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

US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 453 posts

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#241

Post by giraffe_lady »

docdeek wrote: post #64

This seems like a bad decision to me. Not only does it seem not to be in the spirit of the law (you can still report but not as easily now) but it's not clear why they shut it down at all. Cost? Inefficiency? Just wasn't getting used much? They have a better solution? On the other hand, the US seems so partisan now that had the current administration told the world they were taking huma' rights abuse reporting seriou…

Hegseth is publicly just a huge fan of war crimes and this is probably the main reason he got the job he has now. The big thing he's been signaling, and not really even in a sly or dogwhistly way, is that war crimes are ok to do now.

If your goal is to do war crimes and enable others to do war crimes then removing the war crime reporting tool may not directly benefit you much but it certainly doesn't hurt you. And there is a certain idealogical alignment.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#242

Post by afavour »

dagss wrote: post #111
watwut wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but They are conservatives and push for conservative agenda. Conservatives wanted them on the court so that they can make decisions like this.

I think you and parent comment are just using the word conservative in two different ways. There is conservative values and there is the conservative party, two different things.

Often distinguished as "little c" conservatism and "big C" Conservatives.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#243

Post by walkabout »

titzer wrote: post #228
softwaredoug wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, I'm not sure it is surprising. (there would be tremendous oversight if the GOP was in power in Congress, and the President was a Dem)

"oversight" Like the Benghazi and Hunter Biden investigations. In other words, sideshows.

One nice thing about pointless witch hunts that go nowhere despite enormous efforts is that you can be sure a much-quicker process ending with something like actual consequences would ensue if there were real criminality to investigate.

If all they can come up with is bullshit, things must be going ok, and if they’re committed to pursuing bullshit, odds are good they’d be thrilled to find something real to attack, if they could. Similar deal with Republican election complaints: if they don’t bother to investigate when they can, or find nothing substantial when they do, those concerns can be safely dismissed, which is nice.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#246

Post by rayiner »

galangalalgol wrote: post #227
rayiner wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress's silence becomes de-facto acceptance. Congress choosing to not do oversight becomes a de-factor repeal of the law. Yes, but why is that surprising? If a majority of any legislature doesn't care to see a law enforced, they could vote to repeal the law anyway. It's only because of the artifice of the filibuster in the U.S. system that there's a meaningful difference between those two things.

The difference is that uneven enforcement is the tool of autocrats. Ignoring the law breeds contempt for it. Madison said requiring a supermajority for normal legislation would poison democracy, and I think the modern usage filibuster has proven him correct. I hope the GOP ditches the whole thing, not just for continuing resolutions. The senate will no longer have any excuses for abdicating its responsibilities. Thra…

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce is baked into the concept of prosecutorial discretion. There is a reason the country’s prosecutor in chief is an elected position. It was understood to be a fundamentally political office even in Jefferson’s day: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/02/thomas-je...

I agree we should abolish the filibuster. It makes incremental changes difficult and fosters extremism.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#247

Post by mongol »

rayiner wrote: post #171
candiddevmike wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't know if the founders ever saw this coming. Surely there weren't any historical examples of that happening, like in the Mediterranean... I kinda dislike how folks hold the founders up with some kind of religious reverence (for some, only when it suits their agenda). These guys may have been bright at the time, but you can tell they didn't think a lot of things through and certainly didn't "plan for scale". T…

The founders came from England, which has the world's longest unbroken political tradition (apart from 11 years during the English Civil War). England has top-level cabinet positions that were established 800 years ago. So I doubt the founders would be surprised that their constitution was still in use 236 years later. Regardless, what the founders believed is relevant because they're the ones that wrote the currentl…

Is it really longer than the Catholic church?

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#248

Post by alluro2 »

Trump is, inevitably, in the comments a lot.

And I'm just surprised when people still react to what he does as "unbelievable", "illegal" etc... I get it, but it's weird how persistently people still try to frame Trump's actions into moral, legal, historical, cultural, responsibility or any other framework.

He is someone who was born into wealth in the worst way possible, and was never - ever - subject to any moral restrictions, material consequences, or requirements that depend on any positive qualities, effort or success.

In those conditions, his bullish way of behaving always got him what he wanted in the moment, without any downsides or counter-weight that would regulate it. Time after time, he was given proof - by us, the society - that there are no consequences, or they are just so unimpactful, and that he can continue doing what he does. There is no framework that he needed to adhere to.

He was then placed into practically the same position within the government - being able to do whatever he wants and benefits him (directly, or through benefitting his posse), and there will be no material consequences of any kind. If he comes up to any inconvenient restrictions put in place before, they can just be removed first.

And that's it, that's what he's been doing all along. He doesn't have any higher interests, any ulterior motivation, or ambitions - in every situation, he just uses it to get something for himself in that moment - even if openly solely to be able to brag that he did it - and he makes himself look big by lying or belittling others, and that's it. Just a very simple unrestricted narcissist, on grander scale.

Their behavior is quite simple to understand and predict. It's just that they can rarely be SO up there, so unrestricted, that people still seem to struggle to not try to tie him to norms and frameworks.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#249

Post by jaccola »

wonderwonder wrote: post #60

Lots of people seem to think Trump is some sort of king or going outside the law. Fact is he was democratically elected and working within the system of checks and balances established by our founders. Congress can stop him from doing things but the democratically elected congress allows him to continue. So they agree with his actions and are doing their job. Checked and balanced. The courts can stop him and indeed h…

You are mostly correct in my opinion.

The fundamental problem is, there is really no "free market" of countries.

A US citizen who hates what the country has become cannot go off and set up a new one, they have a choice of a few styles of government (and it is very expensive to go and try living under another government!) Perhaps a benefit of space exploration will be experimentation with style of government.

My only niggle with your statement would be: A lot of what is happening now is happening because of "friction" in the system. If, for example, in an ideal world courts adjudicated instantly (instead of taking months or years) the current situation would be quite different. Similarly, if all congress people voted without fear of intimidation, some might vote quite differently. But, you are right, it's not like the founders didn't know that courts are slow or people can be intimidated.

Re: US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

#250

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

lesuorac wrote: post #123
watwut wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have long asserted that the so-called "conservatives" in the Supreme Court are anything but They are conservatives and push for conservative agenda. Conservatives wanted them on the court so that they can make decisions like this.

Yeah, the meaning of words change. They are conservatives. People that care about things like small governments and fiscal responsibility are not. It's sad when somebody takes control over a group you identify with and changes it's goals but you're one person versus millions. The word doesn't mean what it used to.

The Republican party has not existed since 2016. It is the Trump party wearing the Republican party's tattered clothes.
Post reply on HN