1192
The US Attacked my country... (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/actually_infuriating@lemmy.world
346 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I don't care about Maduro, as far as I'm concerned, they can shoot him if they want. What matters to me is walking through the streets of my city and seeing the faces of fear on my neighbors. The military patrolling to prevent looting due to panic. It's a collective hangover, a horrible one.

It's 2016 all over again. It's seeing despair entering the circulatory system of all Venezuelans, only now it's more sudden, and we are painfully aware of it.

This is far from improving, and we know it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 327 points 10 months ago (52 children)

It's bullshit and I don't understand why our Congress is letting him do this. It's unjustified and illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 52 child comments
    •
  • [–] 133 points 10 months ago (26 children)

    What about your military staff (Generals and the likes) Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 134 points 10 months ago (20 children)

    Aren't they supposed to refuse illegal orders even from potus?

    Yes. Yes they are supposed to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 84 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    All the ones that would, have been replaced.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 64 points 10 months ago* (15 children)

    That's why I get pissed about stories of the variety "X resigns rather than follow administrations orders". People seem to cheer when that happens because they see it as people pushing back on illegal orders, but they're not. They're just bailing from responsibility when they were one of the few people in the position to legitimately be a stopgap on this runaway power abuse. In resigning, they've just made it easier for a loyalist or morally corrupt replacement to come in and roll out the red carpet to the autocracy. Stay right where the fuck you're at, plant your feet, and tell them that you're absolutely not following illegal orders from anyone. That is worth cheering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Resigning instead of refusing an illegal order is a betrayal of their oath to the constitution, and a betrayal of the American people

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    This. It’s not upholding the constitution, it’s standing back and watching it get fucked, while selling books or speaking engagements.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (12 children)

    I don't disagree, but then they get dishonorably discharged, lose their pension and benefits, a loyalist is put in their place and the end result is the same except that they're worse off personally. I can absolutely see that the better option for them is to resign and make a statement rather than going hard-core and fight it. Unless they plan on a full-on military coup.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

    Apparently their main guiding moral is greed then.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (10 children)

    Bit harsh IMHO.

    It's being human. Not everyone is prepared to throw away the future they planned for and have been working towards their whole life on principle, especially if the end result of that action is bugger all.

    I might not agree, but I get it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    Well there's plenty of us who never got a single second of the "future we planned for". Sure its a bummer to have something you thought was nice and have it turn into something awful, but that doesn't mean you should turn a blind eye towards your morals. Doubly so if you happen to be in the military.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    So then you might understand that if you're in the lucky group who is on track to get it, it might be hard to give up?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    No I'm saying that is a selfish and greedy viewpoint. It only holds up if you only think about yourself and your own family. If you are in the military, you should be concerned about more than those in your immediate circle. Joining the military for selfish reasons is absurd already.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people for joining the military. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that I understand their rationale. If I had to choose between ideological purity and comfort for my family I'm not 100% sure what I'd choose. I'm human after all, and looking after your loved ones absolutely comes first.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

    I currently have limited the comfort of my family due to the inability to make a large salary without betraying my morals and values. I'm not even in the military and I can realize that its better to show my children what is right rather than make excuses so they can have the easiest life possible.

    Edit: apologies if it seems Im attacking you directly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    Right, but you can see the difference, can't you? They quit because they couldn't continue because that would put them in the position where they had to betray their values or their future for no gain.

    I wish every single serviceman would have said "No, we're not going to murder civilians", but that didn't happen either. I respect those who stepped away more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    I'd argue the no gain part but it is true nothing is guaranteed. Its still an abandonment of duty either way in my opinion, but it is definitely worse to stay and just go along with things so there's that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    These high level guys have the wealth to sue for their pensions. Courts will restore them if the orders they refused were illegal.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Except the supreme court ruled no order from the executive branch is illegal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago

    I know youre being funny about it, but I need to point out the officer's oath is not to the president, and the supreme court is irrelevant in this.

    Specifically any orders which violate the constitution, federal law, or (specifically an "or" here, not "and") international law should be refused. Typical examples are torturing people who are detained, targeting civilians, etc.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    Not exactly. They ruled the president cannot be prosecuted for illegal acts taken in the capacity of president. So it's more "he can do illegal shit and we can't stop him" and less "anything he does it automatically legal". So refusing an illegal order would presumably still be a valid route of action.

