When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
It's been interesting watching Facebook constantly revise and update its rules with regard for publicly calling for the assassination of political leaders lately.
Facebook Relaxes (and Then Reverses) Its Rules Over Calling for Leaders to Be Killed.
Meta made a Putin-specific change to its policy on calling for the assassination of world leaders late last week, then backtracked today for ill-explained reasons.
As the Russian invasion of Ukraine was dragging into its third week, Facebook’s parent company Meta declared a new policy last Thursday that immediately infuriated the unholy Tucker-Carlson-far-right and Glenn Greenwald-far-left alliance. As New York Magazine reported at the time, Facebook (slightly) reversed its policy on incitement of violence, and decided to allow users to call for assassinations — but only if you called the the killing of Vladimir Putin, or his counterpart, Belarusian president Aleksander Lukashenko. Being Facebook, the new policy was so incremental as to be meaningless, because it only applied to users in Ukraine or Russia, it could only be the above two-named leaders, and the post would be removed if it contained “two indicators of credibility, such as the location or method” of assassination.
And then on Monday, showing that classic Mark Zuckerberg spine and resolve, Facebook completely reversed its policy and decided you can’t call for Putin's assassination. Or in the words of a paid Meta spokesperson with millions of dollars in vested stock options, they “clarified” that they were “narrowing the focus” of that policy.
"We are now narrowing the focus to make it explicitly clear in the guidance that it is never to be interpreted as condoning violence against Russians in general," Meta global affairs President Nick Clegg "These are difficult decisions. Circumstances in Ukraine are fast moving. We try to think through all the consequences, and we keep our guidance under constant review because the context is always evolving."
I suppose these are interesting policy decisions with an evolving world and all, but it is farcical to think that someone will get Vladimir Putin assassinated with a Facebook post. People can (and will) get bent out of shape over whether this makes Facebook complicit to murderer or an arbiter of justice, but this is all seems more like parlor-game conversation.
There is a far more meaningful and troubling problem on Facebook with the U.S. bioweapon-lab-in-Ukraine hoax, which has spread so much on social media that it’s made in onto Tucker Carlson’s show. This is surely far more of a threat than individual yahoos calling for Putin’s assassination. But if you’re a Meta employee with millions of dollars in vested stock options, you’d rather people be talking about the latest hair-splitting with your policy on posts calling for the assassination of world leaders.
I usually make a rule never to watch this asshat, but sometimes a dumb ******* lib can point out dumb ******* lib rules (once it's approved by the agenda)
Anyone who has to live with the actual mask rules realizes their ridiculousness. It's virtue-signaling, stress-inducing, and stupid. Those who see that the rules are only partially followed, and even so watch non-masked people eating food just inches away from masked people. The irony that the nonsense rules are supported by a talking potato surely can't be lost on the population.
edit--after two years my kids got to go to school without masks for the first time yesterday. Ecstatic. The follow-on effects to education and emotional well-being of our kids and their generation will be felt for decades. It already shows in national comprehensive test scores.
Russian state TV calls for REPARATIONS from the US over sanctions: Putin's lapdogs demand return of 'Alaska and California's Fort Ross', threaten nuclear strikes on US, and call for public hangings in Ukraine
"Two Words" has become a popular underground slang in Russia, where actually speaking out in opposition to war in Ukraine is strictly forbidden. The two words refer to "no war" (generally understood to be in English), in much the same way that skinheads in the US use the terms "14 words" or "1488" to refer to their rallying cry.
It apparently became popular after Russian TV producer Marina Ovsyannikova was jailed for holding up this sign during a live newscast on Moscow-based Channel One:
Ovsyannikova was eventually released, after paying a fine of 30,000 rubles, around US$280.
It gives me pause to reflect upon how easily people who have never experienced actual fascism will cry "FASCIST!" against any person or entity who inconveniences them in the slightest. Being dragged away by police for the offense of holding up a small sign is an example of what a fascist regime actually looks like.
Bill Would Authorize Letter of Marque and Reprisal to Whoever Will Steal Putin’s Yacht
Yaarrr, me lads, have that letter and security bond at the ready!
MARCH 16, 2022
On February 28, a member of Congress introduced a bill that would authorize the President to issue official letters of marque and reprisal commissioning private individuals to act as privateers for the purpose of seizing enemy vessels.
I should clarify that this was a couple of weeks ago, not, like, February 28, 1812.
