"the law technically stated that TikTok shouldn’t have been allowed to exist for much of this year."
You don't need the word technically in that sentence. The law simply required this and those who have sworn solemn oaths to uphold the law failed to do so.
I'm wondering if this stuff could lead to an Al Capone moment, where failure to take actions to uphold the law in various minor and not-so-minor respects could lead to impeachment of a variety of officials. After all, their oaths of office don't include a line saying, "unless Donald Trump objects".
The USA used to consider itself "the promised land" and maybe still does so.
But many talented people (and a lot of regular people who don't get headlines of their own) are leaving the USA and relocating to places like Europe and Canada.
The shine has come off of that shining city....
A presidential pardon isn't of any relevance in an international prosecution, which is what we're discussing here.
I'm sure Lt. Eck thought he was doing exactly what Herr Hitler would approve of when he machine-gunned those survivors too. Same thing with all of those other fellows at Nuremburg.
I find it mind-boggling that Hegseth and Admiral Bradley are willing to take actions and commit crimes that expose them to being put in front of an actual FIRING SQUAD, just to please or impress Donald Trump.
That's a Jim Jones level of madness.
Plus, Donald Trump is not a young man and he won't be there forever to protect them from the consequences of their actions.
Shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea are protected under Geneva Convention II. It is strictly forbidden to attack persons who are shipwrecked, regardless of whether they are retreating or floating. Once a ship is sunk/disabled and the crew is in the water or lifeboats, they are hors de combat by default. The codified protection of shipwrecked sailors is largely a product of 18th and 19th-century European maritime custom, eventually solidified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions.
In March, 1944, the German U-boat U-852 sank the Greek freighter Peleus in the South Atlantic, Commander Heinz-Wilhelm Eck ordered his crew to systematically machine-gun survivors on life rafts and in the water for several hours. Eck's stated intention was to eliminate all traces of the sinking to prevent Allied forces from locating his submarine. This action went far beyond any claim of operational necessity or self-defense; it was a deliberate attempt to murder witnesses. After the war, Eck and two of his officers were captured, tried by a British military court, convicted of war crimes, and executed. The Peleus trial established clear legal precedent that orders to kill survivors constituted criminal acts for which commanders bore personal responsibility, regardless of their stated military rationale.
It's a shame that the concept of doing the right thing never seems to enter into these calculations.
Doing the right thing, even when it comes with consequences, shows moral integrity and a sense of personal ethics that seem to be altogether missing in today's politicians.
And that's truly a shame.
It doesn't look like anyone is trying to collect it.
There are enough wrongdoers here that, if you start seizing assets, bank accounts, pension funds and so forth, you might get close to three million.
If not, they could make payments for the rest of their lifetimes. "You can keep X amount per month to live on and the remainder goes toward what you owe as part of this lawsuit."
It seems more fair than the way they're approaching it now. The wrongdoers get punished instead of those who were not involved.
So the taxpayers in that county get to pay the damages?
Shouldn't it be the individuals who committed the illegal acts who pay damages/go to jail/etc?
What's gained by making old Mrs. Smith who lives in her little house beside the old oak tree on County Road 6 pay for the judgement when she had exactly nothing to do with it?
I suppose an argument could be made that the taxpayers in the county hired these people and are therefore responsible for their actions, but it still doesn't seem to be a particularly just outcome.
Payments from the individuals who did bad stuff and/or ignored the bad stuff that was going on? Certainly. But past that, I'm having a bit of difficulty with this.
But then they have an incentive to look for the paperwork. they don't have any particular reason to go looking right now but if they see money and a lawsuit they'll assign someone to start digging.
You could be in for a really big payout to them.
So it would be a gamble, and the potential payoff is probably not worth the risk you would be taking.
Trump's bunch will simply dance the tango of appeals in the hallowed halls of justice, wearing down the gavel like worn-out boot heels on a long trail.
It's a game of lets-pretend, where the wrong verdict is merely a stepping stone on the path to the one they crave.
With deep pockets and endless resources, they can grind the system to a halt, leaving everyone who used to trust the system to do the right thing gasping for air by the side of the road.
According to the BBC (who else?):
"The statute of limitations - or a deadline to file a lawsuit - on defamation in the UK is one year, which has already elapsed for Trump because the documentary aired in October 2024.
Florida, on the other hand - where Trump has signalled an intention to bring any eventual litigation - has a two-year limit.
While Florida law gives him more time, bringing a defamation case in the United States will mean Trump faces a tougher legal standard.
If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US.
A court's determination on whether it has jurisdiction over the case could hinge on if any people in Florida saw the documentary and felt deceived by it, legal experts said.
The BBC's best chance to dismiss any future legal case would be to argue that the state is not the appropriate jurisdiction because there wasn't a "sufficient exposure of the information in Florida", Mr Neuborne said."
