setsneedtofeed
@setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
Go away.
- Comment on ENDLESS Legend is Currently Free to Claim on Steam 23 hours ago:
Weird that I had to wait so long for it to be clam free.
- Submitted 1 day ago to [deleted] | 1 comment
- Comment on Homeworld 3 Reviews [opencritic - 80% average, 79% recommended] 1 day ago:
I’ve heard Homeworld Emergence (formerly Homeworld Cataclysm) is quite good. It started as an expansion pack for the first game but kept expanding until it was a standalone game.
- Submitted 4 days ago to games@lemmy.world | 5 comments
- Comment on Interview: Elias Toufexis On Making Star Trek History Playing L’ak And Nerding Out In ‘Discovery’ 5 days ago:
In regards to unmasking the Breen and removing the mystery, I think back to the words of Spock: “After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing after all as wanting.”
- Comment on Baldur's Gate expansions are Weird - Warlockracy video 1 week ago:
He’s like a Russian MandaloreGaming, with his ability to slip in deep pull references into sentences without breaking stride.
- Submitted 1 week ago to games@lemmy.world | 5 comments
- Plays Like You Remember: Adapting Classics for 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Shredder's Revenge'www.youtube.com ↗Submitted 1 week ago to games@lemmy.world | 0 comments
- Comment on (Re)Caption this. 2 weeks ago:
This way, Mr. President.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
I don’t see how disobeying your boss is unconstitutional.
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority to command the U.S. military. The military refusing a lawful order is therefore going against the chain of command created by the Constitution.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
Since 1973, sustained military operations have required Congress’ approval. A declaration of war is not needed, but the process of Congress voting to authorize military force has been followed.
Now, if you are in the mood to look for issues, look at the 2001 AUMF passed by Congress. It gave a blank check to conduct military operations against “those responsible for the 9/11 attacks”, which is authorization that given enough lawyers and determination can be very, very broad. That AUMF is still being cited for operations. The process has been followed to the tee, and Congressed did indeed sign off on it, but that is an example of a broad and open ended power being given away by one branch of government to another.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
To your other point, yes, I used the word “just” when referring to the president’s decision. The reason being, it is solely his decision, as the highest ranking leader of the Department of Defense (DoD), to implement the military in “campaigns” across the globe. He does not need anyone’s permission to deploy us.
Congress in Iraq 2003, authorized before, rather than after. While the President could unilaterally have ordered an invasion with only a short term of authority, he did not. Therefore, the historical example provided was not an example of the President acting without backing of Congress.
he’d have to pull us back within 30 days
90 days (60 for operations + 30 for orderly withdrawl).
as military members, operating in an official capacity, we were required to use the “correct terminology”
The name of the medal was official. I’m going going to re-litigate the entire subject, but if your point is that there was an aversion to using the word “war” in public, that simply wasn’t so.
I usually don’t have to deep dive into the specifics about these things with civilians
Perhaps an assumption?
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
You’re kind of drifting a little bit. I responding to “just the president deciding”- the “just” doing some heavy lifting to frame it as a unilateral decision without the involvement of Congress.
The only difference is that Congress decided to vote on our involvement from 1973 onwards.
That is basically completely the opposite from “just” the President deciding. It is involving an entire other branch in the decision. It’s not something to handwave away.
So our latest presidents have been more generous about sharing the decision instead of steamrolling ahead on their own. Probably a better move politically; he won’t take the full blame if the decision isn’t popular, like Vietnam.
They haven’t been “more generous”, they’ve been legally restrained by the War Powers Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress.
They weren’t officially declared wars
You are right, they weren’t, but I don’t know the meaningful difference or point to be made when actions were still required to be authorized by Congress. As an aside, if you were in Iraq, you very likely received a GWOT service medal. GWOT standing for Global War On Terrorism. While Iraq operations were not in and of themselves individually declared a war, the use of the term GWOT by the US Government runs counter to the idea that people were “not allowed” to call it a war, when a medal awarded officially by the military uses the word.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
Just the president deciding to step in and get involved in foreign conflicts.
From 1973 onward, no. While the first Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq were not declared as wars, they were all authorized in votes by Congress.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
So Biden, or any president could essentially start a conflict/war/whatever between the election and inauguration has been my take away.
If a President wants to fart on the way out, they have a lot of authority. The President alone has sole authority to launch a nuclear strike, with no need for oversight by anyone else, so there are certainly bigger plays than “merely” authorizing ground forces to partake in a conflict.
I am fascinated by the minutae of hypothetical government actions, because it seems like at this point we are going down a road where they are more likely.
Recency bias makes everything in the now seem more important, and more uncertain than things in the past were at the time. There are many mitigating factors in a President who is on the way out who orders military intervention out of spite that will make it likely much less catastrophic than you might imagine.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
If Biden wanted to, could he start a conflict against Russia without congressional approval. If not, what approval would he need? If so, what would be the theoretical limitations to his power and military authority?
