this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
338 points (94.9% liked)

News

23314 readers
3657 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 67 points 9 months ago (9 children)

The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.

Oh, Christ. While I appreciate looking for unorthodox solutions, that's a court case tugging at its chain.

[–] Heresy_generator@kbin.social 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah; reading the article it would seem "arguably legal" is probably a lot more accurate than "perfectly legal"

Now, there is a caveat in the EDA law. All weapons must be given away “as is, where is.” In other words, the U.S. government legally can’t pay for shipping.

But another caveat is that any weapons in Germany are excluded from this rule. Biden could ship those DPICMs to Germany aboard a few sealift ships and then declare them as excess to need before having the U.S. Army drop them off somewhere the Ukrainian armed forces would have no trouble retrieving them.

I mean, you can call this legal but when you're paying to ship equipment you've clearly decided is excess before declaring it "excess" in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law...

Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]

[–] Laticauda@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm no expert but it seems to me like it's basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck. If someone did try to do this they'd likely still be challenged legally in order to set a precedent, so I'm guessing it's not like Biden could do something like this and get away with it scott free.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm no expert but it seems to me like it's basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck.

That has been the Trump administration (and post-presidency) playbook since 2016, and it has worked out remarkably well for them (and shown how flimsy many of our laws are). I say send it and let the chips fall where they may. If the courts end up deciding "yeah, that's illegal" it's not like they can get the shells back, unless they want to remove them piece by piece from exploded Russian equipment and Russian soldiers. They just won't be able to use that tactic again. It's not blatantly illegal now.

[–] maynarkh@feddit.nl 2 points 9 months ago

And setting precedent might just be good so that the law is that much stronger. Those shells might end up somewhere else someday if this opportunity is not taken.

[–] Laticauda@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

The fact that it's part of the Trump administration playbook indicates that perhaps it is not a great way to run a country and isn't something that should be emulated.

[–] Chemical@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Why worry? Trump has made it perfectly clear that the president can apparently do whatever the hell they want to and good luck at stopping them. I believe Biden should take the same liberties. Perhaps I’ve just lost faith in the system.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Probably should wait and see if SCOTUS agrees with Trump on that before jumping the gun.

Afterward? Yeah, Biden should do whatever the fuck he wants. And he had better.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

People doing good things shouldn't wait to find out if shitty people doing malicious things are told no. Just do the right thing already, face the consequences later. That's what the shitty people do, and they usually get away with it.

[–] alilbee@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say "let's skip it and just do the right thing". What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don't just have a problem with Trump's motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You all are aware that the subversion of the constitutional state for what you deem to.be good reasons will end in the same weakening of said state no matter who did it, right?

Don't lose track of what's at stake by getting blinded by bipartisan feuds. You can't fight the enemies of law, oder and democracy by undermining law, order and democracy. That is literally the only thing one can learn from the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.

[–] msage@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

Right, like the other party cares about democracy.

Jesus Christ they've been gerrymandering everything they can, they ignore supreme courts orders to roll it back. They ban abortions, they try to go against people who travel to get it, they declare IVF emryos children... and that's just the surface.

Just face it and be honest about it - there is no democracy. Majority of people are against Israel genociding Gaza. Democracy doesn't care. Even the party of lEsSeR eViL does not give a flying fuck - DNC just says they can pick who gets to be nominated, since they are a private company.

Fuck all of that. Nobody cares about the majority of anything, except the capital. People have no value, not in the US.

But let's worry about the optics of bipartisan support. What if the other party starts an insurrection???

[–] AlpacaChariot@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I'm not from the USA so I don't have a dog in this fight but this seems like a mad approach to me. Think beyond the immediate short term.

In your place I'd be standing up for and strengthening your institutions and conventions; they aren't perfect but the checks and balances are the only thing holding back people like Trump. If you don't abide by the rules either that becomes the new normal and Trump-like figures will become commonplace and no longer be seen as an aberration.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

I'm not from the US either, but I have heard of Project 2025. If Republicans actually implement what's in it, whatever checks and balances were left will go right out the window.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is not the right thing. The end of supporting an ally against Russian imperialism, fulfilling our promises, taking the cheapest route to safeguard our national interests, does not justify the means of the executive branch willfully misinterpreting government controls to circumvent fundamental checks and balances

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

jumping the gun

Four years after he's left office and we're still waiting for the SCOTUS to make up its mind?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The "I can legally do whatever I want when I'm president" argument he's been making is relatively new and SCOTUS is looking into it. If Trump loses, he's fucked. If Trump wins, Biden could potentially have him assassinated. Legally. And if I were Biden, I sure would. Why not if it's legal?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The “I can legally do whatever I want when I’m president” argument he’s been making is relatively new

Nixon made this argument 50 years ago.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president. He was also roundly criticized for it and called ignorant.