H.R. 6869, introduced by U.S. Rep. Lance Gooden, states as follows:
SECTION 1. ISSUANCE OF LETTERS OF MARQUE AND REPRISAL FOR PURPOSE OF
SEIZING ASSETS OF CERTAIN RUSSIAN CITIZENS.
(a) Authority of President. --The President of the United States is
authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters
of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons
and entities as, in the judgment of the President, the service may
require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ
all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic
boundaries of the United States and its territories any yacht, plane,
or other asset of any Russian citizen who is on the List of Specially
Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Office of
Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury.
(b) Security Bonds. --No letter of marque and reprisal shall be
issued by the President without requiring the posting of a security
bond in such amount as the President shall determine is sufficient to
ensure that the letter be executed according to the terms and
conditions thereof.
This of course is related to the Russian attack on Ukraine, and reflects the widespread desire to take actions short of war to help Ukrainians—or more to the point here, to punish Russian oligarchs up to and especially including Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. The punishment would come in the form of stealing the oligarchs’ assets, many of which are located outside Russia. Most prominent recently have been suggestions that their private planes and ginormous superyachts might be good targets for this.
Sorry, did I say “stealing”? I meant “seizing.” Normally, taking property that is not yours with the intent that it become yours is an illegal act sometimes referred to as “stealing” (depending on how you do it). When a state does it—for example, let’s say a big country ruled by a total dick sends its army into a smaller country to take territory—that is also illegal (depending on which side wins), but you typically wouldn’t call it “stealing.” You would call it something like “claiming” or “seizing” or “the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.” (NOTE: in hopes of heading off the usual flood of angry messages from James K. Polk supporters, that wasn’t meant to imply that he was a total dick. I only picked that treaty because I like the name.)
A “letter of marque and reprisal” is basically a government-issued license that allows a private citizen to go out and seize the property of that government’s enemies. Traditionally, this meant the seizing of enemy vessels on the high seas. If you didn’t have a letter, doing this made you a loathsome pirate. If you did, it made you a heroic privateer.
So that was the deal 200 years ago, but why does Rep. Gooden think he can do this now? Because the Constitution says he can.
It’s right there in the middle of the list of What the Congress Shall Have Power To Do:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
That of course was written in 1787, and letters of marque were issued under that authority during such titanic struggles as the Second Barbary War (1815). By the mid-19th century, though, privateering had fallen out of favor, and most nations that had allowed it agreed to stop in 1856. The U.S. did not sign that agreement, and as you can see, the Constitution still gives Congress the authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal. But it looks like that authority hasn’t actually been used since 1815, most likely because now we actually have armed forces that are a lot better at this kind of thing anyway.Gooden’s bill is not the first time this century that the idea has been raised anew, though. In fact, it has been raised at least four times before now—each time by the same guy: former Rep. Ron Paul. In the months after the September 11 attacks, Paul introduced three different bills that would have authorized the president to authorize “so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require,” to go get the terrorists personally. These went nowhere, probably because, as noted, the president already had a whole lot of armed and equipped persons and entities he could send over for that purpose, and they were getting ready to do just that at the time.
Paul tried again in 2007, this time specifically naming Osama bin Laden, who was still on the run at the time, employing a variety of sophisticated methods to elude capture. See, e.g., “Report: Bin Laden Wore a Cowboy Hat to ‘Avoid Detection From Above’” (July 8, 2013). But that bill too seems to have quietly been tabled, probably for the same reason as before.
Gooden’s bill is obviously modeled on these prior efforts, right down to the slightly odd grammar (“so many of privately armed and equipped persons”) and the requirement that potential privateers post a security bond in an amount “sufficient to ensure that the letter be executed….” That is probably meant to limit the pool of applicants to mercenaries private military contractors, or at least to dampen the enthusiasm your Uncle Bob and his friends might have for trying to go over and grab themselves a boat. Given that the yacht that’s believed to be Putin’s is worth about $700 million, the security bond for the kind of operation required would probably be pretty hefty.
Not sure what I'm supposed to think about this response. In a larger sense, I've been watching Russel Brand lately on Youtube and really found yesterday's rant really interesting. I don't care that he's got some uber left-wing ideas. What's nice is that he thinks for himself and seems to push for open discourse. His interview with Jordan Peterson was fascinating, and neither bit the other's head off.
03-15-2022, 10:19 AM
0
