The Biden Administration (No Lago)

[Thaluikhain]

Hmmm, so the US invades a country (with allies) and then gets to empty its bank? Ok then.

[deaddmwalking]

The US routinely seizes funds for a variety of reasons, including funds related to criminal activity. In this case, the money belongs to a government that no longer exists. The new government has made the claim that the funds belong to them since they now control the country. It is not clear that holds up. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that the people who contributed the funds didn't want it to fall into the hands of the Taliban.

If you kill your parents, you don't necessarily inherit their property even if you're designated as the sole heir in the will.

[Kaelik]

LMAO.

"It's okay that the US is stealing funds from a county it is currently causing a famine in after killing hundreds of thousands of them, because you see, the Taliban is an illegitimate government that has no legal claim to taxes paid by the people of Afghanistan, unlike the US puppet government, which did" is a hell of a fucking take.

Truly what a great argument for Biden stealing a bunch of money and paying off one of his friends.

[MGuy]

You are faced with information that the Us is worsening a humanitarian situation that they are reasonably responsible for causing. You find out that not only is the US making it worse but it is only going to pay off people trying to just make more money. You already know that the US has no legitimate claim over the money. Then your first concern is whether or not a new government has a legitimate claim over the money from their nation? What you choose to comment on, to defend, says a lot about your priorities. I do not know why this would be a thing you would choose to give pushback on. The morality angle aside, there's no rational argument behind the idea that the US has a greater claim over the resources generated by citizens of another country than the government within that country.

[Kaelik]

there's no rational argument behind the idea that the US has a greater claim over the resources generated by citizens of another country than the government within that country.

Well there is in the strictly colonialist sense that we came in, we installed a puppet government to rule them, then we told that puppet government it had to locate it's reserves in the United States so we could seize it any time we wanted to.

Then when we gave up on that puppet government we froze all the assets we made the puppet government bank with us, because we always felt we ruled Afghanistan during the last 20 years and are thus entitled to the finances of the country from the time of our rule.

Now, non horrific arguments, nope, none of those.

[deaddmwalking]

"It's okay that the US is stealing funds from a county it is currently causing a famine in after killing hundreds of thousands of them, because you see, the Taliban is an illegitimate government that has no legal claim to taxes paid by the people of Afghanistan, unlike the US puppet government, which did" is a hell of a fucking take.

That's not what I said.

But you've never cared about accuracy when someone doesn't kowtow to your preeminence.

It is not clear to many people, including myself, that the current Afghani government has first claim on these funds. If my understanding is correct the prior government was litigating liability towards the 9/11 families when it dissolved. If that had been decided in their favor, funds would have been paid to them out of what is currently being held. Since one party to the suit apparently doesn't exist any more, I'd expect that the legalistic result would be that the party that remains would receive a default judgement unless someone with standing continued the suit.

That doesn't even begin to address the issue of whether the US-backed government of Afghanistan should have liability for actions that occurred under the prior regime. But if the money would otherwise be awarded to the Taliban and they were found liable for monetary damages resulting from the 9/11 attacks, paying it directly to the legal recipients just saves a step (and helps ensure that the guilty party doesn't abscond with the funds).

Likewise, if the current Afghani government does not have a recognized claim on the held funds, governments have a normal process for holding it until the legal representative can claim it. There's $1.2 billion of such property in Tennessee right now. Again, in the case of Afghanistan, I don't know that it is clear who ought to be the custodian of that money. Applying it toward emergency aid doesn't seem unreasonable on the surface.

Of course, none of that condones any action up to this point. Seizing money from people (like police seizure) is something that I have a problem with. But this isn't REALLY like that, either. We could try a bunch of analogies, but ultimately it all boils down to this being a situation that is why courts exist. Announcing an intention and determining if you have the legal right to proceed is exactly what you want in a country where the rule of law is observed. Really it's just a question of what court(s) should have jurisdiction.

