• Heresy_generator@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    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]

    • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.

        • maynarkh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.

        • Laticauda@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          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.