Trump is making the argument in court while running for president and a scary number of people are supporting him. That's quite different.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president.

He made the argument when he ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Laos at the advise of Kissinger. He made it when he launched the War on Drugs, as an excuse for federal harassmemt and surveiling civil rights activists and anti war protesters. He made it when he coordinated with criminal cartels down in Florida and the surrounding Gulf States to rig elections, disenfranchise voters, and red bait the opposition.

He reiterated it during the Frost interview. But he never gave a shit about rule of law.

Trump is making the argument in court

An argument guys like Nixon and Reagan and Cheney never had to make because they were never prosecuted for their crimes.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

I believe Biden should take the same liberties.

I agree, in theory. But I like if he'd use that unlimited unitary executive power to... expand Medicaid into all the states that rejected it over the objections of those state governors. Then, maybe unilaterally abolish the $1.6T in outstanding student debts. And while he's at it, nationalize the Petroleum industry and start ramping it down, so we can avoid climate change.

I feel like we can do the military surplus to Ukraine thing once we wrap the high priority stuff up first.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Could you imagine Republicans letting that happen if there was any way they could stop it? I'm guessing they would try every possible avenue to stop it.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Presumably they'd get the manufacturers to sue for the damage to their ability to set prices when the president is literally saying that their shit is worth nothing.

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

From the article:

The U.S. Army years ago determined that these DPICMs—produced in large quantities between the 1970s and 1990s—are unreliable and unsafe, as any particular submunition has up to a 14-percent chance of being a dud.

The Army around 2017 declared a requirement for a new cluster shell with a one-percent dud rate. “Rounds now in the U.S. stockpile do not meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense's goal,” wrote Peter Burke, then the service’s top ammunition manager.

Their shit is worth nothing. It's not even being manufactured any more.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It’s a stockpile reserved in case US military needs it. Its value is the replacement value of that functionality, and that goes directly to American businesses

[–] FaceDeer@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago

It's a stockpile that explicitly doesn't meet US military standards. It needs to be disposed of anyway.

[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

See I know you're trying to give me valuable information about my point but what I just read is that Ukraine is gonna be pulling the Darktide Ogryn maneuver and start launching crates of the dud shells instead of actually using them as munitions.

More seriously, I was talking more about manufacturer's current products rather than their stockpile stuff. The argument would go that devaluing any product they've made does damage to the demand for all products they still make.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, if Biden sends them a bunch of "free" shells and this ridiculous loophole is closed I'd call that getting two birds stoned at once.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Especially since it's now known. Close that shit before Herr Cheeto has the chance to do that with arms to Russia.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah. Even if it goes unchallenged (it won't), I'd rather not get this loophole codified into law for future fascists to utilize.

Not to mention if Biden says X item from Lockheed is worth $1, they are going to flip their shit. That could have a market impact on their perceived value, even if most people know it's done to skirt the law. Or leave them open to getting very low-balled for those items later.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well, "a court case might force us to do nothing, so we have to do nothing" doesn't sound like a very good argument to me, but I respect the consistency of taking the same approach to this they did with universal student loan forgiveness at least

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

Actions have political costs, and optics could be the difference between Putin's lapdog and our current milquetoast administration.

I know which one I prefer, and, not coincidentally, that one is also better for Ukraine. So I do understand why saying "Fuck the law, we're gonna do it" hasn't been the first, second, or third choice.

[–] RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I wonder if it would be cheaper to give these cluster munitions to Ukraine, than it would be to dismantle them. The USA won't use them anymore, so is there a plan + budget for dismantling/destroying them? Historically they dumped large redundant stockpiles like this into the sea, but that's now causing problems, so a more expensive solution is needed.

It wouldn't surprise me if blowing up big piles of the stuff, is cheaper than dismantling all these tiny munitions and at that point, it's likely going to be the cheapest option (for real, not just on paper) to send it to Ukraine and let them deal with it in their way.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

This is the "Mint the Big Platinum Coin" solution to surplus military spending.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

It's also wild speculation about something that has not happened yet.