3 ms·

> Like it is illegal for the US gov't to spy on their citizens. It is illegal for the UK to spy on their citizens. So the NSA made a deal with the UK. They spy

by zionic 5y ago

> Like it is illegal for the US gov't to spy on their citizens. It is illegal for the UK to spy on their citizens. So the NSA made a deal with the UK. They spy on us, we spy on them, and exchange the info. There, the US didn't break the law and neither did the UK. Let’s not mince words, this is officials of the United States of America conspiring with foreign hostile [0] powers to undermine the rights and security of the American public. It’s treason, and an incoming president with the stones required could arrest much of the former administration’s “intelligence community” leadership in midnight raids via the insurrection act. [0] Foreign intelligence services are, by design, hostile powers even if they belong to an ally. The UK is an ally, but GCHQ is a hostile agency from the perspective of the United States public which these agencies supposedly serve.

cronix 5y ago
But then we'd have to get into other messy things like the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley bypassing the president's constitutional executive authorities ability to launch a nuclear attack. Of course it's framed as him saving humanity, but at it's core you had a treasonous act. > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley took steps to prevent then-President Donald Trump from misusing the country's nuclear arsenal during the last month of his presidency, according to a new book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa obtained by NBC News. > The book, set to be released Sept. 21, also recounted a phone conversation Milley had with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol, which Pelosi blamed on an "unhinged" Trump. Pelosi said in January that she spoke to Milley about "preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike." > "I can guarantee you, you can take it to the bank, that there'll be, that the nuclear triggers are secure and we're not going to do — we're not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral or unethical to happen," Milley told her, according to a transcript of the call obtained by the authors. > "The president alone can order the use of nuclear weapons. But he doesn't make the decision alone. One person can order it, several people have to launch it," he said later in the conversation. > After the call, Milley summoned senior officers from the National Military Command Center to go over the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, the book said. He told the officers that if they got a call, "you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," he said — making sure he was in the loop on any planned military actions, the book said. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-trump-misusing-nuclear-weapons-war-china-book-n1279187 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-t... There is no constitution. Take the politics out of it. This is treason.
- will4274 5y ago
  The lines are a bit blurrier here than you might think. Soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders. Congress declares war. But the President has the right to respond militarily in an emergency - war does not wait on committees. If Trump had said that e.g. NK had attacked, and ordered that NK be nuked, but NK had not actually attacked (i.e. there was not actually an emergency), that would have been an illegal order, which soldiers would have been legally bound to disobey. It would be treason for Milley to countermand a legal order, but asking for key servicemen to review the details of an admittedly complicated bit of military law and to prepare themselves for exactly what decision they might need to make in realtime - nothing illegal about that.
rapind 5y ago
But terrorists! Pedophiles!
input_sh 5y ago
> and an incoming president with the stones required could arrest much of the former administration’s “intelligence community” leadership in midnight raids via the insurrection act. Sure they could, but they won't. No president will, if for no other reason then out of fear that the next one from the opposite party will do the same to their administration. Unless they outright shoot someone in front of witnesses, I don't expect this ever to happen, regardless of the level of corruption.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
Allied intelligence services are not enemies within the scope of the Constitutional (or any sane, for that matter) definition of treason. Nor would the Insurrection Act be in any way needed or relevant to arresting former (or current) intelligence officials for either actual treason, or any illegal conspiracy with allied intelligence services regarding surveillance.

by zionic 5y ago

cronix 5y ago

But then we'd have to get into other messy things like the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley bypassing the president's constitutional executive authorities ability to launch a nuclear attack. Of course it's framed as him saving humanity, but at it's core you had a treasonous act. > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley took steps to prevent then-President Donald Trump from misusing the country's nuclear arsenal during the last month of his presidency, according to a new book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward and Robert Costa obtained by NBC News. > The book, set to be released Sept. 21, also recounted a phone conversation Milley had with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after the Jan. 6 violence at the Capitol, which Pelosi blamed on an "unhinged" Trump. Pelosi said in January that she spoke to Milley about "preventing an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike." > "I can guarantee you, you can take it to the bank, that there'll be, that the nuclear triggers are secure and we're not going to do — we're not going to allow anything crazy, illegal, immoral or unethical to happen," Milley told her, according to a transcript of the call obtained by the authors. > "The president alone can order the use of nuclear weapons. But he doesn't make the decision alone. One person can order it, several people have to launch it," he said later in the conversation. > After the call, Milley summoned senior officers from the National Military Command Center to go over the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, the book said. He told the officers that if they got a call, "you do the procedure. You do the process. And I'm part of that procedure," he said — making sure he was in the loop on any planned military actions, the book said. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-trump-misusing-nuclear-weapons-war-china-book-n1279187 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/milley-acted-prevent-t... There is no constitution. Take the politics out of it. This is treason.

will4274 5y ago
The lines are a bit blurrier here than you might think. Soldiers are required to disobey illegal orders. Congress declares war. But the President has the right to respond militarily in an emergency - war does not wait on committees. If Trump had said that e.g. NK had attacked, and ordered that NK be nuked, but NK had not actually attacked (i.e. there was not actually an emergency), that would have been an illegal order, which soldiers would have been legally bound to disobey. It would be treason for Milley to countermand a legal order, but asking for key servicemen to review the details of an admittedly complicated bit of military law and to prepare themselves for exactly what decision they might need to make in realtime - nothing illegal about that.

rapind 5y ago

But terrorists! Pedophiles!

input_sh 5y ago

> and an incoming president with the stones required could arrest much of the former administration’s “intelligence community” leadership in midnight raids via the insurrection act. Sure they could, but they won't. No president will, if for no other reason then out of fear that the next one from the opposite party will do the same to their administration. Unless they outright shoot someone in front of witnesses, I don't expect this ever to happen, regardless of the level of corruption.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 5y ago

Allied intelligence services are not enemies within the scope of the Constitutional (or any sane, for that matter) definition of treason. Nor would the Insurrection Act be in any way needed or relevant to arresting former (or current) intelligence officials for either actual treason, or any illegal conspiracy with allied intelligence services regarding surveillance.