Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#61

Post by libertine »

inemesitaffia wrote: post #41
blooalien wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and Russia "mysteriously" getting more and more "illegal" StarLink terminals / access... Can't Musk cut off their service (since they're sanctioned and supposedly "illegally" using the service / equipment)?

[flagged]

It's quite mysterious how an internet service provider isn't aware of their devices being used in an active warzone at the hands of war criminals and doesn't seem to care that much to see if their devices are violating sanctions or not.

It's almost like you're saying that Starlink is a risk to national and international security because any terrorist group can use it unchecked.

Except when Putin requested him not to deploy Starlink on Taiwan, and looks like Elon complied: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/4938264

If it's Russia using them on the battlefield, "oh anyone can use it it's a retail product"... if it's Taiwan "well it's complicated"...

So maybe you're right, Starlink should become heavily regulated moving forward.

I'm all for the law taking action on these matters. If there's corruption at play, let it come to light.

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#62

Post by inemesitaffia »

libertine wrote: post #61
inemesitaffia wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It's quite mysterious how an internet service provider isn't aware of their devices being used in an active warzone at the hands of war criminals and doesn't seem to care that much to see if their devices are violating sanctions or not. It's almost like you're saying that Starlink is a risk to national and international security because any terrorist group can use it unchecked. Except when Putin requested him not to…

You're being ridiculous. The equipment is being used in Ukraine, not Russia and devices don't violate sanctions. People and Organizations do.

There's a Pentagon working group responsible for dealing with the proliferation issue in Ukraine and the Pentagon claims SpaceX is proactive and fully cooperative.

Starlink isn't operative in the areas of Ukraine subject to sanctions and SpaceX has no agreement with any Russian entity to supply them with equipment. They don't accept Russian payments or deliver to Russia

Any terrorist group can use any similar product. You can go online and buy similar products. Did you somehow think Starlink was the first company with SATCOM or phased arrays? I've noted the Taliban leadership has a preference for iPhones and Kim Jung Un drives a BMW.

The Taliban also used SATCOM on drones before Starlink existed.

Taiwan doesn't want Starlink. When they are ready to deal they'll get it. Like many countries and territories have.

Read that article you linked and stop with jumping to conclusions on headlines. You'll get the insights you need. A hint is SpaceX doesn't do joint ventures.

Starlink is already heavily regulated by multiple regulators

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#63

Post by ttyprintk »

Caius-Cosades wrote: post #30
breadwinner wrote: post #20

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason. [1] To "adhere" means to support or be loyal to. In this context, it refers to someone aligning themselves with the enemies of the U.S., either by joining them or providing help and resources, such as intelligence, weapons, or log…

Hypothetically speaking, would supporting an entity that attacked an US Navy ship, directly resulting in death of US navy servicemen, constitute as such?

Treason requires allegiance to the United States. Seditious conspiracy is more often used. For example, Jan 6 revolutionaries might have denounced the United States thinking that it would get them off a treason charge, only to discover that denunciation is a conspiracy to commit sedition.

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#64

Post by ttyprintk »

lawn wrote: post #26
breadwinner wrote: post #20

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason. [1] To "adhere" means to support or be loyal to. In this context, it refers to someone aligning themselves with the enemies of the U.S., either by joining them or providing help and resources, such as intelligence, weapons, or log…

Sounds like Trump would match this description too with his relationship with Putin, how he sent Covid machines to him instead of the American people, how he's promised to withdraw all support to Ukraine and cripple NATO. Essentially he wants to give Putin everything he asks for.

He’s very protected because less than 2/3 of the Senate voted to convict his impeachable offenses. The reality of Presidential treason depends on his/her reputation among our betters in the Senate.

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#65

Post by ttyprintk »

schiffern wrote: post #7
moosedman wrote: post #4

Treason season started early.

Under US law, "treason" means either 1) trying to overthrow the government or 2) providing "aid and comfort" to enemies in war. The last time I checked, the US has not declared war with Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...

Many treason cases do not depend on Congress declaring war:

Slave rebellions

Puerto-Rican separatists

American citizens implicated in terrorism

The Congress has never even come close to declaring war in any of these circumstances.

Re: Elon Musk's Conversations with Vladimir Putin

#66

Post by ttyprintk »

Zigurd wrote: post #36
schiffern wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under US law, "treason" means either 1) trying to overthrow the government or 2) providing "aid and comfort" to enemies in war. The last time I checked, the US has not declared war with Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_laws_in_the_United_Sta...

Has anyone litigated whether a war needs to be declared to be a war? Not treating war as a technicality is one reason judges exist.

It’s irrational to demand that. Treason can obviously preclude war. In practice, seditious conspiracy charges are far more common. There was a slave revolt in the 1800s after which charges of treason didn’t stick because resisting slavery is not war against the nation.
Post reply on HN