Five minutes of hate news

[Zachowon]

No, fuck those crimes. I literally don't care about their BS crimes at all. I care about actual crimes, not kangaroo court BS.

Again, you ably demonstrate your ignorance of history and law. Voluntary censorship is completely different than arresting journalists. More so when it came before the US had free speech rights.

When you lose the 1a, yeah, that's tyranny. I'm sorry you only support speech when it agrees with you.


Literally couldn't give one shit, much less two, about Ukrainian 'law'. If they had tried with an actual crime, then I'd care.

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion: Person in Gaza get's killed by Hamas for opposing Hamas. Marduk: "Well, there's nothing wrong with that, you should obey the law."


I'm sure you don't know what US law says about speech related things. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about if you are citing anything before Brandenburg v Ohio/ Skokie about what free speech is.

Lol. The patriot act doesn't really implicate free speech. It's mostly about surveillance. They specifically used the term "Material support to Terrorists" to avoid this. Basically, it's the same grounds as spying: you can't give the enemy advice, but you can advocate for the enemy.


Ukraine's reliance on the US means that yes, the US gets say. Or the US can just abandon Ukraine.

So...it's perfectly fine to go to a country and break thier laws?
Got it.
Will go draw swastikas everywhere in germany.

he was in a country, actively at war, and was basically spreading lies and endangering UAF members, as well as outright spreading false information to the wider world.
he is what we would call, a spy if we were at war.

These arnt trumped up charges.
everything he did is documented, and the only reason he was arrested and in jail thos last time during his death is he tried to escape via running to Hungary.

if he wanted to seek safe spot to live he could have seeked asylum in the US Embassy, but he didnt. He cowered in Kiev when rhe Russians were near thinking he would be freed by them when they arrive
they didnt and he went back to Kharkiv.
There is where he spread the information as well as posted the locations of UAF AD.

If i posted the locations of US service members that ended up getting them killed, or heavily endangering thier lives as a journalist or normal person that isnt the President, i woukd end up in jail as well.
because Operation Security is no joke.
hell, i would end up in the brig and have less rights then a normal prisoner.

That comes from ...the Ukraine gov. A government that somehow wants to win on someone else money while those who give it are becoming increasingly poor. A government that is trying to conscript every-able-bodied male into its armed forces through coercion by considering to close their bank accounts ?

Conscription is what a country fighting for its life does.
So your saying they should only take volunteers and when they run out of them die?
I guess all those mobilized troops in Russia who were arrested for trying to leave don't count?

 

[Marduk]

Again, you ably demonstrate your ignorance of history and law. Voluntary censorship is completely different than arresting journalists. More so when it came before the US had free speech rights.

I'm sure in the future there will be people who like you advocate that USA didn't have "real free speech" right now, and i still won't care.
Also don't go "mostly peaceful" on me with the journo defense, i checked...

Office of Censorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The agency's implementation of censorship was done primarily through a voluntary regulatory code that was willingly adopted by the press.[3]

"Primarily voluntary", not voluntary only.

When you lose the 1a, yeah, that's tyranny. I'm sorry you only support speech when it agrees with you.

Take this shit to someone who doesn't see through childish word games.
I only support speech that's not supporting people trying to invade my country now, and i don't have a different expectations for what speech will Ukrainians support, that's quite a technical difference.

Literally couldn't give one shit, much less two, about Ukrainian 'law'. If they had tried with an actual crime, then I'd care.

Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion: Person in Gaza get's killed by Hamas for opposing Hamas. Marduk: "Well, there's nothing wrong with that, you should obey the law."

I think anyone with any kind of knowledge about the two has more respect for the legal system of Ukraine than Hamas. If you don't, well, i don't know what it would take to convince you otherwise, or if it would be worth trying, but i wouldn't go around showing that.

I'm sure you don't know what US law says about speech related things. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about if you are citing anything before Brandenburg v Ohio/ Skokie about what free speech is.

