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

401–410 of 453 posts

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

#401

Post by blurbleblurble »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #208
mikeyouse wrote: post #5

> Tim Rieser, former senior aide to Senator Leahy who wrote the 2011 amendment mandating information gathering, told the BBC the gateway's removal meant the State Department was "clearly ignoring the law". We're in a really bad place... with a servile congress, it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch. When everything relies on "independent IGs" for law enforcement inside executive…

Seems like laws exist, they're just perverted or ignored. For example, this applies to the executive branch: (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— (1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2)makes any m…

Curious about the downvotes, I'm interested in hearing peoples' negative reaction to this law?

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

#402

Post by ModernMech »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #235
ModernMech wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there was a pressure valve where another party can simply take over That's exactly what happened though -- the MAGA party took over. Conservatives "cut bait" with traditional Republicans, condemned them (see how they talk about Liz and Dick Cheney or even GWB, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, their own presidential nominees), and started a new party within the rotting corpse of the old GOP. There's still some "Repu…

Unfortunately taking over a dominant party was the easiest way to have a "different" party that could actually win. Both parties have built a mountain of obstacles to prevent a third party from ever getting close to challenging them.

I wonder, then is there a path to getting what you want by making the parties more democratic rather than making more parties?

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

#403

Post by kccoder »

hulitu wrote: post #178
wahnfrieden wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s next: https://www.democracynow.org/2025/9/22/headlines/trump_says_... > Trump Says It Is “Really Illegal” for Journalists to Give His Administration Negative Coverage https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/really-i... > The president concluded that when coverage of someone is “bad” 97% of the time, “that’s no longer free speech.” > “They’ll take a great story and they’ll make it bad,” he told repo…

> > Trump Says It Is “Really Illegal” for Journalists to Give His Administration Negative Coverage This is not far away from "defamation" in western world. I'm not siding with Trump here, but every western politician seem to think that he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants and every criticism must be regarded as defamation.

> but every western politician seem to think that he/she/it can do whatever he/she/it wants and every criticism must be regarded as defamation.

Do you have sources for the apparently hundreds / thousands of defamation lawsuits brought by western politicians?

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

#404

Post by anigbrowl »

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

Don't do this. It wastes everyone's time. If you disagree with the idea, say so and say why.

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

#405

Post by kccoder »

vkou wrote: post #313
9dev wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The motivation of the voters becomes a lot more understandable when you stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. This congress and POTUS is, in fact, a good representation of their values, and they aren't ashamed of it. (You could have given them that benefit in 2016, and somewhat in 2020, but definitely not in 2024.)

Sadly that's the conclusion I've had to come to recently. I wanted to have hope in my fellow Americans, just attributing their choices to being poorly informed or just foolish, but, no, they're just as mean and greedy as he is. They like watching people suffer, and now that they've had their first taste of cruelty, they want more, more, more. They'll be that way long after Trump is gone. They're just mean-spirited assholes. It sucks.

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

#406

Post by throw0101c »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #399
throw0101c wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The classified documents thing with Trump was a manufactured scandal, for example. It was not. Trump was asked for months to return the documents. He purposefully had staff to move documents onto his private jet and moved them around his various properties. He stored boxes and boxes , not just a few file folders, in random bathrooms. Yes, plenty of folks may mishandle stuff, but many folks try to fix their errors w…

So the televised raid? Is that normal operating procedure for the DOJ? Did that happen with Biden's classified docs?

> So the televised raid? Is that normal operating procedure for the DOJ? Did that happen with Biden's classified docs?

It is normal for news trucks to show up once a news event has been learned of.

And yes, the same thing happened with Biden: news broke, and footage was recorded:

* https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/fbi-search-biden-vacation-h...

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

#407

Post by actionfromafar »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #190
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…

It's hard to say whether the article is lazy or is actually just partisan.

It’s impossible, actually.

Because it’s none of these things.

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

#408

Post by _heimdall »

actionfromafar wrote: post #360
_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…

If the war is prolonged, you can't go around treating people like eggshells to be crushed, or morale will suffer. Unless your target image is how Russia conducts war. Beats (their own) soldiers, puts them in cages, ties them to trees for days, and so on. In Ukraine we see the difference in practice. If the cause is just, you don't have push your soldiers at gunpoint into the fray, like Russia does. And if the war is…

I'm not arguing that it is a "good" or "right" way to approach war, only that the mindset is common among the military when fighting a war they believe to be an existential fight.

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

#409

Post by jjk166 »

rayiner wrote: post #348
jjk166 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the whole point of laws is that they are not merely the whims of whoever currently sits on the throne. They provide guidance to people as to what they can reasonably expect will and will not be permitted, and the obligations of various people to eachother. Laws need to be changeable, because the world changes, but that process is purposefully made somewhat difficult so that only worthwhile changes are made, s…

> Because the whole point of laws is that they are not merely the whims of whoever currently sits on the throne. That views laws as self-executing abstractions, which they are not. Laws necessarily are enforced by people. For that reason, in the U.S., law enforcement is typically assigned to elected officers and their delegates. From the beginning of the republic, enforcement of federal law has been a political activ…

> That views laws as self-executing abstractions, which they are not. Laws necessarily are enforced by people.

No it doesn't. The laws are statements of what people in power will do under particular circumstances. This view only makes sense if people are executing the laws. The moment you stop executing the laws, suddenly you don't have laws.

Prosecutorial discretion is another beast entirely. Considering circumstances on a case by case basis is necessary for functional justice, as lawmakers can not possibly foresee all circumstances and even if they could the enforcers of laws have practical limits. A cop letting you off with a warning for speeding is discretion. It is not permission for you or anyone else to ignore the speed limit in the future. The law is still there, and you should expect to suffer the consequences if you break it.

We don't need laws when they ask us to do something we'd want to do anyways. Laws exist for the sole purpose of getting people to do the things they would rather not do, or to prevent them from doing things they would prefer to do. If the law can be violated when it is convenient for the lawmaker, you do not live in a nation of laws.

Post reply on HN