[Kaelik]

It is not clear to many people, including myself, that the current Afghani government has first claim on these funds. If my understanding is correct the prior government was litigating liability towards the 9/11 families when it dissolved. If that had been decided in their favor, funds would have been paid to them out of what is currently being held. Since one party to the suit apparently doesn't exist any more, I'd expect that the legalistic result would be that the party that remains would receive a default judgement unless someone with standing continued the suit.

Unsurprisingly, just like every other time you attempt to have a political opinion, you have no idea what you are talking about. When a government represents people, and then the government changes, no one ever just shrugs their shoulders and says "well the new government is a new entity with no relation, so all possibly claims to debt or credit disappear." The new government is recognized as a new government of the same or a similar political entity when someone needs to collect reparations from Germany, no one says "shrug, the Nazi government is gone" just like no one says "shrug, no one owes the Burkina Faso government anymore because some US trained soldiers did a coup."

This is just fundamentally not how anything works:

Secondly, accepting for pretend that the state ceased to exist, why do you think a US resident can sue in US courts to take money belonging to an existing or not existing government?

The US government has no non "we have the power, fuck you" claim to the funds of another government, even if it dissolves. This is just theft. The US government doesn't get to just declare that because someone wants to sue Germany, therefore time to seize the german funds if they "win the case." The only argument for 9/11 families suing at all is the belief that Afghanistan is not a real place with real people, but merely a colony of subjects of the empire.

That doesn't even begin to address the issue of whether the US-backed government of Afghanistan should have liability for actions that occurred under the prior regime. But if the money would otherwise be awarded to the Taliban and they were found liable for monetary damages resulting from the 9/11 attacks, paying it directly to the legal recipients just saves a step (and helps ensure that the guilty party doesn't abscond with the funds).

LMAO. You skipped two really big steps! The first one is that you assumed that US courts just have authority to take anything "the Taliban" has at any time fuck them. This is not how law works. If you believe country A's courts have the ability to seize the assets on Country B, then you believe country B is not sovereign, and instead the entire state is property of country A.

The second one is that you skipped over the fact that anyone with any fucking brain knows that Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. That this entire thing is made up bullshit to steal from the Afghanistan after the fact. You can tell because the 9/11 families got zero dollars during the 20 year US occupation, because that would have come out of US pockets, and you can tell because we know who actually supported the 9/11 attacks, but because they are a sovereign country (and also our allies) the position of the US state is that the US courts have no authority to impose any outcome at all on KSA.

Even if we lived in the alternate universe world where the government of Afghanistan funded the terrorist training, the principle of sovereignty means tough shit you can go sue in Afghanistan, but not the US.

Likewise, if the current Afghani government does not have a recognized claim on the held funds, governments have a normal process for holding it until the legal representative can claim it. There's $1.2 billion of such property in Tennessee right now. Again, in the case of Afghanistan, I don't know that it is clear who ought to be the custodian of that money. Applying it toward emergency aid doesn't seem unreasonable on the surface.

LMAO, "applying it toward emergency aid" is a funny way of saying that Joe Biden is paying his lawyer with the money.

But guess what, the laws IN THE US for how property allegedly belonging TO THE US can be claimed or used is irrelevant in this context. This money doesn't belong to a person subject to the laws of the United States of America. It belongs to an allegedly soveriegn state. If you want to just come out and admit that you are believe the US did and should continue to colonize Afghanistan, then sure, argue for the theft on the grounds of your white man's burden, but fuck off with this skipping over the step where you just declare that Afghanistan is the property of the US.

It all boils down to this being a situation that is why courts exist. Announcing an intention and determining if you have the legal right to proceed is exactly what you want in a country where the rule of law is observed. Really it's just a question of what court(s) should have jurisdiction.

Again, this is you claiming that the United States Courts have jurisdiction over Afghanistan.

"The Rule of Law" doesn't mean that the US courts get to do whatever they want and every other country is a US subject that has to abide by US law. The principle of sovereignty is precisely the legal principle that "the rule of law" of the United States Courts has no application here whatsoever.