And neither of us has any idea what will US law be saying about free speech in wartime after the US-China war in 20XX, but it's a good chance it won't be the same thing as it is now.
As i said, USA was not in a war legally after Brandenburg v Ohio/ Skokie, so whatever you think about possible legal challenges to this, until a such a war happens, there was never a possibility to test that in court at all.

Lol. The patriot act doesn't really implicate free speech. It's mostly about surveillance. They specifically used the term "Material support to Terrorists" to avoid this. Basically, it's the same grounds as spying: you can't give the enemy advice, but you can advocate for the enemy.

According to Zach's article he also tried to dox Ukrainian soldiers and other western journalists in Ukraine.

Ukraine's reliance on the US means that yes, the US gets say. Or the US can just abandon Ukraine.

If it wants to. It would have to be retarded to want to, as in more than it is now, but still. But this case is a happy coincidence where US govt gets someone else to do its dirty work for free our of own initiative, they just have to stand aside and smile.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm sure in the future there will be people who like you advocate that USA didn't have "real free speech" right now, and i still won't care.
Also don't go "mostly peaceful" on me with the journo defense, i checked...

Yes, and the rest of it was against 1A, something you don't understand.

I only support speech that's not supporting people trying to invade my country now, and i don't have a different expectations for what speech will Ukrainians support, that's quite a technical difference.

"I only support speech that's not supporting people killing my country with the coronavirus" -Marduk's equivalent.

I'm sorry you don't believe in human rights Marduk, but it's not surprising.

According to Zach's article he also tried to dox Ukrainian soldiers and other western journalists in Ukraine.

Cool story bro. Convict him of that then. Again, if it's so obvious, Ukraine should have done that.

 

[TheRejectionist]

 

[Marduk]

Yes, and the rest of it was against 1A, something you don't understand.

Yes, people don't agree about interpreting 1A. Even people with fancy legal degrees, even judges.

"I only support speech that's not supporting people killing my country with the coronavirus" -Marduk's equivalent.

Disease and war are legally, morally and practically different scenarios, don't play such games...

I'm sorry you don't believe in human rights Marduk, but it's not surprising.

Yes, i have a lot of disagreements with human rights as they are written, though i have to sadden you that 1A absolutely is not part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we likely both disagree what that one says regarding freedom of speech.

Cool story bro. Convict him of that then. Again, if it's so obvious, Ukraine should have done that.

If he was alive, they may have finished judging further accusations against him, but as he's dead, what's the point? Do you run trials against dead suspected criminals in USA?

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes, people don't agree about interpreting 1A. Even people with fancy legal degrees, even judges.

Well, they don't agree with you for sure, maybe that's where you are getting this impression from. In fact, there's a pretty broad consensus on whether the government can tell journalists what to say. It was resolved in the Pentagon Papers case as a pretty resounding NO.

Yes, i have a lot of disagreements with human rights as they are written, though i have to sadden you that 1A absolutely is not part of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we likely both disagree what that one says regarding freedom of speech.

Oh, definitely. the UDHR isn't worth shit. It's only right accidently. I don't know why you'd think I was saddened about the UN being shit though. It's utterly irrelevant.

If he was alive, they may have finished judging further accusations against him, but as he's dead, what's the point? Do you run trials against dead suspected criminals in USA?

No. "He should have been convicted of that instead" was the implication. Had they convicted him on an actual crime, I'd have no issue. But they convicted him of journalism, so I have an issue.

 

[Bacle]

‘Red Pill’ Dating Coach Gonzalo Lira, Accused of Shilling for Putin, Is Arrested in Ukraine

Gonzalo Lira, a prolific online personality who became an outspoken supporter of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, had his home in Kharkiv raided by the security services.

www.thedailybeast.com

In his videos, Lira insulted the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, and described Ukrainians defending their land from Russian invaders as "armed criminals." Ukrainian authorities allege that Lira filmed Ukrainian soldiers, making a specific effort to capture their likeness and attempting to discredit their military service.

Lira also charted his efforts to follow American reporters covering the conflict in Ukraine, describing them as "system pig journalists" and revealing their whereabouts in specific hotels.

