Pentagon moves to punish Democratic senator over 'seditious video'(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Pentagon moves to punish Democratic senator over 'seditious video'
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8039wg1rdo
86 comments
Pretty sick of anything seemingly critical of the current administration getting flagged here. The right loves to cry about censorship, but the censorship is coming from inside the house.
Anything critical of the administration is going to be, by definition, political.
There is a large contingent within HN who never want any political discussion.
This appears to be an ongoing dynamic tension. The flagging might not be from the right. Just same old same old HN foosball.
There is a large contingent within HN who never want any political discussion.
This appears to be an ongoing dynamic tension. The flagging might not be from the right. Just same old same old HN foosball.
Bollocks. Politics is endemic to tech. It’s impossible to discuss tech without politics.
What some folk want to squash is very particular politics which they don’t want to confront. It violates everything it means to be a hacker in the true sense of the word but I have realized a long time ago that these types of people wear the badge of hacker for their ego only
What some folk want to squash is very particular politics which they don’t want to confront. It violates everything it means to be a hacker in the true sense of the word but I have realized a long time ago that these types of people wear the badge of hacker for their ego only
For me personally, I only want to see politics that are directly tech-adjacent here. I have many other channels for political news that have a much better signal-to-noise ratio. Diluting the tech focus here with average mainstream politics attracts the wrong crowd and adds little of value.
>For me personally, I only want to see politics that are directly tech-adjacent here.
Since when is government censorship of social media posts[1] not "directly tech-adjacent"?
I adore the mental gymnastics here.
[1] The post with Mark Kelly being discussed: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DRMxZAnlUF9/
Since when is government censorship of social media posts[1] not "directly tech-adjacent"?
I adore the mental gymnastics here.
[1] The post with Mark Kelly being discussed: https://www.instagram.com/reels/DRMxZAnlUF9/
The fact that it was a social media post is not an interesting part of the story - he could have just as easily said the same thing on TV to the same result. They aren't trying to censor social media as a result.
The article did not make it clear that this was related to social media at all. It just said he “released a video” over and over again. I guess it is related, but it’s a terrible article for not including that fact or linking to the original post.
Thanks for adding context. No thanks for the “mental gymnastics” snark.
Thanks for adding context. No thanks for the “mental gymnastics” snark.
> Diluting the tech focus here with average mainstream politics attracts the wrong crowd and adds little of value.
Flagged stories are some of the most active stories on HN. If the goal is to act as a filter on the kinds of acceptable topics to discuss or the kinds of people to attract to HN, it's a failed one, because the "wrong crowd" is still being attracted and commenting on those stories.
If anything, I see far and away the most amount of bad faith flagging/downvoting and throwaways on those threads. Are people getting their flagging privileges taken away? Are the throwaway's main accounts being banned? Who knows...
Flagged stories are some of the most active stories on HN. If the goal is to act as a filter on the kinds of acceptable topics to discuss or the kinds of people to attract to HN, it's a failed one, because the "wrong crowd" is still being attracted and commenting on those stories.
If anything, I see far and away the most amount of bad faith flagging/downvoting and throwaways on those threads. Are people getting their flagging privileges taken away? Are the throwaway's main accounts being banned? Who knows...
The wrong crowd includes organized astroturf groups, bots, trolls, and political junkies who all probably have feeds set up looking for those posts. Can’t escape it anywhere on the internet where general political posts are allowed.
At least the flagging keeps the noise off the front page and discourages an excessive number of general political/news posts.
At least the flagging keeps the noise off the front page and discourages an excessive number of general political/news posts.
> Can’t escape it anywhere on the internet where general political posts are allowed.
You actually can. I have political discussions with people who disagree with me in many social spaces.
What you can't do is have there be zero friction to join the conversation and be overly reliant on user moderation tools to do the hard work of moderation for you.
You actually can. I have political discussions with people who disagree with me in many social spaces.
What you can't do is have there be zero friction to join the conversation and be overly reliant on user moderation tools to do the hard work of moderation for you.
> There is a large contingent within HN who never want any political discussion.
There is a large contingent within HN who are bots, and/or are 100% in-line with Thiel and Yarvin
There is a large contingent within HN who are bots, and/or are 100% in-line with Thiel and Yarvin
I wish there was an unflag vote option
Email the mods, they may remove flagging from some articles. Or if it gets flag-killed you can vouch for it.
[deleted]
Fascists are defined by their constant paradox of claiming to be the strongest while always playing* the victim of anything and everything.
Politics aside, there's no paradox here.
Unless you assume strength and victimhood are somehow on a supply/demand type of curve, which would be logically bonkers.
Unless you assume strength and victimhood are somehow on a supply/demand type of curve, which would be logically bonkers.
MAGA and their ilk love to claim a warrior/strong man identity while simultaneously whining about censorship and persecution and accusing their political opponents of being overly sensitive snowflakes.