[MGuy]

Cannot highlight this enough but to be at the point that you think the Afghan government should have to prove it's legitimacy to the US courts over control of their resources you HAVE to accept that the US is legitimate in the seizure of the funds, the withholding of the funds, and it's distribution of those funds. Even if you don't specifically say it. I don't even know why you would float the 'I didn't say that' line if you weren't going to unequivocally state that you are not ok with it. What are you practicing your noncommittal rhetoric because you want to run for office one day?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Hi, so. Given Dead DM's very particular very specific issues about the undemocratic opposition taking over somehow making theft of national funds from a starving nation OK...

You would then OF COURSE regard the theft of even more funds from a nation starving because of US sanctions from a democratically elected government that has not been over thrown and is still in continuous power as bad right? You would condemn the USA for that theft right?

You would ALSO then say that those funds should NOT be used to promote a coup so the undemocratic violently tribal minority opposition could size power undemocratically right?

But also if that very opposition, even before taking power tried to ensure the USA didn't gift those funds to its corporate mates and reserved it for them once they theoretically take power (undemocratically) you would say that that US backed opposition had no leg to stand on right?

Your consistency on this WILL be according to your highly specific imaginary moral technicalities about regime legitimacy right? And won't instead just consistently be on the side of making empty sounding excuses for unbridled Empire right?

Or to simplify the entire question to one word...

Venezuela?

edit: That's too glib, you can't simplify these things to a single word like that you have to include other words. Like "Cuba" and "Iran" and...

[Kaelik]

While I agree with and support your general point that revolutions against US puppet states are more commonly democratic then undemocratic, I would want to make the point that in this case the US puppet government of Afghanistan during US occupation was also no democratic.

Having elections doesn't mean you are democratic. And the US did the same thing it always does when it installs pretend democracies, by making a list of parties that are illegal to vote for, and then making sure the elected government from a small class of ideologies rejects the will of the people and instead performs the will of the US. It did this in part by making the government put all it's funds in the US so that if the government ever contradicted the US it's assets could be seized immediately.

This is why the Taliban had such an easy time winning, because the vast majority of the people of Afghanistan, the 71% who live in rural areas, had the experience of "democracy" that the "democratic" government hired a bunch of local warlords and bandits to blow up their homes and kill their family with US paid for weapons, and their imagined elections changed nothing about who was killing them or how often, which drove many in rural areas into supporting the Taliban.

[deaddmwalking]

"The Rule of Law" doesn't mean that the US courts get to do whatever they want and every other country is a US subject that has to abide by US law. The principle of sovereignty is precisely the legal principle that "the rule of law" of the United States Courts has no application here whatsoever.

Maybe you should read my entire post before you start a point-by-point reply.

Really it's just a question of what court(s) should have jurisdiction.

[Kaelik]

Lmao. Yes your apologia for US theft was really you agreeing that Afghan courts were the proper location for the suit and that's why it is good that the US stole the money and gave it to Biden's solicitor general.

[deaddmwalking]

Not that it would make any difference, but I wanted to share a source about international recognition of the current government in Afghanistan.

Kaelik's point is sleight of hand. The money didn't belong to the prior government; it belongs to the people. But it automatically belongs to the new government because....?

Moreover, the 'enforcement action' being taken is broadly similar to actions taken against funds from Russia/Russians and North Korea.

[Kaelik]

Not that it would make any difference, but I wanted to share a source about international recognition of the current government in Afghanistan.

LMAO, did you read this at all?

Kaelik's point is sleight of hand. The money didn't belong to the prior government; it belongs to the people. But it automatically belongs to the new government because....?

It automatically belongs to the new government for the same reason the new government gets to make laws. Because no one else has the authority to go in and destroy the current government, and the people who do that shit illegally all the time just finished failing.

The logical outcome of "There's a government that I don't like in charge of another country" is only "therefore we get to murder as many people as we want" to US empire.

Or to borrow the words of your own source describing why the Taliban government is in fact the government of Afghanistan: "Rather, an entity qualifies as the government if it effectively, independently and durably controls the state’s territory, its authority is recognized (but not necessarily supported) by the population, and there is no rival effective authority."

If it was legal for any other country to just attack and seize from states that are undemocratic we would be forced to conclude that the 9/11 families get no money because 9/11 was legitimate attack on the illegitimate US state which must be overthrown by any means necessary.