Russia(gate/bot) - Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

So what? The whole point of sanctions on a nation is to do a quick shock to get them to pull back and stop doing something, OR to weaken them before an invasion. If your plan for fighting your enemy takes decades it's a shit plan and you should consider doing something else even going for...

www.the-sietch.com

 

[Marduk]

Well, they don't agree with you for sure, maybe that's where you are getting this impression from. In fact, there's a pretty broad consensus on whether the government can tell journalists what to say. It was resolved in the Pentagon Papers case as a pretty resounding NO.

Again, not under wartime powers...

Oh, definitely. the UDHR isn't worth shit. It's only right accidently. I don't know why you'd think I was saddened about the UN being shit though. It's utterly irrelevant.

So, between my personal favorite human rights fiction, your personal favorite human rights fiction, and our agreeing that UDHR isn't worth shit, arguing which one of us doesn't believe in human rights is pointless.

No. "He should have been convicted of that instead" was the implication. Had they convicted him on an actual crime, I'd have no issue. But they convicted him of journalism, so I have an issue.

No, it's your law fanfiction, that may pass in peacetime USA, may or may not pass in USA in wartime, and definitely doesn't pass in wartime Ukraine. He had still ongoing legal cases either way and was under arrest (previously under house arrest) because he tried to leave before the other cases were over.

 

[mrttao]

‘Red Pill’ Dating Coach Gonzalo Lira, Accused of Shilling for Putin, Is Arrested in Ukraine

Gonzalo Lira, a prolific online personality who became an outspoken supporter of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, had his home in Kharkiv raided by the security services.

www.thedailybeast.com

You made a bunch of quotes from that post but missing the key bit that explains what it is you linked

Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) has arrested Gonzalo Lira—a dual citizen of the United States and Chile, who has been living in Kharkiv—on charges of producing pro-Russian propaganda.

Lira, a prolific and controversial online personality, is accused of creating and disseminating materials that justify Putin's armed aggression against Ukraine. He is facing the possibility of being imprisoned for five to eight years.

 

[Abhorsen]

‘Red Pill’ Dating Coach Gonzalo Lira, Accused of Shilling for Putin, Is Arrested in Ukraine

Gonzalo Lira, a prolific online personality who became an outspoken supporter of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, had his home in Kharkiv raided by the security services.

www.thedailybeast.com

Russia(gate/bot) - Russia-Ukraine War Political Discussion

So what? The whole point of sanctions on a nation is to do a quick shock to get them to pull back and stop doing something, OR to weaken them before an invasion. If your plan for fighting your enemy takes decades it's a shit plan and you should consider doing something else even going for...

www.the-sietch.com

Oh noes he insulted the president! Not that, how horrible!

Meanwhile, again, you are accusing him on an actual crime. That's nice. Convict him next time of that instead of a BS crime, and I won't have an issue.

Also, btw Bacle, I thought you were mad about me "following you around" and other made up accusations?

Also, was talking to Zach (who is not being insulting), not responding to you (who is), so do not start with this shit again because you will not like what happens.

You've been warned I am in no mood for this shit anymore, I know it, so back off.

Oooh, so scary... Oh, wait, you couldn't back up your shit in the thread, so you decided to run and hide and demanded I not talk to you. I let you, because you aren't worth any time. You don't believe that Russians deserve rights, you have no compassion even for russian defectors, calling them all Orks. You are a vile person who didn't have the balls to stand and shout his stupid opinions. But now you are replying to me again, so once again, it comes to me to educate you about basic reality. And when you are being educated on basic reality by an AnCap, you know you screwed up.

See, I may have disagreements with Marduk and others, but I get that they have different opinions and reasonings for them, as much as I disagree with them I can see where they are coming from a place of good faith (one I disagree with, but still good faith). You? I thought you were similar. But as it turns out, you are actually just a closet racist socialist under all that bluster. Your opinions aren't really opinions, they are the instincts of someone who screeches "Ork" when you aren't busy licking the boot that was the New Deal.

See, when I call you a neocon, there's a very specific reason why: it's because you are the uniparty. You have the same moral virtue as Hillary Clinton and Nikki Haley and Dick Cheney, without any of the cunning or intelligence.

