There’s a bureaucratically complex but perfectly legal way for the administration of Pres. Joe Biden to send to Ukraine the thing Ukrainian brigades need most. Shells.
The law caps annual transfers of so-called “excess defense articles” at a total value of $500 million a year. But the same law doesn’t dictate how much value the president assigns to a particular weapon. He in theory could price an item at zero dollars.
Oh, Christ. While I appreciate looking for unorthodox solutions, that’s a court case tugging at its chain.
Yeah; reading the article it would seem “arguably legal” is probably a lot more accurate than “perfectly legal”
Now, there is a caveat in the EDA law. All weapons must be given away “as is, where is.” In other words, the U.S. government legally can’t pay for shipping.
But another caveat is that any weapons in Germany are excluded from this rule. Biden could ship those DPICMs to Germany aboard a few sealift ships and then declare them as excess to need before having the U.S. Army drop them off somewhere the Ukrainian armed forces would have no trouble retrieving them.
I mean, you can call this legal but when you’re paying to ship equipment you’ve clearly decided is excess before declaring it “excess” in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law…
Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]
I’m no expert but it seems to me like it’s basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck. If someone did try to do this they’d likely still be challenged legally in order to set a precedent, so I’m guessing it’s not like Biden could do something like this and get away with it scott free.
I’m no expert but it seems to me like it’s basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck.
That has been the Trump administration (and post-presidency) playbook since 2016, and it has worked out remarkably well for them (and shown how flimsy many of our laws are). I say send it and let the chips fall where they may. If the courts end up deciding “yeah, that’s illegal” it’s not like they can get the shells back, unless they want to remove them piece by piece from exploded Russian equipment and Russian soldiers. They just won’t be able to use that tactic again. It’s not blatantly illegal now.
And setting precedent might just be good so that the law is that much stronger. Those shells might end up somewhere else someday if this opportunity is not taken.
The fact that it’s part of the Trump administration playbook indicates that perhaps it is not a great way to run a country and isn’t something that should be emulated.
Why worry? Trump has made it perfectly clear that the president can apparently do whatever the hell they want to and good luck at stopping them. I believe Biden should take the same liberties. Perhaps I’ve just lost faith in the system.
People doing good things shouldn’t wait to find out if shitty people doing malicious things are told no. Just do the right thing already, face the consequences later. That’s what the shitty people do, and they usually get away with it.
You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say “let’s skip it and just do the right thing”. What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don’t just have a problem with Trump’s motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.
You all are aware that the subversion of the constitutional state for what you deem to.be good reasons will end in the same weakening of said state no matter who did it, right?
Don’t lose track of what’s at stake by getting blinded by bipartisan feuds. You can’t fight the enemies of law, oder and democracy by undermining law, order and democracy. That is literally the only thing one can learn from the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.
Right, like the other party cares about democracy.
Jesus Christ they’ve been gerrymandering everything they can, they ignore supreme courts orders to roll it back. They ban abortions, they try to go against people who travel to get it, they declare IVF emryos children… and that’s just the surface.
Just face it and be honest about it - there is no democracy. Majority of people are against Israel genociding Gaza. Democracy doesn’t care. Even the party of lEsSeR eViL does not give a flying fuck - DNC just says they can pick who gets to be nominated, since they are a private company.
Fuck all of that. Nobody cares about the majority of anything, except the capital. People have no value, not in the US.
But let’s worry about the optics of bipartisan support. What if the other party starts an insurrection???
I’m not from the USA so I don’t have a dog in this fight but this seems like a mad approach to me. Think beyond the immediate short term.
In your place I’d be standing up for and strengthening your institutions and conventions; they aren’t perfect but the checks and balances are the only thing holding back people like Trump. If you don’t abide by the rules either that becomes the new normal and Trump-like figures will become commonplace and no longer be seen as an aberration.
I’m not from the US either, but I have heard of Project 2025. If Republicans actually implement what’s in it, whatever checks and balances were left will go right out the window.
This is not the right thing. The end of supporting an ally against Russian imperialism, fulfilling our promises, taking the cheapest route to safeguard our national interests, does not justify the means of the executive branch willfully misinterpreting government controls to circumvent fundamental checks and balances
The “I can legally do whatever I want when I’m president” argument he’s been making is relatively new and SCOTUS is looking into it. If Trump loses, he’s fucked. If Trump wins, Biden could potentially have him assassinated. Legally. And if I were Biden, I sure would. Why not if it’s legal?
He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president.
He made the argument when he ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Laos at the advise of Kissinger. He made it when he launched the War on Drugs, as an excuse for federal harassmemt and surveiling civil rights activists and anti war protesters. He made it when he coordinated with criminal cartels down in Florida and the surrounding Gulf States to rig elections, disenfranchise voters, and red bait the opposition.
He reiterated it during the Frost interview. But he never gave a shit about rule of law.
Trump is making the argument in court
An argument guys like Nixon and Reagan and Cheney never had to make because they were never prosecuted for their crimes.
Could you imagine Republicans letting that happen if there was any way they could stop it? I’m guessing they would try every possible avenue to stop it.
