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

Post by varispeed » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

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…

Post by rayiner » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:21 PM UTC

kranke155 wrote: post #210

rayiner wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment reflects a common, but fundamentally mistaken, understanding of the constitution. You're thinking of the government like an operating system with a microkernel that is trusted to neutrally enforce the "law," with the three branches of government running in userspace. That's not the system the founders created! They understood that everyone is political, and no one can be trusted. The founders understood…

They’ve created enough of a digital system to manage public opinion (through brain rot, manipulation, bots, psychometrics) that they’re less and less afraid of elections.

Post by deathanatos » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:22 PM UTC

bilekas wrote: post #179

lotsofpulp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you mitigate when 2/3rd of voters support, at least tacitly, the lawlessness?

I don't know exactly which support level you mean but https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker would paint a different picture. That said, who knows how valid even these numbers are.

Post by rrix2 » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:23 PM UTC

mrguyorama wrote: post #147

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 wanted exactly what we have: A government beholden to the rich and well connected. That's why they agitated for revolution in the first place. They talked big about liberty and democracy, but when given the chance, they said very concretely: "We the people" means "We the rich, white people" More directly, they all talked about how problematic political parties could be, and then did nothing at all to pre…

Post by JustExAWS » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 4:24 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #189

softwaredoug wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TBH The Right in the US has such a structural advantage, that Congress's silence becomes de-facto acceptance. Congress choosing to not do oversight becomes a de-facto repeal of the law. The only other option is to find someone with standing being harmed and sue. And that will take time to wind through the courts, with not great chances at SCOTUS.

> 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.