Now how long until you cry "wah Abhorsen's harrassing me" again, when you started stealth replying to me?

Again, not under wartime powers...

There's not a wartime exception to the first amendment. The Pentagon Papers were literally released during a war. Please, please, learn the basics of the first amendment and the constitution before shouting your ignorance of American law to the world.

So, between my personal favorite human rights fiction, your personal favorite human rights fiction, and our agreeing that UDHR isn't worth shit, arguing which one of us doesn't believe in human rights is pointless.

No, see, that's where you're wrong. This isn't a human rights conversation in general. This is an American understanding of Human rights conversation. Because America ought to defend it's citizens using America's definition of human rights. That's what matters.

And you still don't understand what America's definition of human rights are.

No, it's your law fanfiction, that may pass in peacetime USA, may or may not pass in USA in wartime, and definitely doesn't pass in wartime Ukraine. He had still ongoing legal cases either way and was under arrest (previously under house arrest) because he tried to leave before the other cases were over.

It's not fanfiction, it's reality of America, which you might know if you knew anything about American law. And Ukraine's opinion literally is worth jack and shit, because they depend on America. What's an Empire for if not to force our values on the world?

 

[Marduk]

Oh noes he insulted the president! Not that, how horrible!

No, that's not what anyone other than his supporters say, including the UA government releases. He did so much more than that...

There's not a wartime exception to the first amendment. The Pentagon Papers were literally released during a war. Please, please, learn the basics of the first amendment and the constitution before shouting your ignorance of American law to the world.

You first learn the basics of whether USA is legally (as opposed to colloquially) in a war before you talk about wartime policy.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Which of these wars were The Pentagon Papers released under?

Was the Vietnam War technically a war?

Was the Vietnam War technically a war? By nearly every metric, the Vietnam War was, in the common sense of the word, a war. The United States committe

www.britannica.com

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress sole authority to issue declarations of war. Since 1941 Congress has declared war only six times, all during World War II. Congress authorized troop deployment in Vietnam, but, because it did not issue a declaration of war on North Vietnam or the Viet Cong, the Vietnam War is, technically speaking, not considered a war in the United States.

No, see, that's where you're wrong. This isn't a human rights conversation in general. This is an American understanding of Human rights conversation. Because America ought to defend it's citizens using America's definition of human rights. That's what matters.

This American understanding, as far as it applies internationally, does use UDHR and is limited when it comes to what US government *has to*, as opposed to may do.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law", and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can "scrutinize" the nation's obligations to international instruments and their enforceability.[12] However, U.S. courts and legislatures may still use the Declaration to inform or interpret laws concerned with human rights,[88] a position shared by the courts of Belgium, the Netherlands, India, and Sri Lanka.[88]

And you still don't understand what America's definition of human rights are.

America's law of the land applies to said land, not to a far away place.
American courts also give some importance to international human rights law as in UDHR, but we have established that we don't care either way about that and 1A interpretations aren't included there anyway.
By your logic USA would also need to protect US citizens sentenced for trying to exercise their 2A rights in other countries, and that would get very interesting.

It's not fanfiction, it's reality of America, which you might know if you knew anything about American law. And Ukraine's opinion literally is worth jack and shit, because they depend on America. What's an Empire for if not to force our values on the world?

It's not reality, it's your wishful thinking.
Why would the Empire use its power to... enforce the preferences of people who are against it anyway?

 

[Abhorsen]

You first learn the basics of whether USA is legally (as opposed to colloquially) in a war before you talk about wartime policy.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You think I don't know about this? The issue is that you don't seem to know how US emergency powers work. If something is okay during war, it's okay outside of war, constitutionally speaking (at least as far as speech goes). There's no 'war' exception to the constitution. In fact, any such wartime powers could be given to the US outside of a war if congress consents, hence the use of AUMFs.

