone was held accountable for the My Lai Massacre. People on the internet have a really romanticized view of individualism, especially when it pertains to the military and doing the right thing. The pilot Hugh Thompson and his crew didn't get real recognition for their actions until the 90s. The government at every level was more focused on covering up the US murdering civilians again than doing the right thing. You're not convincing me that this is a good example. If you want to talk about command responsibility you can do it without providing false information about the My Lai Massacre. | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I would start with Kwark's post and then maybe some history if you think anyone was held accountable for the My Lai Massacre. People on the internet have a really romanticized view of individualism, especially when it pertains to the military and doing the right thing. The pilot Hugh Thompson and his crew didn't get real recognition for their actions until the 90s. The government at every level was more focused on covering up the US murdering civilians again than doing the right thing. You're not convincing me that this is a good example. This also highlights a big problem with the military historically. The larger an incident gets (i.e. the worse the military's fuck-up is), the more likely that both the military and non-military government officials work to cover it up so that they don't look bad instead of holding people accountable. Service members are fairly frequently slammed with the UCMJ every year for the very things that we're talking about, but these incidents are chump change for the media and barely register as a blip (if they do at all). Meanwhile, major incidents make the government look terrible, so instead of un-fucking the problem, those people that will look the worst out of everyone (those at the top) just push to have the entire thing covered up. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:40 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: I would start with Kwark's post and then maybe some history if you think anyone was held accountable for the My Lai Massacre. People on the internet have a really romanticized view of individualism, especially when it pertains to the military and doing the right thing. The pilot Hugh Thompson and his crew didn't get real recognition for their actions until the 90s. The government at every level was more focused on covering up the US murdering civilians again than doing the right thing. You're not convincing me that this is a good example. If you want to talk about command responsibility you can do it without providing false information about the My Lai Massacre. Well the government focus on covering up is the more pertinent factor here than ostensible military doctrine. I don’t remotely disagree with what you’re saying re My Lai. Laws and enforcement of those laws do not always neatly align. Indeed re individualism and doing the right thing, doesn’t seem particularly to work. Be it My Lai, be it whistleblowers in various other domains too, I have no particular illusions there. The people committing war crimes, or participating in structurally enabled widespread financial fraud tend not to face the consequences of those actions, but the person who draws attention to them often can. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-governor-kate-brown-new-covid-19-measures-announcement/ Limiting faith based organizations to a maximum of 25 people indoors or 50 people outdoors. Limiting restaurants and bars to take-out only. Closing gyms and fitness organizations. Closing indoor recreational facilities, museums, indoor entertainment activities, and indoor pools and sports courts. Closing outdoor recreational facilities, zoos, gardens, aquariums, outdoor entertainment activities, and outdoor pools. Limiting grocery stores and pharmacies to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up. Limiting retail stores and retail malls (indoor and outdoor) to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up. Closing venues (that host or facilitate indoor or outdoor events). Requiring all businesses to mandate work-from-home to the greatest extent possible and closing offices to the public. Prohibiting indoor visiting in long-term care facilities. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9069 Posts
On November 14 2020 06:47 Mohdoo wrote: Oregon is back on lockdown starting the 18th, thank god. Amazingly stupidly, churches can have up to 25 people in person at a time, despite the fact that many churches are doing just fine using zoom. Super frustrating. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-governor-kate-brown-new-covid-19-measures-announcement/ Same here in suburban Cook County. The guidelines for residents of suburban Cook County are in alignment with the city of Chicago's advisory that was issued the day before. Both take effect at 6 a.m. Monday and will last at least 30 days, officials said. The advisory reads as follows: STAY HOME. As much as possible, please refrain from any non-essential activities and stay home. If you must go out for essential activities, such as work, to attend school, get tested for COVID-19, get a flu shot, or to shop for groceries: Wear a mask consistently and correctly over your nose and mouth. Avoid close contact with others and maintain a distance of at least 6 feet from others who do not live with you. Wash hands often with soap and warm water. LIMIT GATHERINGS. As much as possible, please refrain from attending or hosting gatherings with people who do not live in your household. This includes recommendations to postpone holiday gatherings or host virtual celebrations to limit the spread of COVID-19. LIMIT TRAVEL. As much as possible, do not engage in any non-essential travel, including vacations or trips to visit relatives or friends. WORK FROM HOME. As much as possible, CCDPH is calling on employers in suburban Cook County to re-establish telework protocols for staff who are able to work from home. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On November 14 2020 07:01 Mohdoo wrote: The government needs to be specifically targeting thanksgiving. They need to be yelling from towers "PLEASE JUST SKIP THANKSGIVING THIS YEAR" Yeah about that...The goverment is holding a mass welcome dinner for the new house members + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
On November 14 2020 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote: This also highlights a big problem with the military historically. The larger an incident gets (i.e. the worse the military's fuck-up is), the more likely that both the military and non-military government officials work to cover it up so that they don't look bad instead of holding people accountable. Service members are fairly frequently slammed with the UCMJ every year for the very things that we're talking about here, but these incidents are chump change for the media and barely register as a blip (if they do at all). Meanwhile, major incidents make the government look terrible, so instead of un-fucking the problem, those people that sets will look the worst out of everyone (those at the top) just push to have the entire thing covered up. I agree, there's a version of "Owe 100 dollars, that's your problem. Owe 100 million dollars, that's the bank's problem." at work here that's pushing hard in the wrong direction. I do have some sympathy to the following orders defence. Deciding whether something is constitutional takes dozens of lawyers years, and given the current SC, will probably reach the wrong conclusion anyway. I am no soldier, but for the random Lt. being pushed to do something he's not comfortable with, knowing he will be obliterated if he digs his heels in and is wrong, I can see how "yes, sir" becomes tempting. Ironically, the situations where the answer should be obvious are the kind that become the bank's problem. The ones that are not obvious are the kind he can get destroyed for, whatever he does. | ||
| ||