I'm not sure about how he would collect the money awarded in the case, though.
citation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c709y1yx1r0o
"arrest someone who’s engaging in criminal actions in order to prevent them from continuing those actions and prosecute them for those actions"
The problem, as I'm sure you recognize, is that it's a supposed government official who is breaking the law and it's the Department of Justice who is responsible for prosecuting those who break the same law.
This is why the Department of Justice was previously a semi-independent arm of the government. Since this is no longer the case, the situation is now "The law is what I say it is", with no recourse.
The United States now has a totalitarian government and it shocks me how many people seem to be ok with that. All of the folks with guns, pickup trucks and "don't tread on me" are awfully quiet all of sudden.
Why are these settlements always confidential?
A settlement is supposed to be an agreement between the parties.
If, as in this case, one of the parties is there for moral reasons, i.e the principle of the thing, then it seems reasonable that one of their fundamental requirements for any settlement would be that it NOT be confidential.
Anything else undermines the reason they were there in the first place.
Some people seem to have the idea that "off the record" is a magical phrase that somehow erases everything they said or did prior to that point from everyone's memory.
It's a very immature view of the way the world works and I'd like to say it's remarkable that a high-ranking government official would take this view, but sadly I'm not surprised.
Dictators used to try to hide the methods when they stole money from their country and lined their own pockets. The famous Swiss bank accounts and so on.
The Donald just cashes the cheque.
Misuse of the term "bricked" is one of my pet peeves.
Bricked means that the affected unit has been turned into a brick (or doorstop) and it can not be revived through normal update procedures.
These units were not bricked. There's no need to replace any hardware modules or use any extraordinary procedures other than installing another update that makes the vehicle work again.
On the international stage, recommendations and regulations that were advanced by US government agencies (health, air safety, occupational safety, etc.) were generally accepted as being THE WAY to do things.
Many governments based everything from plumbing codes to financial regulations on what the US did, because the assumption was that the US government was in a position to do the necessary research and determine what approaches were best. So a lot of the world just kind of piggybacked off of the American systems, because they were trusted.
That's the way they do it in the US, so it must be right.
Now, that confidence gone. And the clown show continues.
I don't know how you regain the trust that was squandered here. It may not be possible.
What do you expect?
Microsoft: Small and Flabby LG: Low Grade.
Their oaths require action
"the law technically stated that TikTok shouldn’t have been allowed to exist for much of this year." You don't need the word technically in that sentence. The law simply required this and those who have sworn solemn oaths to uphold the law failed to do so. I'm wondering if this stuff could lead to an Al Capone moment, where failure to take actions to uphold the law in various minor and not-so-minor respects could lead to impeachment of a variety of officials. After all, their oaths of office don't include a line saying, "unless Donald Trump objects".
So much for the shining city on the hill
The USA used to consider itself "the promised land" and maybe still does so. But many talented people (and a lot of regular people who don't get headlines of their own) are leaving the USA and relocating to places like Europe and Canada. The shine has come off of that shining city....
A presidential pardon isn't of any relevance in an international prosecution, which is what we're discussing here. I'm sure Lt. Eck thought he was doing exactly what Herr Hitler would approve of when he machine-gunned those survivors too. Same thing with all of those other fellows at Nuremburg.
I find it mind-boggling that Hegseth and Admiral Bradley are willing to take actions and commit crimes that expose them to being put in front of an actual FIRING SQUAD, just to please or impress Donald Trump. That's a Jim Jones level of madness. Plus, Donald Trump is not a young man and he won't be there forever to protect them from the consequences of their actions.
It is strictly forbidden to attack persons who are shipwrecked
Shipwrecked members of the armed forces at sea are protected under Geneva Convention II. It is strictly forbidden to attack persons who are shipwrecked, regardless of whether they are retreating or floating. Once a ship is sunk/disabled and the crew is in the water or lifeboats, they are hors de combat by default. The codified protection of shipwrecked sailors is largely a product of 18th and 19th-century European maritime custom, eventually solidified in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. In March, 1944, the German U-boat U-852 sank the Greek freighter Peleus in the South Atlantic, Commander Heinz-Wilhelm Eck ordered his crew to systematically machine-gun survivors on life rafts and in the water for several hours. Eck's stated intention was to eliminate all traces of the sinking to prevent Allied forces from locating his submarine. This action went far beyond any claim of operational necessity or self-defense; it was a deliberate attempt to murder witnesses. After the war, Eck and two of his officers were captured, tried by a British military court, convicted of war crimes, and executed. The Peleus trial established clear legal precedent that orders to kill survivors constituted criminal acts for which commanders bore personal responsibility, regardless of their stated military rationale.
Do the right thing
It's a shame that the concept of doing the right thing never seems to enter into these calculations. Doing the right thing, even when it comes with consequences, shows moral integrity and a sense of personal ethics that seem to be altogether missing in today's politicians. And that's truly a shame.
Perjury perjury everywhere...
All of these people lying in court, with proof that they lied, and not a single perjury charge in sight.