America's law of the land applies to said land, not to a far away place.
American courts also give some importance to international human rights law as in UDHR, but we have established that we don't care either way about that and 1A interpretations aren't included there anyway.
By your logic USA would also need to protect US citizens sentenced for trying to exercise their 2A rights in other countries, and that would get very interesting.

Yes, they absolutely should.

It's not reality, it's your wishful thinking.
Why would the Empire use its power to... enforce the preferences of people who are against it anyway?

It should put it's power towards enforcing it's opinions. I know its wishful thinking, that's why I said should. Given that it doesn't, I don't much like the American Empire, and view it as of very little use.

I question the point of NATO when the countries being defended don't have rights even. At the very least, we should use it to ride herd on the backwards European 'democracies'.

 

[Marduk]

You think I don't know about this? The issue is that you don't seem to know how US emergency powers work. If something is okay during war, it's okay outside of war, constitutionally speaking (at least as far as speech goes). There's no 'war' exception to the constitution. In fact, any such wartime powers could be given to the US outside of a war if congress consents, hence the use of AUMFs.

Well there's also this one other highly war related thing called martial law.
Constitutionally speaking, it's not a highly tested and limited territory.
It also didn't apply to Vietnam, Korea or anything like that.
For obvious reasons Ukraine is under martial law, while USA never was in more than some part of its territory.

Yes, they absolutely should.

It should put it's power towards enforcing it's opinions. I know its wishful thinking, that's why I said should. Given that it doesn't, I don't much like the American Empire, and view it as of very little use.

I question the point of NATO when the countries being defended don't have rights even. At the very least, we should use it to ride herd on the backwards European 'democracies'.

So, we have established that in light of no other way to discourage US "imperialism" you want to push it the other way and try to imply that it should take it to an obviously unreasonable, simply impractical and even plain self-defeating degree, as in doing the same clownery China is attempting with supervising its citizens abroad, except taken to in a slightly different direction and greater scale. Nice trick you have there, but i see no reason why anyone from a different political faction should take that as anything more than that, a trick to get your favored policy in a roundabout way.
Just because they don't have the specific rights you would want, interpreted in the way you would want, doesn't mean "they don't have rights".
We both know what law of the land is, US govt knows too, and we know US foreign policy has leeway in what it does or doesn't do for citizens that get in legal trouble abroad, depending on what the nature of their trouble and circumstances around it are, even if their legal situation would be different if they did the same actions in USA.

 

[Abhorsen]

Well there's also this one other highly war related thing called martial law.
Constitutionally speaking, it's not a highly tested and limited territory.
It also didn't apply to Vietnam, Korea or anything like that.
For obvious reasons Ukraine is under martial law, while USA never was in more than some part of its territory.

Martial law is also not an exception to the constitution, given it doesn't appear in the constitution.

You really need to learn some basic constitutional theory before talking about stuff you don't know.

So, we have established that in light of no other way to discourage US "imperialism" you want to push it the other way and try to imply that it should take it to an obviously unreasonable, simply impractical and even plain self-defeating degree. Nice trick you have there, but i see no reason why anyone from a different political faction should take that as anything more than that, a trick to get your favored policy in a roundabout way.
Just because they don't have the specific rights you would want, interpreted in the way you would want, doesn't mean "they don't have rights".

Okay, a) they don't. Almost no European actually has rights by their various constitutions, they have permissions. You can tell when the government constantly censors, bans political parties, etc.

As for the US being unreasonable, I don't think it would be. Forcing countries in NATO to adopt 2A as part of a defense strategy makes sense and is practical, for example.

 

[Terthna]

Lira was stupid enough to think he could do all sorts of shit to support Russia while in Ukraine, and suddenly found out his status as a US citizen wasn't going to protect him from when he repeatedly acted on the behalf of the power invading UA's lands.

That some people don't understand these simple facts shows how hard the Russia simps and isolationists have tried to twist the narrative of what Lira did and the context around it to make him some sort of martyr.

Careful with that edge, that you don't cut yourself; not that I expect my advice to make it past all that righteous indignation and bloodlust.

 

[Marduk]

Martial law is also not an exception to the constitution, given it doesn't appear in the constitution.

