US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by palmotea » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:13 PM UTC

rco8786 wrote: post #176

nla wrote: post #128

The Leahy Law requires the U.S. government to facilitate receipt of information about alleged abuses by U.S. supported forces. The State Department confirms it no longer operates the HRG, but says it is still receiving reports through other direct channels. I couldn't find any requirement in the law that requires a public website. NGOs can still submit information through established contacts or by email. I would thi…

> I would think email is a lot easier than a webform. why

>> I would think email is a lot easier than a webform.

> why

Because email is a well-honed tool with lots of excellent implementations. You've got formatting, attachments, a text-entry region bigger than a peephole, etc.

A "contact us" webform is a crappy tool, usually quickly thrown together, that probably just sends an email anyway.

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

#382

Post by Supermancho » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:14 PM UTC

yieldcrv wrote: post #209

cheema33 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Congress should get around to impeaching and convicting the president then! I hope you know that Congress has abdicated all of their responsibilities to the president. I don't know if the founders ever saw this coming.

Our founders recognized our compromisestitution was vulnerable to this, they didn't predict a nationalist brainwashing campaign to call compromise a beneficial thing as part of a national identity They expected waaaay more amendments than we have done

This is the painful period of time where the US would have to collectively realize they are missing controls on the branches, in the form of amendments. Unfortunately, it looks like the people are lazy. They rather lose the union, before agreeing there really is a problem to be solved. Otherwise, there's no way to know there's a problem.

Modern crisis planning in action. Wait till the fuel is on fire, before putting out the fire, assessing the loss and assigning blame.

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

#383

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:17 PM UTC

notmyjob wrote: post #105

It sounds like this was mainly being used to report abuses by US allies, ie “US armed IDF forces” according to the article. Obviously there is something more to this than the headline and tone of the piece indicate. For one thing, the law written by Leahy was passed in 2011, but this website went online in 2022, so how can removing the site make it impossible to abide by the law? What was going on between 2011 and 20…

[deleted]

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

#384

Post by the_gastropod » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

spookie wrote: post #377

the_gastropod wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate heavily favors rural voters. The House is supposed to be representative, but favors rural voters thanks to gerrymandering and the cap on congressional representatives (Nebraska should have less than 1 rep in a truly representative institution, for example). Then you’ve got the presidency itself, where the electoral college favors rural voters. And the courts, which reflect the will of the president in coop…

If you go that route Nebraska will lag ever more behind other states given they don't get to have any political power. Look, I'm just someone from the other side of the pond. This is what happens: when you have no substantial representation for the country side your political system rewards centralisation, rural areas will stagnate, leading to less people there. A cycle that fuels itself. As someone that has had to l…

With all due respect, being "from the other side of the pond", I don't think you understand the U.S. well enough to be commenting. For example, California is both the largest producer of food in the U.S., and the state being most significantly under-represented in all three branches of government.

The U.S. is also, easily, the most volatile (extreme partisanship) country of comparable rich, democratic nations. The system we have is pretty unique in its attempts to bend-over backwards to boost rural voters' importance, and we're worse off in virtually every "bad thing" you mention than countries that don't do this.

Centralization? Our president is independently murdering people in the carribbean, demolishing an entire wing of Whitehouse to build himself a new ballroom, independently changing funding (i.e. has hijacked the power of the purse from Congress), is independently sending in the U.S. military into states run by his political opponents against their will, pardoning violent criminals who supported him (one of whom was caught plotting to murder the House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries), etc.

Rural areas will stagnate / people will move away? Dawg. That's already been happening despite the political concessions they've been given. That ain't the problem.

Urban house prices skyrocketing? Happening. NYC is among the least affordable major cities on the planet.

Crime rate? Generally highest in the places where we give disproportionate political sway to.

Are you suggesting the 66x more representation Wyomingers get over Californians in the Senate isn't enough? Is the ~3.5x more voting power they get in presidential elections not enough? What is a fair "middle ground" in your estimation? Because it feels extraordinarily unfair in the exact opposite direction, to me.

(Editing to add): It's also worth pointing out that this delta in voting power is much more extreme today than it was when this system was designed. In the 1800 census, the most populous state, Virginia, had 885,000 people, around 15x more than Delaware, the least populous state. Today, California has 67x the population of Wyoming.

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

#385

Post by Goronmon » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

notmyjob wrote: post #105

It sounds like this was mainly being used to report abuses by US allies, ie “US armed IDF forces” according to the article. Obviously there is something more to this than the headline and tone of the piece indicate. For one thing, the law written by Leahy was passed in 2011, but this website went online in 2022, so how can removing the site make it impossible to abide by the law? What was going on between 2011 and 20…

Seems premature to accuse the article if being inaccurate or biased without actually knowing whether it's inaccurate or biased.