This is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation, ergo, paradoxical.
This is a logically self-contradictory statement or a statement that runs contrary to one's expectation, ergo, paradoxical.
I am so confused, in the video didn't the senator just say that military service members are allowed to disobey illegal orders? Is that sedition?
No, it's not sedition. Reminding service members about the law is not an act of sedition. Encouraging them to disobey the law could be, but that's not what he and the others did in that video. This is just more pettiness.
> Encouraging them to disobey the law could be, but that's not what he and the others did in that video.
The issue is that service members already know this very well, so when you tell them what they already know, it does seem like they are being encouraged.
The issue is that service members already know this very well, so when you tell them what they already know, it does seem like they are being encouraged.
> it does seem like they are being encouraged.
Sure, it's encouraging them to obey the law. Encouraging someone to follow the law cannot be sedition.
Sure, it's encouraging them to obey the law. Encouraging someone to follow the law cannot be sedition.
I wonder what you would have thought if it was a bunch of "maga" republicans releasing this video about military service members "had the duty to refuse unlawful orders" when Biden was president. Be honest with yourself.
the fact you think most people would have problems with that is upsetting...
I'd have no problem with it. It's a factual statement, it is their duty to refuse unlawful orders. Now, if they said to disobey specific orders that were in fact lawful that would be another matter, but that didn't happen with the video in question.
> Be honest with yourself.
So far you're the one pushing into dishonesty here, or at least disingenuity. The video did not amount to sedition, even though you suggest it did. You can't point out any actual sedition, only hint at the possibility of it and throw out some whataboutism bullshit. Your comments don't speak well of your character.
> Be honest with yourself.
So far you're the one pushing into dishonesty here, or at least disingenuity. The video did not amount to sedition, even though you suggest it did. You can't point out any actual sedition, only hint at the possibility of it and throw out some whataboutism bullshit. Your comments don't speak well of your character.
They're not just allowed to disobey illegal orders, they're morally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
They are legally obligated to disobey illegal orders.
How are they supposed to know what's legal?
Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
Congress can't even agree if murdering civilians on boats is legal or not.
If only there was some basic training for this kind of stuff!
Yes hopefully Congress gets the basic training they desperately need.
But seriously. Should soldiers be refusing to murder civilians on boats? If the law is clear (which I think it is) and they should be refusing why aren't they?
The answer of course is that they're being put in an impossible situation. Pinning the responsibility on them, because they took basic training, to interpret the law and go against the majority of the US govt at huge personal risk is just absurd.
Maybe instead the government should get their head out of their ass and do something themselves beyond trying to pass the buck via a stupid tv ad.
But seriously. Should soldiers be refusing to murder civilians on boats? If the law is clear (which I think it is) and they should be refusing why aren't they?
The answer of course is that they're being put in an impossible situation. Pinning the responsibility on them, because they took basic training, to interpret the law and go against the majority of the US govt at huge personal risk is just absurd.
Maybe instead the government should get their head out of their ass and do something themselves beyond trying to pass the buck via a stupid tv ad.
Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command? And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?
"Aren't they required to obey chain-of-command?"
If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense.
"And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?"
Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders.
Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail.
Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
If an order is legal, yes. Not if an order is illegal. If a superior officer orders a private to shoot unarmed civilians or commit some other war crime, the private is supposed to refuse the order. They are not protected by a "just following orders" defense.
"And doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them remaining employed?"
Sure. But that does not excuse committing war crimes or otherwise knowingly following illegal orders.
Most of the time, the presumption is that illegal orders will be issued infrequently and by rogue elements in the armed forces -- so disobeying may have unpleasant immediate consequences (say, get thrown in the brig) but long-term they should prevail.
Right now? Well... that's the problem. But if significant numbers of the armed forces refused illegal orders, there's little that the administration can do. Which is why they've been cleaning house to kick out anybody at the top who might push back.
They're only required to obey lawful orders. An order to massacre a village would not be lawful, to pick an extreme (but historical) example. Following such an order is a crime in itself, they should disobey it.
Doesn't their pay and their family's healthcare depend on them not being thrown into prison for executing an illegal order?
[deleted]
Yeah, no. He (and others) said what's already officially in the military rules. People are freaking out because of when it happened and what was implied... but good luck proving any of it was illegal.
> People are freaking out because of when it happened and what was implied
No, certain people are freaking out because those people are grifters with no motivating beliefs whatsoever other than to enrich themselves, and who will do and say literally anything from one day to the next as long as it benefits them at someone else's expense.
No, certain people are freaking out because those people are grifters with no motivating beliefs whatsoever other than to enrich themselves, and who will do and say literally anything from one day to the next as long as it benefits them at someone else's expense.
... and the story is at least temporarily flagged away from the front page. I guess it's a brand risk or worse for YC, in the brand new hyper-american world.