Moreover, the 'enforcement action' being taken is broadly similar to actions taken against funds from Russia/Russians and North Korea.

The US imposes illegal sanctions and theft against many of it's official state enemies, including it's 80 year act of war on Cuba, it's STILL ACTIVE NOT YET OVER ACCORDING TO THE UNITED STATES War with North Korea, and it's illegal sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

PL even explicitly called out several of these countries the US illegally sanctions to make the point that the US's decision to illegally sanction countries is unrelated to whether those states are "good" or not. And yet, you specifically went through the list of sanctioned countries to include only the "bad" ones.

But guess what! All the "bad" countries, the Taliban government, The Russian Federation, and The Democratic People's Republica of Korea, are all better countries then the United States who have done and currently do less evil too, and are punished not for being bad, but because the US views them as enemies and choose to exert political power to attack it's enemies the same as it does to defend it's allies, even when they are much worse then those countries, like how the Biden Admin has announced that it is going to begin bombing Yemen again to support the KSA and the UAE a literal slave state.

[MGuy]

It's not about what courts should have jurisdiction because the US is not entertaining that fucking question. Like seriously, who the fuck is this for? The US has already decided to impose its interests over others time and time again and has ALREADY decided it can pilfer from the fund! If the US gave a fuck about whether or not its courts have legitimate authority here we would not be having this discussion right now.

[PseudoStupidity]

I'm not sure how anyone could think the US has the right to take stuff from people who are not US citizens. Do the people who think this believe the US is somehow the arbiter of morality and law? Do they think that if you get arrested in another country for doing something that is legal in the US that it doesn't count?

[Neo Phonelobster Prime]

Do the people who think this believe the US is somehow the arbiter of morality and law?

My best guess is that is exactly it. The argument is a moral rather than legal one, and it is that childish and flawed. "Morally the baddies should be punished, so legally we therefore have the right to punish those we designate as baddies!". Throw on some hand waving and waffling and I can't tell the difference between what you suggest and what DeadDM is trying to pass off as galaxy brain justice.

[Kaelik]

Just a brief mention that it is in fact possible to be worse then Joe Biden:

"Trump mused to donors that we should take our F-22 planes, 'put the Chinese flag on them and bomb the shit out' out of Russia. 'And then we say, China did it, we didn't do, China did it, and then they start fighting with each other and we sit back and watch.' "

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, we should all be grateful the US is run by someone as not evil as Biden, and I say that with a straight face most of the time.

[Kaelik]

Biden is evil and the us is definitely run by evil people.

In this case we should be glad that the evil people are not so stupid that they think they could get away with this and/or don't know what nuclear weapons do.

[Thaluikhain]

Sure. I worded that badly, I didn't mean "as not evil" to mean "not evil", just where he is on the scale. Though, evil but sharing mutual self-interest with people who aren't also fits.

[Kaelik]

The US Ambassador condemned Russia for using cluster munitions, but then went and deleted it from the Transcript, because apparently in a heated Ambassador moment she accidentally said a totally reasonable thing "[cluster munions have] no place on the battlefield" but the US actually uses cluster munitions and in addition to not signing onto the treaty banning it, pressured allies to avoid a ban when it was being negotiated and to refuse to join it.

Really wish the US could in fact actually push to exclude cluster munitions from this battle, but alas, when a US official rightly tries to briefly, she has to be told off and made to stop by her superiors.

[Kaelik]

Prosecutor just wrote a long thing about how he thinks the president (Trump) did crimes and should be prosecuted, but alas, in AMERICA we have a long standing policy of never prosecuting presidents for their many crimes, so his superiors just told him to shut the fuck up when the president does it it's not illegal.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyre ... etter.html

[Kaelik]

Biden budget dropped. It sucks major shit.

Basically just sort government departments by number of people they kill and it's the sorting order of how much Biden wants to give them more money.

[Kaelik]

Biden budget dropped. It sucks major shit.

Basically just sort government departments by number of people they kill and it's the sorting order of how much Biden wants to give them more money.