I’m concerned about human rights, but I’m equally concerned about yellow journalism or coordinated media bias.

I'm equally concerned about people being paid to push narratives in places like Hacker News. Especially in defense of large organizations.

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

#386

Post by _heimdall » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:25 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #362

_heimdall wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair (ignoring whether Hegseth really deserves that), what he describes is a very common view of military leadership during war time. "War time" is the key there though. The US is not a nation at war. We have allies at war and the executive branch has taken it upon itself to take warlike actions without Congress, but we aren't st war - especially not a war the scale of which is seen as existential and leads to…

Any large standing military will typically oscillate between a wartime footing where aggression and risk-taking are rewarded versus a peacetime (garrison) footing where avoiding politically embarrassing mistakes is rewarded. The problem is that when the next war starts the careerist officers who were promoted during peacetime produce disastrous results. It then takes several lost battles until they are replaced with…

I agree with you here, that maps to my understanding of what they're intending to do as well.

I'm of the opinion that standing militaries are almost never justifiable at scale. A country may need a skeleton crew keeping some semblance of military infrastructure functional, but we should never need a military scaled up for a fight during peacetime.

We need a populace that is healthy and skilled enough to enlist with basic training should a war break out. We don't need to fully arm up and constantly be on the lookout for war.

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

#387

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:32 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #357

hrimfaxi wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vermont has fewer people than Montana. How does that impact your structural analysis?

The 5 smallest states by population are: - Wyoming - Vermont - Alaska - North Dakota - South Dakota 4 of these 5 are consistently "red". 1 is consistently "blue". The 5 largest states by population are: - California - Texas - Florida - New York - Illinois 3 of these are consistently "blue". 1 is consistently "red", and 1 is "purple" (though appears to be skewing "red" in the most recent elections)

[deleted]

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

#388

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:34 PM UTC

the_gastropod wrote: post #357

hrimfaxi wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vermont has fewer people than Montana. How does that impact your structural analysis?

The 5 smallest states by population are: - Wyoming - Vermont - Alaska - North Dakota - South Dakota 4 of these 5 are consistently "red". 1 is consistently "blue". The 5 largest states by population are: - California - Texas - Florida - New York - Illinois 3 of these are consistently "blue". 1 is consistently "red", and 1 is "purple" (though appears to be skewing "red" in the most recent elections)

[deleted]

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

#389

Post by estearum » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:37 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #378

estearum wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not true. Prosecutorial discretion exists because the executive can always say they’re just prioritizing their limited resources. They absolutely ARE NOT allowed to just say “I’m not enforcing this because I disagree with the law.” They also absolutely ARE NOT allowed to say “I’m enforcing a specific law against Party X but not against Party Y because I’m exercising discretion and I just like X.” That’s why di…

> They absolutely ARE NOT allowed to just say “I’m not enforcing this because I disagree with the law.” Prosecutors are allowed to do that and do so all the time: https://www.aei.org/articles/viewpoint-on-not-enforcing-the-... (“Indeed, the ability of prosecutors to pick and choose among offenses is part of the constitutional structure of our government, as the Supreme Court has held too many times to recount. Presid…

Did you read the article you posted? The entire thing is about allocation of finite resources. You can read the original Antitrust enforcement policy and see that it lays out a system of prioritization which (surprise surprise), prioritizes larger monopolization efforts over smaller ones.

It does not say "we don't think small companies can behave monopolistically so we aren't enforcing the law on them."

President Jefferson did not come out and say he's not enforcing ASA because he disagreed with them. Instead, he (secretly) wrote a memo against them as VP, then as President let them expire and pardoned everyone convicted under them.

I will reiterate the plain language of the United States Constitution: [the President] SHALL take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

SHALL does not mean MAY or AT HIS DISCRETION or any such thing.

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

#390

Post by alluro2 » Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

9dev wrote: post #261

alluro2 wrote: post #248

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 re…

I concur, Trumps motivation is easy. That of his voters, not so much. They knew what they would get; it was on plain display for them to see. Every single last one of them is guilty of everything that happened and will happen.

Their motivation seems clear from what they voted, and what they're cheering for - they want to be able to behave without consequences in the same way as well.

Blame others (dems, libs, immigrants, races, religions...) for everything that's wrong, screw the "government" whenever possible, "grab them by the ***", and treat others and the world in the same way Trump can.

It's the same in every autocracy - the leader is providing an outlet for the immoral / suppressed / forbidden thoughts, actions and feelings - they either live vicariously through him (even if they are worse off, but that's blamed on others), or can now do some of that stuff because of him.