• 118 Posts
  • 441 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle


  • The US has been using this kind of logic since Sept 12 2001 (arc)

    SACHA PFEIFFER, HOST:

    After the attacks on September 11, 2001, the George W. Bush administration arrested hundreds of suspected terrorists. Most of them were never criminally charged and eventually let go. Some spent years in inhumane conditions, even though they had no connection to the Taliban or al-Qaida. In 2002, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where many of those prisoners were being held, and described them using this term.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    DONALD RUMSFELD: And one of the most important aspects of the Geneva Convention is the distinction between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants.

    PFEIFFER: By labeling them unlawful combatants, the U.S. said it was justified in holding them indefinitely without trial and denying them international legal protections. The Trump administration is now applying the same term to people on board boats it’s blowing up because it says they’re transporting drugs from South America. The language here matters. It underpins the legal arguments presidents make to justify their actions. Here’s current Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth referring to the cartels that ship drugs from the southern hemisphere to the United States.

    (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

    PETE HEGSETH: So our message to these foreign terrorist organizations is we will treat you like we have treated al-Qaida.

    A lot more good information and history in that article, but the important point is that because they’re not soldiers (i.e. lawful combatants), they don’t get Geneva Convention protection, but because they’re not criminals either they don’t get due process protection either. It’s a completely blatant and stupid way to just ditch all the humanitarian guardrails around government violence we spent the 20th century building, it was fucked 20 years ago and it’s fucked today but we never held the people doing it accountable so here we are.



























  • I think there’s also a bit of rationality behind that system, because

    a) Trolls will just lie and declare an article says something it doesn’t to “win” an argument or waste people’s time making them read their bullshit article (usually something hosted on a website you don’t want to give traffic to)

    b) Some people on those forums might have tightly constrained time-frames for looking at things because they’re students or they’re working in a restaurant or retail shop or some other kind of closely managed service job where they can get yelled at by a supervisor for using their phone

    c) There’s a lot of content to get to on the internet

    So, I think it’s kind of a dick move to get mad at other people for not reading the article, and it’s definitely a dick move to do that if you don’t take the time to quote the specific part of the article they’re claiming contradicts someone else


  • I think that’s what this administration want us to think, but in reality

    White House officials said that covering the cost of military pay for the first half of October totaled about $6.5 billion. Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the American Enterprise Institute

    FFS, could the news media go more than two sentences without treating a right wing hack organization like a serious viewpoint, fuck

    Ugh, whatever, sorry for interrupting, do some middle school level math for us Todd

    Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said that based on that figure, the new donation will cover about one-third of one day’s pay for the force.

    So, yeah, this is a dumb stunt designed to get us to think they just privatized the military, but it’s actually empty bullshit