31·
11 months agoYou mean the site co-founded by Assange who signed a SF312?
- 0 Posts
- 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 15th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
Correct on that last part.
Why should foreign nations care about US laws? Any extradition by any nation is a courtesy at best.
However it is ludicrous to say US should drop charges.
Those newspapers did not sign a legally binding SF312 CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT of which every single person who holds a clearance must sign.
The very first sentence is:
Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to classified information.
Other parts being
I hereby agree that I will never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) I have officially verified that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) I have been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government Department or Agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) responsible for the classification of information or last granting me a security clearance that such disclosure is permitted. I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information, I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it, except to a person as provided in (a) or (b), above. I further understand that I am obligated to comply with laws and regulations that prohibit the unauthorized disclosure of classified information
In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.
Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the United States Government, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed upon me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to classified information, and at all times thereafter.
This contract is binding FOR LIFE unless waived by an official.
https://www.gsa.gov/reference/forms/classified-information-nondisclosure-agreement-1
11·11 months agoIn my opinion it would be a disaster if you could receive compensation for future policy input, act on that input in office, and be immune simply because you were not in office when you received it.
Just prove he did or did not do it instead of whatever this nonsense take is.
Title is a pretty dumb take.
Publishing is not a crime, which is correct.
I cannot be charged with a crime for making posts on Reddit, Lemmy or wiki pages. (I absolutely can be charged by publishing to wiki leaks though under agreements)
Publishing classified information is treason under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 798
This is just stupidly obvious.
The only good thing he did was bring to focus the problem with over classification of information. We now have Controlled Unclassified Information thanks to that.
Looks like a computer vision fever dream
6·11 months agoI do not think it will be effective. This has been done before in exactly the same way and that failed.
USA allows the deployment of forces with the War Powers Resolution of 1973
Limitations require Congress to be notified and that Congress approves an authorized use of force extension beyond 60 days
No President has followed this procedure in the past 23~ active interventions including the 4 wars that the United States has deployed forces in to this day:
Syria Niger Somalia Yemen
I think you are right about the withdrawing though. I found that this is not the first time Congress has put a treaty withdrawal restriction in a defense authorization bill and it has been ignored in the past with Open Skies.
Office of Legal counsel opinion says Congress does not have power outside of the initial agreement and rules within a given treaty.
https://www.justice.gov/d9/opinions/attachments/2020/12/21/2018-10-17-nafta-wd.pdf
So even though they put this into a bill, if a future President pushes back against it, they likely will win without much trouble at all.
Congress will declare the state of war which is their constitutional power to do so.
SEC. 1250A. LIMITATION ON WITHDRAWAL FROM THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.
(a) OPPOSITION OF CONGRESS TO SUSPENSION, TERMINATION, DENUNCIATION, OR WITHDRAWAL FROM NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY.— The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Wash- ington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS.—No funds authorized or appropriated by any Act may be used to support, directly or indirectly, any decision on the part of any United States Govern- ment official to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
© NOTIFICATION OF TREATY ACTION.—
(1) CONSULTATION.—Prior to the notification described in paragraph (2), the President shall consult with the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in relation to any initiative to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty.
(2) NOTIFICATION.—The President shall notify the Com- mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives in writing of any deliberation or decision to suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, as soon as possible but in no event later than 180 days prior to taking such action.
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize, imply, or otherwise indicate that the Presi- dent may suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw from any treaty to which the Senate has provided its advice and consent without the advice and consent of the Senate to such act or pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(e) SEVERABILITY.—If any provision of this section or the application of such provision is held by a Federal court to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this subtitle and the application of such provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
(f) DEFINITIONS.—In this subtitle, the terms ‘‘withdrawal’’, ‘‘denunciation’’, ‘‘suspension’’, and ‘‘termination’’ have the meaning given the terms in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concluded at Vienna May 23, 1969.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2670/text
deleted by creator
Read your own constitution.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; …
Congress, not the President, has the power to declare war.
The Congress shall have Power To… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
I absolutely hate The Hill simply because they cannot be bothered to take 2 seconds to link to the damn bills they talk about in their articles.
For all I know they could talk about Congress passing a bill ratifying that the color of the sky shall be considered Red and the reader has no idea if it is true or not.
If you watch their hearings and assemblies a lot of Congress appears to be focused on trying to get sound bytes and Tik Tok clips out of what they say. The clips just seem so weird and forced when seen in context of what the topic of discussion is.
We didn’t elect people to be actors on the clock, please make law and talk to the press later.
DoT has seen an explosive increase in budget by 66% since 2019. I am not convinced that a 3% cut to stem the deficit is devastating.
I don’t deny that American transportation and logistics are aging and need reform but this economic and high interest climate doesn’t seem like the best time to go all in.
OK then.
Let’s sit down and read the actual amendment instead of taking out of context a section of some news quote which is likeky already out of context by said news before you shortened it.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/142
- An Amendment To Be Offered by Representative Crane of Arizona or His Designee, Debatable for 10 Minutes
At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. PROTECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM.
Section 2001 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
© Protection of Ideological Freedom.–(1) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces, may compel, teach, instruct, or train any member of the armed forces, whether serving on active duty, serving in a reserve component, attending a military service academy, or attending a course conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(2) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces may be compelled to declare a belief in, or adherence to, or participate in training or education of any kind that promotes any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4) a condition of recruitment, retention, promotion, transfer, assignment, or other favorable personnel action.
(3) The Department of Defense and the military departments may not promote race-based or ideological concepts that promote the differential treatment of any individual or groups of individuals based on race, color, sex, or national origin, including any of politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(4) A politically-based concept referred to in this paragraph is any of the following:
(A) Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. (B) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. (C) An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. (D) Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin. (E) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin. (F) An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. (G) An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. (H) Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as compelling any individual to believe or refrain from believing in any politically-based concept referred to in paragraph (4) in their private and personal capacity.‘’.
----------
America lost wars but never surrendered their flags and banners in a total defeat