    But from what I know about the military, they can just punish you in some other capacity even if what you did is technically legal. Ie reassigning you to some shit duty or miserable location.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago
    • “Fascist to the core... the most dangerous person to this country.” — Gen. Mark Milley, Trump’s Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Highest-ranking military officer). Status: Trump has suggested he should be executed for treason.
    • “He fits the general definition of fascist... he certainly prefers the dictator approach.” — Gen. John Kelly, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff and retired Marine General. Status: Trump has attacked him as "dumb," "weak," and a "low life."
    • “Effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump.” — Gen. James Mattis, Trump’s first Secretary of Defense and retired Marine General. Status: Trump labeled him the "world’s most overrated general."
    • “I do regard him as a threat to democracy... I think he’s unfit for office.” — Mark Esper, Trump’s second Secretary of Defense. Status: Fired after refusing Trump's order to "just shoot" protesters in the legs.
    • “His sense of betrayal drove him to abandon his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ a president’s highest obligation.” — Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s second National Security Adviser. Status: Publicly attacked by Trump as "naive."
    • “Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.” — Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President. Status: Trump has spent years attacking him for refusing to overturn the election.
    • “A consummate narcissist... our country can’t be a therapy session for a troubled man like this.” — Bill Barr, Trump’s second Attorney General. Status: Trump has called him a "weak," "lazy," and "RINO" coward.
    • “I understand what you want to do, but you can’t do it that way. It violates the law.” — Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first Secretary of State. Status: Fired; Trump called him "dumb as a rock" and "lazy."
    • “He has never cared about America... his conduct and mere existence have hastened the demise of democracy.” — Ty Cobb, Trump’s White House Lawyer during the Russia investigation. Status: Dismissed by Trump as a "weak lawyer."
    • “He makes up what he wants to say... how little of American history he knows.” — John Bolton, Trump’s third National Security Adviser. Status: Trump calls him a "wacko" and a "disgruntled boring fool."
    • “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.” — Gen. Mark Milley, during his farewell address as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago

    Sadly a good chunk of the good ones were fired, and the others are too scared about their pensions to do anything. The rest have been installed by our glorious dictator and also suck his cock on the daily.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    Yes, they are supposed to. They also are trained to follow orders, and much more vigorously.

    But generally, overthrowing governments that oppose the USA is seen as routine. We do this frequently.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Congress has not wanted the responsibility to declare war that the Constitution gave them in Article 1 Section 8.

    Ever since the civil war, Congress has handed more and more military power over to the Executive branch.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    No country actually declares war anymore. From Wikipedia:

    Declarations of war have been exceedingly rare since the end of World War II.[3][4] Scholars have debated the causes of the decline, with some arguing that states are trying to evade the restrictions of international humanitarian law (which governs conduct in war)[4] while others argue that war declarations have come to be perceived as markers of aggression and maximalist aims.

    That part of the US Constitution is irrelevant nowadays and should long have been updated to require any foreign (or domestic) military operations to be first approved by Congress, not just declaring war. Doesn't make your point of Congress granting ever more rights to the President irrelevant though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Yeah, declaring war is only more than just words insofar as there are laws that require a declaration before certain activities or uses of powers.

    Congress has allowed the president and executive branch agencies to strike other countries, kill non combatants and soldiers, occupy countries, kill Americans, and operate torture sites without needing a formal declaration of war. There are several relevant acts of Congress, but the clearest example is the Authorized Use of Military Force. We're still using it 25 years later and Congress keeps reauthorizing it and allowing more and more broad interpretations.

    We invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, and bombed several more countries in retaliation for 9/11

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago*

    This is what has been cooking since 9/11/2001.

    The AUMF grants the president the ability to just do military shit if it is in defense against "terrorism".

    Since its passage in 2001, U.S. presidents have interpreted their authority under the AUMF to extend beyond al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan to apply to numerous other groups as well as other geographic locales, due to the act's omission of any specific area of operations. The adoption of this law does not require the targets to be state actors, but can include non-state actors, such as individual persons. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.Today, the full list of actors the U.S. military is fighting or believes itself authorized to fight under the 2001 AUMF is classified.

    It should have been updated and repealed before G. W. Bush left office but it was left on the table and every president has used it.

    During his first term, the Trump administration officially accused Maduro with "Narco Terrorism". I wouldn't be surprised if this was the plan all along. It's a stretch, for sure, but all that seems to matter to the GOP is having some speck of legal cover and the corrupt SCOTUS does the rest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    He went around Congress. It was an illegal action. Congress may try to do something to stop him, but my odds are on the Supreme Court intervening to let Trump continue to do whatever he wants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    As others have mentioned, it's most likely legal under the AUMF.

    Drug war is also legal. Slavery was legal. Legal doesn't mean shit. But it is, probably, legal (under US law, definitely not international law but the US doesn't give a shit about that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    The same congress that was totally cool with the Trail of Tears? I think people forget that there were people living here already and that the US has been invading sovereign nations to enrich white people since they stopped doing it in the name of Britain a few hundred years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    No, that was a different Congress. Roughly the 17th through 26th. This one is the 119th. They’re cool with different types of awfulness.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Native Americans didn’t get the right to vote until 1975 and 100 years after the promise we still don’t have voting members of congress. It’s the same congress.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    The trail of tears was 1820-1840. It’s not the same congress, there’s a new one every two years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    You're being pedantic. The point is obviously that it's the same institution with the same rancid values, not literally the same people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, it’s not though. Things have changed in the last couple hundred years. Some for the better, some for the worse. But it’s not the same, just like it’s not the same as even 30-40 years ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • load more comments (2 replies)