Presumably they’d get the manufacturers to sue for the damage to their ability to set prices when the president is literally saying that their shit is worth nothing.
The U.S. Army years ago determined that these DPICMs—produced in large quantities between the 1970s and 1990s—are unreliable and unsafe, as any particular submunition has up to a 14-percent chance of being a dud.
The Army around 2017 declared a requirement for a new cluster shell with a one-percent dud rate. “Rounds now in the U.S. stockpile do not meet the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s goal,” wrote Peter Burke, then the service’s top ammunition manager.
Their shit is worth nothing. It’s not even being manufactured any more.
It’s a stockpile reserved in case US military needs it. Its value is the replacement value of that functionality, and that goes directly to American businesses
See I know you’re trying to give me valuable information about my point but what I just read is that Ukraine is gonna be pulling the Darktide Ogryn maneuver and start launching crates of the dud shells instead of actually using them as munitions.
More seriously, I was talking more about manufacturer’s current products rather than their stockpile stuff. The argument would go that devaluing any product they’ve made does damage to the demand for all products they still make.
I wonder if it would be cheaper to give these cluster munitions to Ukraine, than it would be to dismantle them. The USA won’t use them anymore, so is there a plan + budget for dismantling/destroying them? Historically they dumped large redundant stockpiles like this into the sea, but that’s now causing problems, so a more expensive solution is needed.
It wouldn’t surprise me if blowing up big piles of the stuff, is cheaper than dismantling all these tiny munitions and at that point, it’s likely going to be the cheapest option (for real, not just on paper) to send it to Ukraine and let them deal with it in their way.
Yeah. Even if it goes unchallenged (it won’t), I’d rather not get this loophole codified into law for future fascists to utilize.
Not to mention if Biden says X item from Lockheed is worth $1, they are going to flip their shit. That could have a market impact on their perceived value, even if most people know it’s done to skirt the law. Or leave them open to getting very low-balled for those items later.
Well, “a court case might force us to do nothing, so we have to do nothing” doesn’t sound like a very good argument to me, but I respect the consistency of taking the same approach to this they did with universal student loan forgiveness at least
Actions have political costs, and optics could be the difference between Putin’s lapdog and our current milquetoast administration.
I know which one I prefer, and, not coincidentally, that one is also better for Ukraine. So I do understand why saying “Fuck the law, we’re gonna do it” hasn’t been the first, second, or third choice.
Oh, Christ. While I appreciate looking for unorthodox solutions, that’s a court case tugging at its chain.
Yeah; reading the article it would seem “arguably legal” is probably a lot more accurate than “perfectly legal”
I mean, you can call this legal but when you’re paying to ship equipment you’ve clearly decided is excess before declaring it “excess” in an attempt to get around the clear intent of the law…
Basically this comes down to: [The Executive Branch could use an arguably legal method to send to Ukraine 4 million 25 to 50 year old cluster shells that have been determined to be unreliable and unsafe]
I’m no expert but it seems to me like it’s basically the kind of thing that is only technically legal only because nobody has been stupid enough to push their luck. If someone did try to do this they’d likely still be challenged legally in order to set a precedent, so I’m guessing it’s not like Biden could do something like this and get away with it scott free.
That has been the Trump administration (and post-presidency) playbook since 2016, and it has worked out remarkably well for them (and shown how flimsy many of our laws are). I say send it and let the chips fall where they may. If the courts end up deciding “yeah, that’s illegal” it’s not like they can get the shells back, unless they want to remove them piece by piece from exploded Russian equipment and Russian soldiers. They just won’t be able to use that tactic again. It’s not blatantly illegal now.
And setting precedent might just be good so that the law is that much stronger. Those shells might end up somewhere else someday if this opportunity is not taken.
The fact that it’s part of the Trump administration playbook indicates that perhaps it is not a great way to run a country and isn’t something that should be emulated.
Why worry? Trump has made it perfectly clear that the president can apparently do whatever the hell they want to and good luck at stopping them. I believe Biden should take the same liberties. Perhaps I’ve just lost faith in the system.
Probably should wait and see if SCOTUS agrees with Trump on that before jumping the gun.
Afterward? Yeah, Biden should do whatever the fuck he wants. And he had better.
People doing good things shouldn’t wait to find out if shitty people doing malicious things are told no. Just do the right thing already, face the consequences later. That’s what the shitty people do, and they usually get away with it.
You will bleed integrity with every one of those shortcuts you take. You say “let’s skip it and just do the right thing”. What can you not justify with that? You can excuse genocides, coups, war crimes. I don’t just have a problem with Trump’s motivations, but also his means. That approach, always correlated with populism, is foolish and always, always tends to oppression.
You all are aware that the subversion of the constitutional state for what you deem to.be good reasons will end in the same weakening of said state no matter who did it, right?
Don’t lose track of what’s at stake by getting blinded by bipartisan feuds. You can’t fight the enemies of law, oder and democracy by undermining law, order and democracy. That is literally the only thing one can learn from the Star Wars Prequel trilogy.
Right, like the other party cares about democracy.
