What an utter piece of shit.

  • fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Treason is very narrowly defined in US law. The US is not at war with Russia, and the US is not Ukraine, so no, it’s not.

      • there1snospoon@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again. The US government is not the Ukrainian government.

        The most painful thing the government could do would be to sanction Musk and his companies for taking actions counter to US foreign policy prerogatives, but then Musk would just pull the plug on Starlink altogether. So nothing will be done.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Seeing as musk could unilaterally act in a fashion contrary to US foreign policy, in the interest of national security the government should take control of the company then.

          Obviously that would be an extreme step but… how bad would that get?

          • orclev@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s basically a variant of eminent domain, but I suspect it would be a hard case to argue. Ukraine chose to use Starlink, and the US governments power to invoke eminent domain is based on the common good provided to the US public via the seized property. It’s arguable whether the US public would see much if any value from the US government running Starlink unless they’re going to start providing free service to US citizens. There’s also the problem that there are plenty of other options that don’t require seizing of property.

            • jonne@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The US could just nationalise it. SpaceX is basically running on government money anyway, just fold it into NASA.

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                NASA is basically being forced by Congress to funnel SLS program money into select contractors against NASA’s own assessments. I don’t think you want any of their hands near SpaceX if you want it to stay operational.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also no. Americans do not legally owe any loyalty to the Ukrainian government.

      • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope, he wasn’t trying to overthrow the government of country he is a citizen of. He could be considered a non state actor though.

          • HikingVet@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Ukrainians can certainly call him that.

            Notable examples of Non State Actors are: Blackwater(American security company) Wagner (Russian).

          • jarfil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Weird “enemy” who’s actively supporting 99% of one’s war efforts.

            By that rule of thumb, would the US be an “enemy” for being reluctant to supply latest gen weaponry to Ukraine?

              • jarfil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How is the difference between “supporting in almost everything” vs. “attacking”, a pedantic one?

                • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Hold on. I’m not criticizing. I’m just curious. I’ve done it myself. I’m just curious about what leads us to be this way. Is it the need for details and facts, or does it concern communication in social media spaces?

                  • jarfil@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Hm? If you mean why do we participate in discussions, personally my main goal is to learn (unless I get triggered by some stupidity… but I’m trying not to). Looking for details is an effective way to find differences between points of view, which means reviewing one’s own, and comparing them to someone else’s. Sometimes I can learn about myself, sometimes about someone else, sometimes about an actual fact. Either is fine by me. [disassembly reveals useful pathways…]

                    There are other uses for social media, other ways of communication. I’m not a fan of witch hunting though, or mob mentality, so that leaves either education, emotional support, or just goofing off.

                    This post in particular, I think only works for discussions or witch hunting, and I refuse to take part in the latter, so… 🤷