Yes, I understand that the system is designed for YC to let some people flag posts and to let YC later unflag posts at their privilege.
Yes, I understand that the system is designed for YC to let some people flag posts and to let YC later unflag posts at their privilege.
BBC article related to technology (legality of video content and government censorship) is clearly antithetical to hacker culture and interests, I guess.
Go figure.
Go figure.
Lots of asshole "might is right" apologists from the homeland on HN lately, yes. They have no moral standing. Interestingly they do seem to desire one.
That will just motivate him to run and he can win the Presidency. More good smart people should run.
This might not resonate in this community, but I doubt a gun control candidate could win the Presidency of the United States.
It's not 2018 anymore, the NRA doesn't have any money to make guns an election issue, and America will have way bigger problems than guns, trans people and abortion in 2028.
[deleted]
the Russians aren't donating to the NRA, they can give money straight to Trump via his crypto coin, merch, etc.
What? You mean like Clinton, Obama, and Biden, the three most recent Democratic presidents?
60% of Americans think gun laws should be more strict. Only 12% think they should be less strict. Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
60% of Americans think gun laws should be more strict. Only 12% think they should be less strict. Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
As is, the only side capitalizing on the anti-Trump sentiment are the extreme left Bernie/Mamdani candidates. The democrats need someone sane.
Bernie/Mamdani are not extreme left. Further left than liberals for sure, but no where close to extreme left.
Mamdani is an outright, explicit Communist. He is solidly left, and there is no real debate about that.
And let's be clear: maybe NYC needs that, but pretending that he represents anything in the US liberal mainstream is a joke.
And let's be clear: maybe NYC needs that, but pretending that he represents anything in the US liberal mainstream is a joke.
He is a democratic socialist. I didn't say he was liberal. I said he wasn't extreme left.
*To expand, Mamdani is moderate left. Extreme left, at least here in the states, would be actual communists and anarchists.
*To expand, Mamdani is moderate left. Extreme left, at least here in the states, would be actual communists and anarchists.
Is he? I thought he'd always claimed to be a democratic socialist. What has he said or done that makes him a communist? I only see a lot of other people labelling him as one as a lazy adhom.
It's not communism to support public-owned public services, even public-owned competitive services where no commercial competition exists. Capitalism in tight spaces, creates monopolies and market quirks that harm consumers, harm renters, harms tourists. These harms are toxic to NYC. He's right to address them.
It's not communism to support public-owned public services, even public-owned competitive services where no commercial competition exists. Capitalism in tight spaces, creates monopolies and market quirks that harm consumers, harm renters, harms tourists. These harms are toxic to NYC. He's right to address them.
Like Joe Biden? Pro-cop, anti-union DA who deported people more aggressively than Trump?
Or Kamala Harris, who doubled down on support for Israel's genocide, said she wanted the most lethal military in the world, and courted Bush era neocons?
What does a "sane" Democrat look like and why do I suspect it resembles a Republican in all but name?
Or Kamala Harris, who doubled down on support for Israel's genocide, said she wanted the most lethal military in the world, and courted Bush era neocons?
What does a "sane" Democrat look like and why do I suspect it resembles a Republican in all but name?
The problem is you’ve built an economy that rewards narcissism and attention whoring. Of course you aren’t going to get sane, intelligent politicians.
Ironically, this is why Hegseth did it as well. The more extreme he can be, the better chances he has with MAGA with Trump gone.
Should go without saying, but since the media is doing a terrible job of reporting this, it's not at all clear what authority OSD/SecNav has to do this, given that even if there were something objectionable under the UCMJ about his statements he made those statements after retiring, and they aren't recalling him to active status (probably because a court martial would go very badly for the Navy and OSD).
It's exceedingly unlikely that this survives any administrative or legal scrutiny (and if it does, there's a whole lot of former active-status Trump allies, including GOFOs, who are more than vulnerable under these same standards); the main result, I think, is to elevate Kelly's political profile while turning most of the Pentagon even more against Hegseth and Phelan (the former being an over-promoted PAO, and the latter not even having that experience, having spent his career managing Michael Dell's money).
It's exceedingly unlikely that this survives any administrative or legal scrutiny (and if it does, there's a whole lot of former active-status Trump allies, including GOFOs, who are more than vulnerable under these same standards); the main result, I think, is to elevate Kelly's political profile while turning most of the Pentagon even more against Hegseth and Phelan (the former being an over-promoted PAO, and the latter not even having that experience, having spent his career managing Michael Dell's money).
If he loses his pension, then let’s cover it.
I think this may be intended not only as a punishment but as a warning to scare all dissidents. This is something I've never seen done in the US, this admin is changing all the rules is seems but, it may backfire pretty badly.
the set up the gofund me mate
[deleted]
[deleted]
nawgz(2)