Jesus Christ they’ve been gerrymandering everything they can, they ignore supreme courts orders to roll it back. They ban abortions, they try to go against people who travel to get it, they declare IVF emryos children… and that’s just the surface.
Just face it and be honest about it - there is no democracy. Majority of people are against Israel genociding Gaza. Democracy doesn’t care. Even the party of lEsSeR eViL does not give a flying fuck - DNC just says they can pick who gets to be nominated, since they are a private company.
Fuck all of that. Nobody cares about the majority of anything, except the capital. People have no value, not in the US.
But let’s worry about the optics of bipartisan support. What if the other party starts an insurrection???
I’m not from the USA so I don’t have a dog in this fight but this seems like a mad approach to me. Think beyond the immediate short term.
In your place I’d be standing up for and strengthening your institutions and conventions; they aren’t perfect but the checks and balances are the only thing holding back people like Trump. If you don’t abide by the rules either that becomes the new normal and Trump-like figures will become commonplace and no longer be seen as an aberration.
I’m not from the US either, but I have heard of Project 2025. If Republicans actually implement what’s in it, whatever checks and balances were left will go right out the window.
Biden had no problem bypassing Congress to give israel genocide bombs. Which is far less legal than giving Ukraine a discount.
This is not the right thing. The end of supporting an ally against Russian imperialism, fulfilling our promises, taking the cheapest route to safeguard our national interests, does not justify the means of the executive branch willfully misinterpreting government controls to circumvent fundamental checks and balances
Four years after he’s left office and we’re still waiting for the SCOTUS to make up its mind?
The “I can legally do whatever I want when I’m president” argument he’s been making is relatively new and SCOTUS is looking into it. If Trump loses, he’s fucked. If Trump wins, Biden could potentially have him assassinated. Legally. And if I were Biden, I sure would. Why not if it’s legal?
Nixon made this argument 50 years ago.
He made the argument during an interview with David Frost years after he was president. He was also roundly criticized for it and called ignorant.
Trump is making the argument in court while running for president and a scary number of people are supporting him. That’s quite different.
He made the argument when he ordered the bombing of Cambodia and Laos at the advise of Kissinger. He made it when he launched the War on Drugs, as an excuse for federal harassmemt and surveiling civil rights activists and anti war protesters. He made it when he coordinated with criminal cartels down in Florida and the surrounding Gulf States to rig elections, disenfranchise voters, and red bait the opposition.
He reiterated it during the Frost interview. But he never gave a shit about rule of law.
An argument guys like Nixon and Reagan and Cheney never had to make because they were never prosecuted for their crimes.
Could you imagine Republicans letting that happen if there was any way they could stop it? I’m guessing they would try every possible avenue to stop it.
Presumably they’d get the manufacturers to sue for the damage to their ability to set prices when the president is literally saying that their shit is worth nothing.
From the article:
Their shit is worth nothing. It’s not even being manufactured any more.
It’s a stockpile reserved in case US military needs it. Its value is the replacement value of that functionality, and that goes directly to American businesses
It’s a stockpile that explicitly doesn’t meet US military standards. It needs to be disposed of anyway.
See I know you’re trying to give me valuable information about my point but what I just read is that Ukraine is gonna be pulling the Darktide Ogryn maneuver and start launching crates of the dud shells instead of actually using them as munitions.
More seriously, I was talking more about manufacturer’s current products rather than their stockpile stuff. The argument would go that devaluing any product they’ve made does damage to the demand for all products they still make.
I mean, if Biden sends them a bunch of “free” shells and this ridiculous loophole is closed I’d call that getting two birds stoned at once.
Especially since it’s now known. Close that shit before Herr Cheeto has the chance to do that with arms to Russia.
I wonder if it would be cheaper to give these cluster munitions to Ukraine, than it would be to dismantle them. The USA won’t use them anymore, so is there a plan + budget for dismantling/destroying them? Historically they dumped large redundant stockpiles like this into the sea, but that’s now causing problems, so a more expensive solution is needed.
It wouldn’t surprise me if blowing up big piles of the stuff, is cheaper than dismantling all these tiny munitions and at that point, it’s likely going to be the cheapest option (for real, not just on paper) to send it to Ukraine and let them deal with it in their way.
Yeah. Even if it goes unchallenged (it won’t), I’d rather not get this loophole codified into law for future fascists to utilize.
Not to mention if Biden says X item from Lockheed is worth $1, they are going to flip their shit. That could have a market impact on their perceived value, even if most people know it’s done to skirt the law. Or leave them open to getting very low-balled for those items later.
It’s also wild speculation about something that has not happened yet.
Well, “a court case might force us to do nothing, so we have to do nothing” doesn’t sound like a very good argument to me, but I respect the consistency of taking the same approach to this they did with universal student loan forgiveness at least
Actions have political costs, and optics could be the difference between Putin’s lapdog and our current milquetoast administration.
I know which one I prefer, and, not coincidentally, that one is also better for Ukraine. So I do understand why saying “Fuck the law, we’re gonna do it” hasn’t been the first, second, or third choice.