←back to thread

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

(www.bbc.com)
763 points tartoran | 1 comments | 23 Oct 25 14:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
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 #
softwaredoug ◴[23 Oct 25 15:47 UTC] No.45683230[source]▶
TBH The Right in the US has such a structural advantage, that Congress's silence becomes de-facto acceptance. Congress choosing to not do oversight becomes a de-facto repeal of the law.

The only other option is to find someone with standing being harmed and sue. And that will take time to wind through the courts, with not great chances at SCOTUS.

replies(6): >>45683312 #>>45683393 #>>45683504 #>>45683510 #>>45683799 #>>45683891 #
rayiner ◴[23 Oct 25 15:53 UTC] No.45683312[source]▶
> Congress's silence becomes de-facto acceptance. Congress choosing to not do oversight becomes a de-factor repeal of the law.

Yes, but why is that surprising? If a majority of any legislature doesn't care to see a law enforced, they could vote to repeal the law anyway. It's only because of the artifice of the filibuster in the U.S. system that there's a meaningful difference between those two things.

replies(5): >>45683400 #>>45683485 #>>45683562 #>>45683743 #>>45683981 #
1. JustExAWS ◴[23 Oct 25 16:24 UTC] No.45683743[source]▶
In the Senate at least outside of a few carve outs, you really need 60 Senators to get anything passed not just a majority. The only reason the ACA ever passed was during the brief window they had 60 Senators