You really need to learn some basic constitutional theory before talking about stuff you don't know.

You really stop trying to throw half-truths at me.
Yeah, it doesn't appear in constitution. But that doesn't mean it's illegal, doesn't matter wasn't practiced historically, was banned by courts later, etc.

Martial Law in the United States: Its Meaning, Its History, and Why the President Can’t Declare It

The concept has never been well understood. What should be clear, however, is that the president lacks the authority to declare it.

www.brennancenter.org

You talk about this with confidence going beyond what even the experts in this are willing to say, which makes me unlikely to take your word on this stuff as something more than your personal interpretation of the law, and so i also can have mine.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney — of Dred Scott infamy — embraced Andrew Jackson's idea that martial law allows civilians to be subjected to military jurisdiction in an emergency. He described this power as an essential part of states' right to defend themselves and suggested that it is inherent to all sovereign governments. footnote16_ome89cq 16 By endorsing the constitutionality of martial law, the Supreme Court finished what Congress had started with the refund bill. The Luther decision makes clear that martial law exists as an emergency power that can be invoked in the United States, at least by state legislatures. footnote17_rq6bcep 17

It isn't in constitution, yet it is constitutional, according to the SC...

Outside of these general principles, there are many questions that simply cannot be answered given the sparse and confusing legal precedent. Moreover, although lacking authority to replace civilian authorities with federal troops, the president has ample authority under current law to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement. Until Congress and state legislatures enact stricter and better-defined limits, the exact scope of martial law will remain unsettled, and the president's ability to order domestic troop deployments short of martial law will be dangerously broad.

This is a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States. The U.S. military, when allowed to act domestically at all, is ordinarily limited to assisting civilian authorities. Martial law turns that relationship on its head. The displacement of civilian government distinguishes it from other emergency powers, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Suspending the writ allows the government to detain and hold individuals without charge but does not imply any unusual role for the armed forces. While a declaration of martial law might be accompanied by a suspension of habeas corpus, they are distinct concepts.

So, if Ukraine had US definition of martial law and emergency powers, they wouldn't even have to bother with the legal process they used, like it or not, they could have just detained him without charges until the end of martial law, which is a perfectly functional substitute as far as cracking down on crackpot propagandists goes.

Okay, a) they don't. Almost no European actually has rights by their various constitutions, they have permissions. You can tell when the government constantly censors, bans political parties, etc.

Well it doesn't break their constitutional rights, if their constitutional rights do not contain absolute bans of that.

As for the US being unreasonable, I don't think it would be. Forcing countries in NATO to adopt 2A as part of a defense strategy makes sense and is practical, for example.

In some places, sure, besides the whole problem of their voters and sovereignty.
In others, like Turkey, Belgium, or most of Balkan NATO, this could get quite interesting though.

 

[Poe]

Martial law is also not an exception to the constitution, given it doesn't appear in the constitution.

You really need to learn some basic constitutional theory before talking about stuff you don't know.


Okay, a) they don't. Almost no European actually has rights by their various constitutions, they have permissions. You can tell when the government constantly censors, bans political parties, etc.

As for the US being unreasonable, I don't think it would be. Forcing countries in NATO to adopt 2A as part of a defense strategy makes sense and is practical, for example.

Why spend this much time discussing internal US laws, or Americas empire and it's pros and cons for americans, with a Polish dude?

 

[Abhorsen]

You really stop trying to throw half-truths at me.
Yeah, it doesn't appear in constitution. But that doesn't mean it's illegal, doesn't matter wasn't practiced historically, was banned by courts later, etc.

Literally your argument is "maybe someone pulls a fast one". Yeah, it ain't a thing. Look, I read scotus opinions and follow the court for fun, you don't know what you are talking about here.

It's not a half truth when there's the entire body of the last 70 so years of US law laughing at it.

You also seem to confuse martial law with emergency powers (which is the actual mechanism used by the Feds now), of which the US president has many right now, and none of which allow violating the constitution.

Well it doesn't break their constitutional rights, if their constitutional rights do not contain absolute bans of that.

