4 ms·

This seems like a bad decision to me. Not only does it seem not to be in the spirit of the law (you can still report but not as easily now) but it's not clear w

This seems like a bad decision to me. Not only does it seem not to be in the spirit of the law (you can still report but not as easily now) but it's not clear why they shut it down at all. Cost? Inefficiency? Just wasn't getting used much? They have a better solution? On the other hand, the US seems so partisan now that had the current administration told the world they were taking huma' rights abuse reporting seriously by creating a web form, some people would probably be criticized for that, too.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
FridayoLeary 1y ago
[flagged]
- VerminOctopus1 1y ago
  Does Israel not commit human rights abuses?
  - nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - FridayoLeary 1y ago
    No. not on any organised national level.
- roughly 1y ago
  That’s not a guess, it’s a whole-ass story you’ve concocted in your head.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > got overlooked by DOGE DOGE had no accountability. Of course they did nothing.
- some_random 1y ago
  First off even if it was 99% unfounded Israel complaints, that's not a reason to axe it, that's just a reason to add a filter in an excel spreadsheet. But more importantly, we are absolutely responsible for making sure that our military aid is used in a way that supports our interests and values.
- alt187 1y ago
  > Just a guess but probably 99% of complaints were against israel That would make sense, but maybe not for the reason you think.
giraffe_lady 1y ago
Hegseth is publicly just a huge fan of war crimes and this is probably the main reason he got the job he has now. The big thing he's been signaling, and not really even in a sly or dogwhistly way, is that war crimes are ok to do now. If your goal is to do war crimes and enable others to do war crimes then removing the war crime reporting tool may not directly benefit you much but it certainly doesn't hurt you. And there is a certain idealogical alignment.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lawlessone 1y ago
  The most polite thing i can say about Pete is that he's the dimmest bulb among them, trying to imitate much more capable people. And everyone can see it. He's broken the Peter Principle by shooting far above the level of his incompetence.
- phendrenad2 1y ago
  > The big thing he's been signaling, and not really even in a sly or dogwhistly way, is that war crimes are ok to do now Can you give examples? In your own words? Without linking to another website?
varispeed 1y ago
[flagged]
- metadaemon 1y ago
  I highly doubt Putin is concerned with the aesthetics of the White House
  - bakies 1y ago
    the man cheats in the olympics, he's exactly petty enough to care
- love2read 1y ago
  Crazy that so many seem to be so against remodeling the whitehouse.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
      How cute! You know the lingo!
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- lbrito 1y ago
  Deflection at its finest. At least as a thought exercise, consider the possibility that the US administration was _always not great_ on its own merits, not as the fault of whatever foreign boogeyman-of-the-day.
  - varispeed 1y ago
    You're right to be skeptical of "boogeyman" narratives. The baseline should be that US administrations can be flawed on their own merits. The problem is that the "flawed" hypothesis fails to explain the specific vector of these anomalies. This isn't random incompetence; it's a persistent, multi-year pattern of actions that consistently align with the strategic goals of a single US adversary. This pattern required him to systematically fire or purge officials who represented traditional US security policy (Mattis, McMaster, Bolton, Tillerson) and replace them with those who would enact this new vector (Vance, Kellogg). The "ordinary incompetence" model must be able to explain the following data points, not as isolated gaffes, but as a cohesive pattern where his actions were in direct opposition to bipartisan congressional consensus and the US national security establishment: Publicly inviting Russian interference ("Russia, if you're listening..."). Campaign chair (Manafort) providing internal polling data and strategy to a known Russian intelligence agent (Kilimnik). Actively pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow deal during the campaign while lying to the public about it. Softening the 2016 GOP platform to remove "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine. Publicly siding with Putin in Helsinki over the entire US intelligence community. Disclosing highly-classified, "code-word" intelligence from a key ally to the Russian FM and Ambassador in the Oval Office. Illegally withholding $391M in congressionally-mandated military aid from Ukraine to extort a political investigation. Waging a tariff war against allies (EU, Canada), creating a transatlantic rift that primarily benefited Moscow. Unilaterally withdrawing from the INF and Open Skies Treaties, key arms-control pacts that constrained Russia, against the advice of allies and security officials. Publicly stating he would "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO ally he deems "delinquent." Dangling the prospect of critical Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, only to publicly snatch the offer away immediately after a phone call with Putin. Pausing vital US intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move that directly aided Russia's successful offensive in the Kursk region and retaking it. Publicly demanding that Ukraine "cut up" its territory and "stop at the battle lines," an act that validates Russia's invasion. Consistently laundering Kremlin disinformation from the White House itself (e.g., CrowdStrike, "biolabs," "Nazis" in Kyiv). One or two of these is a blunder. A list this long (and incomplete), spanning campaign, business, diplomacy, intelligence, and military policy, where every single item provides a direct, tangible benefit to the Kremlin, is a data cluster that requires a better explanation. The choice isn't "great vs. not great." It's "random incompetence" vs. a coherent, multi-year vector of pro-Moscow actions that required a complete hostile takeover of his own party and the executive branch.
rehevkor5 1y ago
It seems to be an extension of aspects that he talked about in his speech https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/ https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318... Specifically: > allow me a few words to talk about toxic leaders. > The definition of toxic has been turned upside down, and we're correcting that. That's why today, at my direction we're undertaking a full review of the department's definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing, to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing. > We're talking about words like bullying and hazing and toxic. They've been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs. No more. > Third, we are attacking and ending the walking on eggshells and zero defect command culture. > A blemish free record is what peacetime leaders covet the most, which is the worst of all incentives. You, we as senior leaders, need to end the poisonous culture of risk aversion and empower our NCOs at all levels to enforce standards. > I call it the no more walking on eggshells policy. We are liberating commanders and NCOs. We are liberating you. We are overhauling an inspector general process, the IG, that has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues and poor performers in the driver's seat. > No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints. No more repeat complainants. No more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells. > we know mistakes will be made. It's the nature of leadership. But you should not pay for earnest mistakes for your entire career. And that's why today, at my direction, we're making changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable earnest or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity. > People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career. Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes, and that's not the business we're in. We need risk takers and aggressive leaders and a culture that supports you. That makes his view of complaints, and his preference that people "take risks" and don't worry about "not being perfect", pretty clear. He thinks those things are "debris" that have been "weaponized" and that he's "liberating" people from. Maybe that seems great if you're in the military. Not so great if you're on the receiving end of those "risks", or if you or your family becomes the broken "eggshells".
- 1234letshaveatw 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

