3 ms·
No one said anything about US law specifically (which wouldn't apply to Musk anyway in this regard), or any kind of law. One can also read it as: "moral treaso
by aguaviva 2y ago
No one said anything about US law specifically (which wouldn't apply to Musk anyway in this regard), or any kind of law.
One can also read it as: "moral treason", betrayal, etc. Not for talking with the guy, per se. But at the moment, if anyone is talking with Putin, it should be for one purpose only: to end the war -- and with that explicit framework in mind. Not business as usual of any kind.
And we shouldn't be expected to believe that they talked about “space as well as current and future technologies" in any case.
- schiffern 2y agoOn the contrary, in this very comment section posters have already called for Musk to be put on trial and possibly executed for treason. That doesn't sound very metaphorical...
- aguaviva 2y agoI see one such comment, but either way: I meant of course "no one" not posting the type of comment you'd be likely to ignore anyway.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoMusk is speaking to people who facilitated attacks on U.S. warships. He should not have a security clearance if this is true. If that means him giving up control at SpaceX, so be it.
- inemesitaffia 2y ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> you're reading this because the contacts were reported No? No evidence that’s the Journal’s source. And we don’t know when what was reported. > article claims it's all good Where?
- inemesitaffia 2y agoThe article claims the intelligence agencies see nothing to take action over. One thing will be a lack of reporting of contacts
- Zigurd 2y agoThere is a reason treason is both prominent is US law: it's in the constitution, and it is hard to convict because the definition is very narrow and requires specific evidence. The men at the center of our revolution were labelled traitors by the British. Though Elon is the kind of overachiever to possibly surmount a high bar, FARA might be a better bet.