That's the thing, it's not a right then, if the constitution doesn't defend it from the government. Basically I view most European governments as simply on a time delay until they go authoritarian again, and that time seems fast approaching. The US exported democracy, not human rights to those places, IMO. Europe sucks, news at 11.

 

[Marduk]

Literally your argument is "maybe someone pulls a fast one". Yeah, it ain't a thing. Look, I read scotus opinions and follow the court for fun, you don't know what you are talking about here.

It's not a half truth when there's the entire body of the last 70 so years of US law laughing at it.

You also seem to confuse martial law with emergency powers (which is the actual mechanism used by the Feds now), of which the US president has many right now, and none of which allow violating the constitution.

I'm not confusing president's emergency powers with martial law those are separate things that however can, and in the even of major war may likely coincide.

That's the thing, it's not a right then, if the constitution doesn't defend it from the government. Basically I view most European governments as simply on a time delay until they go authoritarian again, and that time seems fast approaching. The US exported democracy, not human rights to those places, IMO. Europe sucks, news at 11.

And here's the thing, you are doing nothing more than providing a disservice to the very interpretation of human rights you are trying to spread, if you insist that it has to contain such eyebrow rising ideas as legalizing propagandizing for invaders in case of a war. Yeah, sure, perhaps USA and few other places can get away with such luxury opinions as chances of undergoing a major land invasion is rather low for them, but the rest will just look at you and say "so, your answer to our issue with your legal doctrine is to suck it up even if it helps the other side conquer us, after that it's our problem, not yours, and you for one will advocate that nothing be done about that because that would be playing empire or something, thanks, but we will be listening to someone else, anyone really".
I simply cannot share your view on this for the same reason i cannot share the lefty human rights people's view on the duty to welcome unlimited asylum seekers indefinitely no matter how they spin it.
In the end, human rights cannot be a suicide pact, individual or collective, national, civilizational or any other, and if something is a suicide pact, i won't support it.

 

[Abhorsen]

I'm not confusing president's emergency powers with martial law those are separate things that however can, and in the even of major war may likely coincide.

Martial law literally isn't a thing in US Federal law. It was for a little while in 2007, then returned back to the insurrection act, which again, isn't martial law. It's like talking about unicorns: it doesn't matter, it doesn't exist.

And here's the thing, you are doing nothing more than providing a disservice to the very interpretation of human rights you are trying to spread, if you insist that it has to contain such eyebrow rising ideas as legalizing propagandizing for invaders in case of a war. Yeah, sure, perhaps USA and few other places can get away with such luxury opinions as chances of undergoing a major land invasion is rather low for them, but the rest will just look at you and say "so, your answer to our issue with your legal doctrine is to suck it up even if it helps the other side conquer us, after that it's our problem, not yours, and you for one will advocate that nothing be done about that because that would be playing empire or something, thanks, but we will be listening to someone else, anyone really".

Yes, because otherwise the laws will be abused and you will legally enact a totalitarian government. The reason for the laws is to stop a heads I win tails you lose for totalitarianism. If your freedoms can't survive conflict, you don't have them.

Ben Franklin had a great quote about this, that I'm going to likely butcher: Those who would sacrifice liberty to preserve safety will receive neither.

That's you. You fundamentally do not understand the US if you think arguing that the constitution is a suicide pact is a good argument.

More, if your country doesn't support what the US has long believed to be human rights (as my opinion, not yours, has been the generally accepted norm for about 50 years in the US), then I don't see why the US should support such countries unless they offer us something valuable.

Understand that NATO isn't really for US protection. It's for European protection. It's a favor. What does the US get in return for us backing up socialists and autocrats?

If tomorrow the Baltics, Poland, and Ukriane all joined up with Russia, few in the US's lives would meaningfully change. It would barely affect us. Russia is so far below us it's not even funny. So I'm asking, why do we give a shit about NATO if you don't share our beliefs nor actually help us out?

Israel, at least, has actually helped us with the Iron Dome. The Saudis have oil. Y'all got near nothing except a shared history and beliefs, beliefs you are now shitting on.