FridayoLeary 1y ago

[flagged]

VerminOctopus1 1y ago
Does Israel not commit human rights abuses?
- nakamoto_damacy 1y ago
  [flagged]
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
  No. not on any organised national level.
roughly 1y ago
That’s not a guess, it’s a whole-ass story you’ve concocted in your head.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
bigyabai 1y ago
> got overlooked by DOGE DOGE had no accountability. Of course they did nothing.
some_random 1y ago
First off even if it was 99% unfounded Israel complaints, that's not a reason to axe it, that's just a reason to add a filter in an excel spreadsheet. But more importantly, we are absolutely responsible for making sure that our military aid is used in a way that supports our interests and values.
alt187 1y ago
> Just a guess but probably 99% of complaints were against israel That would make sense, but maybe not for the reason you think.

giraffe_lady 1y ago

Hegseth is publicly just a huge fan of war crimes and this is probably the main reason he got the job he has now. The big thing he's been signaling, and not really even in a sly or dogwhistly way, is that war crimes are ok to do now. If your goal is to do war crimes and enable others to do war crimes then removing the war crime reporting tool may not directly benefit you much but it certainly doesn't hurt you. And there is a certain idealogical alignment.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lawlessone 1y ago
The most polite thing i can say about Pete is that he's the dimmest bulb among them, trying to imitate much more capable people. And everyone can see it. He's broken the Peter Principle by shooting far above the level of his incompetence.
phendrenad2 1y ago
> The big thing he's been signaling, and not really even in a sly or dogwhistly way, is that war crimes are ok to do now Can you give examples? In your own words? Without linking to another website?

varispeed 1y ago

[flagged]