It doesn't look like anyone is trying to collect it. There are enough wrongdoers here that, if you start seizing assets, bank accounts, pension funds and so forth, you might get close to three million. If not, they could make payments for the rest of their lifetimes. "You can keep X amount per month to live on and the remainder goes toward what you owe as part of this lawsuit." It seems more fair than the way they're approaching it now. The wrongdoers get punished instead of those who were not involved.
Lets punish the taxpayers
So the taxpayers in that county get to pay the damages? Shouldn't it be the individuals who committed the illegal acts who pay damages/go to jail/etc? What's gained by making old Mrs. Smith who lives in her little house beside the old oak tree on County Road 6 pay for the judgement when she had exactly nothing to do with it? I suppose an argument could be made that the taxpayers in the county hired these people and are therefore responsible for their actions, but it still doesn't seem to be a particularly just outcome. Payments from the individuals who did bad stuff and/or ignored the bad stuff that was going on? Certainly. But past that, I'm having a bit of difficulty with this.
But then they have an incentive to look for the paperwork. they don't have any particular reason to go looking right now but if they see money and a lawsuit they'll assign someone to start digging. You could be in for a really big payout to them. So it would be a gamble, and the potential payoff is probably not worth the risk you would be taking.
Wearing down the system
Trump's bunch will simply dance the tango of appeals in the hallowed halls of justice, wearing down the gavel like worn-out boot heels on a long trail. It's a game of lets-pretend, where the wrong verdict is merely a stepping stone on the path to the one they crave. With deep pockets and endless resources, they can grind the system to a halt, leaving everyone who used to trust the system to do the right thing gasping for air by the side of the road.
Lawsuit must be in Florida
According to the BBC (who else?): "The statute of limitations - or a deadline to file a lawsuit - on defamation in the UK is one year, which has already elapsed for Trump because the documentary aired in October 2024. Florida, on the other hand - where Trump has signalled an intention to bring any eventual litigation - has a two-year limit. While Florida law gives him more time, bringing a defamation case in the United States will mean Trump faces a tougher legal standard. If Trump sues in Florida, he would also need to establish the BBC Panorama documentary was available there. There is no evidence so far to suggest that it has been shown in the US. A court's determination on whether it has jurisdiction over the case could hinge on if any people in Florida saw the documentary and felt deceived by it, legal experts said. The BBC's best chance to dismiss any future legal case would be to argue that the state is not the appropriate jurisdiction because there wasn't a "sufficient exposure of the information in Florida", Mr Neuborne said." I'm not sure about how he would collect the money awarded in the case, though. citation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c709y1yx1r0o
"arrest someone who’s engaging in criminal actions in order to prevent them from continuing those actions and prosecute them for those actions" The problem, as I'm sure you recognize, is that it's a supposed government official who is breaking the law and it's the Department of Justice who is responsible for prosecuting those who break the same law. This is why the Department of Justice was previously a semi-independent arm of the government. Since this is no longer the case, the situation is now "The law is what I say it is", with no recourse. The United States now has a totalitarian government and it shocks me how many people seem to be ok with that. All of the folks with guns, pickup trucks and "don't tread on me" are awfully quiet all of sudden.
Why is everything always "confidential"?
Why are these settlements always confidential? A settlement is supposed to be an agreement between the parties. If, as in this case, one of the parties is there for moral reasons, i.e the principle of the thing, then it seems reasonable that one of their fundamental requirements for any settlement would be that it NOT be confidential. Anything else undermines the reason they were there in the first place.
"Look what you made me do!"
Some people seem to have the idea that "off the record" is a magical phrase that somehow erases everything they said or did prior to that point from everyone's memory. It's a very immature view of the way the world works and I'd like to say it's remarkable that a high-ranking government official would take this view, but sadly I'm not surprised.
No need to hide
Dictators used to try to hide the methods when they stole money from their country and lined their own pockets. The famous Swiss bank accounts and so on. The Donald just cashes the cheque.
Not "Bricked"
Misuse of the term "bricked" is one of my pet peeves. Bricked means that the affected unit has been turned into a brick (or doorstop) and it can not be revived through normal update procedures. These units were not bricked. There's no need to replace any hardware modules or use any extraordinary procedures other than installing another update that makes the vehicle work again.
US government agencies used to be the "last word"
On the international stage, recommendations and regulations that were advanced by US government agencies (health, air safety, occupational safety, etc.) were generally accepted as being THE WAY to do things. Many governments based everything from plumbing codes to financial regulations on what the US did, because the assumption was that the US government was in a position to do the necessary research and determine what approaches were best. So a lot of the world just kind of piggybacked off of the American systems, because they were trusted. That's the way they do it in the US, so it must be right. Now, that confidence gone. And the clown show continues. I don't know how you regain the trust that was squandered here. It may not be possible.
But if you're lying
But if you're lying on the couch, you might be Donald Trump.