He could do it for 60 days, at which point to legally continue, Congress would need to authorize an extension. A declaration of war is unnecessary, but an authorization of force (which is let’s call it a more polite euphemism for the same end effect) is at least.
Continued military operations beyond that time would trigger a big political mess. As a practical matter, military forces would still most likely follow presidential orders while the president was either forced to order an orderly withdrawal by Congress, or Congress gave in a retroactively authorized force.
If the political situation was intractable, you’d likely be looking at an impeachment hearing.
- Comment on Who decides when the US goes to "war" 3 weeks ago:
The War Powers Act limits use of force by the President to 60 days of military operations. After that.
Congress still authorizes extended operations, even if they are not declarations of war.
For example, the Authorization for Use of Military Force 2001 authorized military force “against those responsible for the September 11 attacks”, which authorized both operations in Afghanistan and more global force. This has been controversial, as the interpretation of which groups were partially responsible has been broadly interpreted. However it was still a congressionally approved authorization. Congress could, if it so desired revoke that authorization.
Separately, the invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress by the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.
- Comment on Showing appreciation for hard work. 4 weeks ago:
Where did you read about it?
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
on its face the question seems reasonable it quickly becomes more and more absurd the longer you consider it.
What is “the question”?
Because I doubt the questions in a voir dire would simply be “have you ever used social media?” but would a conversation tailored to asking if the juror is interacting with material that is prejudical on that social media.
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
trying to pry open one of your social accounts
This seems to be posed on top of what the OP is asking. Neither the OP or the news story which prompted them were about a voir dire process requiring full access to a social media account.
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
There are situations where responsiveness is compelled. If a judge rules that a question must be answered in voir dire, that’s a situation.
The solution, as it were, to compelled speech is that for example if you somehow are compelled into admitting to a crime, that speech couldn’t be criminally used against you. There has been at least one high profile case where compelled speech was used for a criminal conviction which we ended up being reversed.
Of course, a situation in jury selection where a question would lead to a 5th amendment issue and still be compelled seems very unlikely. More likely questions would simply be uncomfortable to answer. A judge has discretion to determine if a question is more invasive than useful. But something like social media posting related to the case seems like something most judges would allow.
Some comments in this thread are answering as if lawyers would be asking for the passwords or something. That’s not what’s happening.
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
This seems correct. A judge could technically rule that you are compelled to answer, and then continuing to refuse could lead to a contempt of court charge.
But the whole point of the process is to find a suitable juror, so if it’s like pulling teeth in voir dire, the most practical solution seems to be dismissal by the judge so everyone can move along.
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
I’m on the go, but I believe the mechanics for the most part is that a refusal to answer would then be put to the judge as to if an answer must be compelled.
If you assert a right to silence for possible self-incrimination reasons, or if the question is very personal and the invasive nature outweighs the value of the question, a judge may rule against needing to answer. If the judge rules that you are compelled to answer, a continued refusal may lead to a contempt charge. That’s something of a worst case and I think it’s more likely the judge would relieve for cause as a practical matter. This would not cost the attorneys any of their freebie jury dismissals.
That means if you had for example highly biased social media history and were refusing to answer because you’re trying to sneak something past and get seated, it really doesn’t help you because you get dismissed by the judge and it doesn’t even cost the “opposing” attorney anything. If the judge rules that you don’t have to answer, the “opposing” attorney can still dismiss you because they got a bad vibe.
If you have biased social media history and you’re trying to get out of jury duty, if anything you’d want to talk about it as much as possible.
- Comment on If you're selected for jury duty (US), should you give up your anonymous social media accounts? 4 weeks ago:
From the thread comments, I believe OP is asking about giving up social media between the summons and the selection as a means to more likely end up on a jury.
Attorneys might ask about past social media use and you are supposed to tell the truth. I don’t feel comfortable with people scrubbing their social media history and then lying to the court about what may or may not have been on it, which is the undertone I’m getting here.
In a higher profile case, bigger and more expensive attorney teams will probably spend more time and effort to snoop on prospective jurors, on lower profile cases attorneys will probably just ask jurors questions and look at their answer forms.
- Comment on The Best Moment in Deep Space Nine's Greatest Episode Is a Punch Left Unthrown 4 weeks ago:
the finest moment in an already immaculate piece of television is all about the ways to enact violence without lifting a single finger
Rude. Garek worked really hard on that plan.
- Comment on The Best Moment in Deep Space Nine's Greatest Episode Is a Punch Left Unthrown 4 weeks ago:
- Comment on Progress! 4 weeks ago:
- Comment on Caption this. 4 weeks ago:
Ve have vays of making you talk.
- Comment on I'm glad my meat didn't go to waste. 4 weeks ago:
I know somebody who ran with a kind of rough crowd. About a month after he was buried a few friends went to go pay respects to his grave. The place had all kinds of full liquor bottles left, and there were many empty beer cans nearby.
One person said, “Why all the alcohol, he wasn’t a big drinker.”
The other person said, “Yeah but his friends are.”
That stayed with me as a very no frills kind connection people had.