←back to thread

US axes website for reporting human rights abuses by US-armed foreign forces

(www.bbc.com)
763 points tartoran | 8 comments | 23 Oct 25 14:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
mikeyouse ◴[23 Oct 25 14:35 UTC] No.45682307[source]▶
> Tim Rieser, former senior aide to Senator Leahy who wrote the 2011 amendment mandating information gathering, told the BBC the gateway's removal meant the State Department was "clearly ignoring the law".

We're in a really bad place... with a servile congress, it turns out there aren't really any laws constraining the executive branch. When everything relies on "independent IGs" for law enforcement inside executive branch departments, and the President can fire them all without consequence or oversight, then it turns out there is no law.

replies(21): >>45682323 #>>45682445 #>>45682511 #>>45682590 #>>45682838 #>>45682977 #>>45682980 #>>45683124 #>>45683225 #>>45683230 #>>45683339 #>>45683432 #>>45683533 #>>45683596 #>>45683626 #>>45683638 #>>45683774 #>>45683801 #>>45683853 #>>45683854 #>>45683942 #
wffurr ◴[23 Oct 25 14:46 UTC] No.45682445[source]▶
The answer is impeachment, but when Congress is stuffed with boot licking toadies, then there is no recourse.
replies(5): >>45682460 #>>45682691 #>>45682910 #>>45683177 #>>45684072 #
nerdsniper ◴[23 Oct 25 14:48 UTC] No.45682460[source]▶
* s/impeachment/“conviction by the Senate”

Impeachment by itself has been shown to accomplish nothing. There is no other mechanism except conviction by the Senate to address constitutional or legal violations made by the president.

Also no president has ever been impeached by a House which is controlled by a majority of the same party of the President. If Congress had a full Republican majority during Nixon’s years, he would not have been impeached. If Congress had a full Democratic majority during Clinton’s years, he would not have been impeached.

Edit: “Approval voting” is the appropriate escape hatch from 2-party politics. It lets you get rid of primaries entirely and run all the top-n candidates who have the greatest number of valid nomination signatures. Its advantage over range-voting/etc is that it is dead-simple to explain to voters: Put a checkmark next to any candidate that you're "okay" with. The candidate with the most checkmarks wins.

https://rangevoting.org/CompChart.html

replies(2): >>45682702 #>>45683003 #
LunaSea ◴[23 Oct 25 15:05 UTC] No.45682702[source]▶
This mostly shows that political parties are the problem themselves rather than the political mechanics of the system themselves.
replies(4): >>45682747 #>>45682753 #>>45682762 #>>45683338 #
1. theptip ◴[23 Oct 25 15:11 UTC] No.45682753[source]▶
Now we are talking. And the dynamic that makes political parties so toxic IMO is “first past the post” voting.

If it’s your team or the “worse” team, you tolerate any flaw in your team.

If there was a pressure valve where another party can simply take over (for example see Reform vs Conservative parties in the UK, not that I am thrilled with the underlying direction) then there is an alternative: cut bait and condemn what used to be “your team”, and start a new one.

replies(2): >>45683062 #>>45683228 #
2. ◴[23 Oct 25 15:34 UTC] No.45683062[source]▶
3. ModernMech ◴[23 Oct 25 15:47 UTC] No.45683228[source]▶
> If there was a pressure valve where another party can simply take over

That's exactly what happened though -- the MAGA party took over. Conservatives "cut bait" with traditional Republicans, condemned them (see how they talk about Liz and Dick Cheney or even GWB, Mitt Romney, and John McCain, their own presidential nominees), and started a new party within the rotting corpse of the old GOP. There's still some "Republican" branding around but if you pay attention they're not waving "Republican" flags or wearing "Republican" hats anymore.

replies(2): >>45683610 #>>45690464 #
4. tastyfreeze ◴[23 Oct 25 16:14 UTC] No.45683610[source]▶
Unfortunately taking over a dominant party was the easiest way to have a "different" party that could actually win. Both parties have built a mountain of obstacles to prevent a third party from ever getting close to challenging them.
replies(1): >>45686011 #
5. ModernMech ◴[23 Oct 25 19:38 UTC] No.45686011{3}[source]▶
I wonder, then is there a path to getting what you want by making the parties more democratic rather than making more parties?
replies(2): >>45688802 #>>45690480 #
6. tastyfreeze ◴[23 Oct 25 23:29 UTC] No.45688802{4}[source]▶
I find it best to view parties like any other faction or gang. They don't want challengers to their current power. Primaries are supposed to be the democratic way to steer a party but we've seen how that goes. They aren't going to change unless it is from within. So,remove all obstacles to being on the ballot and let the existing parties whine about it when they start to lose.
7. theptip ◴[24 Oct 25 03:31 UTC] No.45690464[source]▶
It’s not a good safety valve though - sure, in a 2-party system, one of the parties can be taken over from within. But it’s uncommon and hard to achieve, and risks alienating voters while the civil war is going on.

On the other hand, with IRV or preference voting, second parties can form without spoiling the vote for their ideologically most aligned alternatives. This allows for a much more seamless shift.

Really in the US there should be at least 4 parties formed from the corpses of the big two, if not more.

8. ◴[24 Oct 25 03:33 UTC] No.45690480{4}[source]▶