metadaemon 1y ago
I highly doubt Putin is concerned with the aesthetics of the White House
- bakies 1y ago
  the man cheats in the olympics, he's exactly petty enough to care
love2read 1y ago
Crazy that so many seem to be so against remodeling the whitehouse.
- varispeed 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
    How cute! You know the lingo!
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
lbrito 1y ago
Deflection at its finest. At least as a thought exercise, consider the possibility that the US administration was _always not great_ on its own merits, not as the fault of whatever foreign boogeyman-of-the-day.
- varispeed 1y ago
  You're right to be skeptical of "boogeyman" narratives. The baseline should be that US administrations can be flawed on their own merits. The problem is that the "flawed" hypothesis fails to explain the specific vector of these anomalies. This isn't random incompetence; it's a persistent, multi-year pattern of actions that consistently align with the strategic goals of a single US adversary. This pattern required him to systematically fire or purge officials who represented traditional US security policy (Mattis, McMaster, Bolton, Tillerson) and replace them with those who would enact this new vector (Vance, Kellogg). The "ordinary incompetence" model must be able to explain the following data points, not as isolated gaffes, but as a cohesive pattern where his actions were in direct opposition to bipartisan congressional consensus and the US national security establishment: Publicly inviting Russian interference ("Russia, if you're listening..."). Campaign chair (Manafort) providing internal polling data and strategy to a known Russian intelligence agent (Kilimnik). Actively pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow deal during the campaign while lying to the public about it. Softening the 2016 GOP platform to remove "lethal defensive weapons" for Ukraine. Publicly siding with Putin in Helsinki over the entire US intelligence community. Disclosing highly-classified, "code-word" intelligence from a key ally to the Russian FM and Ambassador in the Oval Office. Illegally withholding $391M in congressionally-mandated military aid from Ukraine to extort a political investigation. Waging a tariff war against allies (EU, Canada), creating a transatlantic rift that primarily benefited Moscow. Unilaterally withdrawing from the INF and Open Skies Treaties, key arms-control pacts that constrained Russia, against the advice of allies and security officials. Publicly stating he would "encourage" Russia "to do whatever the hell they want" to any NATO ally he deems "delinquent." Dangling the prospect of critical Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, only to publicly snatch the offer away immediately after a phone call with Putin. Pausing vital US intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move that directly aided Russia's successful offensive in the Kursk region and retaking it. Publicly demanding that Ukraine "cut up" its territory and "stop at the battle lines," an act that validates Russia's invasion. Consistently laundering Kremlin disinformation from the White House itself (e.g., CrowdStrike, "biolabs," "Nazis" in Kyiv). One or two of these is a blunder. A list this long (and incomplete), spanning campaign, business, diplomacy, intelligence, and military policy, where every single item provides a direct, tangible benefit to the Kremlin, is a data cluster that requires a better explanation. The choice isn't "great vs. not great." It's "random incompetence" vs. a coherent, multi-year vector of pro-Moscow actions that required a complete hostile takeover of his own party and the executive branch.

rehevkor5 1y ago

It seems to be an extension of aspects that he talked about in his speech https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318689/secretary-of-war-pete-hegseth-addresses-general-and-flag-officers-at-quantico-v/ https://www.war.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/4318... Specifically: > allow me a few words to talk about toxic leaders. > The definition of toxic has been turned upside down, and we're correcting that. That's why today, at my direction we're undertaking a full review of the department's definitions of so-called toxic leadership, bullying and hazing, to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second guessing. > We're talking about words like bullying and hazing and toxic. They've been weaponized and bastardized inside our formations, undercutting commanders and NCOs. No more. > Third, we are attacking and ending the walking on eggshells and zero defect command culture. > A blemish free record is what peacetime leaders covet the most, which is the worst of all incentives. You, we as senior leaders, need to end the poisonous culture of risk aversion and empower our NCOs at all levels to enforce standards. > I call it the no more walking on eggshells policy. We are liberating commanders and NCOs. We are liberating you. We are overhauling an inspector general process, the IG, that has been weaponized, putting complainers, ideologues and poor performers in the driver's seat. > No more frivolous complaints. No more anonymous complaints. No more repeat complainants. No more smearing reputations. No more endless waiting. No more legal limbo. No more sidetracking careers. No more walking on eggshells. > we know mistakes will be made. It's the nature of leadership. But you should not pay for earnest mistakes for your entire career. And that's why today, at my direction, we're making changes to the retention of adverse information on personnel records that will allow leaders with forgivable earnest or minor infractions to not be encumbered by those infractions in perpetuity. > People make honest mistakes, and our mistakes should not define an entire career. Otherwise, we only try not to make mistakes, and that's not the business we're in. We need risk takers and aggressive leaders and a culture that supports you. That makes his view of complaints, and his preference that people "take risks" and don't worry about "not being perfect", pretty clear. He thinks those things are "debris" that have been "weaponized" and that he's "liberating" people from. Maybe that seems great if you're in the military. Not so great if you're on the receiving end of those "risks", or if you or your family becomes the broken "eggshells".

1234letshaveatw 1y ago