4 ms·

Musk says he limited Ukraine’s Starlink to prevent attack on Russia

9 points by mikece 3y ago

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
So this guy is interfering with a US ally during a war. This is very dubious - does it stray into treasonable? Is he now a foreign agent? Or do we just capitulate, admit that US foreign policy is entirely the plaything of the ultra rich, who can do as they like with impunity? I'm honestly stumped as to which way this will go - arrested as a foreign agent, or immune by virtue of wealth.
- lenkite 3y ago
  How is refusing to extend a commercial service into the territory of another nation where that service is not offered and whose terms explicitly prohibit military use considered as treasonable ? Kindly point out the section of U.S law.
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    When it's done to try and influence the outcome of a war. Everything is a weapon in war. The rules are different, and I'm sorry but your 'Terms and Conditions' do not override national interest.
    - lenkite 3y ago
      The U.S. is not at war with Russia. Kindly point out the presidential or congressional declaration. Also point out the section of law that makes him a "traitor". Kindly also point out the court ruling that made Starlink's terms of use baseless. Without any of those, I fear you don't have a leg to stand on to call anyone a "traitor". If you want my opinion, the people who loudly bang the drums of war and demand its relentless escalation and declare folks who stand against the same as treasonous without any basis in law are the folks who are the real traitors.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Yeah no. We didn't choose this war; I'm banging no drum. Thanks for the baseless character assassination. You may want to read this sites terms of service, if they matter so much. This is simply a billionaire taking international issues into their own hands, in favor of their preferred foreign government. Treating with a foreign government as a civilian (not a member of the State department) is actually treasonable. Go read your law again.
        lenkite 3y ago
        > Treating with a foreign government as a civilian (not a member of the State department) is actually treasonable. Go read your law again. Of-course you are banging the drums of war - you are terming the CEO of a commercial civil company denying the extension of his platform for the purposes of war as treasonous. There is no character assasination here. It is a very simple statement of fact. You are also making the classical strawman argument. He did not make any treaty with a foreign government. He instead refused a foreign government the extension of his commercial civil service against another sovereign government for the purpose of War. He protected his business - which is lawful by his rights. As I said dude - call out the law where the CEO of a commercial company cannot do this. Call out the declaration of war made by Congress or the President. Without either, calling it treasonous only makes it treasonous in your febrile imagination.
stevespang 3y ago
[dead]

9 points by mikece 3y ago

So this guy is interfering with a US ally during a war. This is very dubious - does it stray into treasonable? Is he now a foreign agent? Or do we just capitulate, admit that US foreign policy is entirely the plaything of the ultra rich, who can do as they like with impunity? I'm honestly stumped as to which way this will go - arrested as a foreign agent, or immune by virtue of wealth.

lenkite 3y ago
How is refusing to extend a commercial service into the territory of another nation where that service is not offered and whose terms explicitly prohibit military use considered as treasonable ? Kindly point out the section of U.S law.
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  When it's done to try and influence the outcome of a war. Everything is a weapon in war. The rules are different, and I'm sorry but your 'Terms and Conditions' do not override national interest.
  - lenkite 3y ago
    The U.S. is not at war with Russia. Kindly point out the presidential or congressional declaration. Also point out the section of law that makes him a "traitor". Kindly also point out the court ruling that made Starlink's terms of use baseless. Without any of those, I fear you don't have a leg to stand on to call anyone a "traitor". If you want my opinion, the people who loudly bang the drums of war and demand its relentless escalation and declare folks who stand against the same as treasonous without any basis in law are the folks who are the real traitors.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Yeah no. We didn't choose this war; I'm banging no drum. Thanks for the baseless character assassination. You may want to read this sites terms of service, if they matter so much. This is simply a billionaire taking international issues into their own hands, in favor of their preferred foreign government. Treating with a foreign government as a civilian (not a member of the State department) is actually treasonable. Go read your law again.
      - lenkite 3y ago
        > Treating with a foreign government as a civilian (not a member of the State department) is actually treasonable. Go read your law again. Of-course you are banging the drums of war - you are terming the CEO of a commercial civil company denying the extension of his platform for the purposes of war as treasonous. There is no character assasination here. It is a very simple statement of fact. You are also making the classical strawman argument. He did not make any treaty with a foreign government. He instead refused a foreign government the extension of his commercial civil service against another sovereign government for the purpose of War. He protected his business - which is lawful by his rights. As I said dude - call out the law where the CEO of a commercial company cannot do this. Call out the declaration of war made by Congress or the President. Without either, calling it treasonous only makes it treasonous in your febrile imagination.

stevespang 3y ago

[dead]