I was not pleased with the way that Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s trial was handled by the Navy. He was treated very badly but, despite this, was completely exonerated on all major charges. I then restored Eddie’s rank. Likewise, large cost overruns from past administration’s.....
....contracting procedures were not addressed to my satisfaction. Therefore, Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer’s services have been terminated by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper. I thank Richard for his service & commitment. Eddie will retire peacefully with all of the.....
....honors that he has earned, including his Trident Pin. Admiral and now Ambassador to Norway Ken Braithwaite will be nominated by me to be the new Secretary of the Navy. A man of great achievement and success, I know Ken will do an outstanding job!
They could have at least made sure their justifications lined up with each other.
Today I learned that Trump doesn't know what "likewise" means.
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
So bottomless cynicism, gotcha.
I think the more relevant question is, are the Republicans willing to sacrifice military capability for partisan loyalty?
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
So bottomless cynicism, gotcha.
I think the more relevant question is, are the Republicans willing to sacrifice military capability for partisan loyalty?
My answer to that is: I'm not sure.
Yes.
They are, yes. A strong network of allies is one of the keys to America's ability to project both soft and hard power around the globe. US leadership is actively moving away from these partnerships, mostly, as far as anyone can tell, "Obama was for it," and our president has an extremely transactional view of the world, unchallenged by other Republican leadership.
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
So bottomless cynicism, gotcha.
I think the more relevant question is, are the Republicans willing to sacrifice military capability for partisan loyalty?
My answer to that is: I'm not sure.
Yes.
They are, yes. A strong network of allies is one of the keys to America's ability to project both soft and hard power around the globe. US leadership is actively moving away from these partnerships, mostly, as far as anyone can tell, "Obama was for it," and our president has an extremely transactional view of the world, unchallenged by other Republican leadership.
I forgot to add: look at the revolving door of Secretaries of Defense if you want another example of being willing to disturb our military apparatus on a whim.
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
Have you not been paying attention to how many "acting" positions there are in the Trump admin? How many just empty ones?
Trump hasn't bothered to nominate people for Senate confirmation in a long time. He doesn't give a shit about "owning the libs" on this front and nor does the Senate. At least, not enough for them to complain at Trump about it.
I'm not seeing what there is about this position that would cause him to suddenly change course.
shryke on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
Have you not been paying attention to how many "acting" positions there are in the Trump admin? How many just empty ones?
Trump hasn't bothered to nominate people for Senate confirmation in a long time. He doesn't give a shit about "owning the libs" on this front and nor does the Senate. At least, not enough for them to complain at Trump about it.
I'm not seeing what there is about this position that would cause him to suddenly change course.
I mean, there's no such thing as an "acting" position in the military, as far as I'm aware.
And the question is whether he'd try to push the psycho to flag rank. All it would take is somebody like Miller getting in his ear about how this would raise his poll numbers and piss off the libs.
After all, he suggested we buy Greenland on a whim.
In the Army at least, no one is in an “acting” position. If you’re in a position, even if you don’t have the rank typically associated with the position, you still have all the responsibility and authority specific to that position.
This can include enlisted personnel in officer positions as I’ve done it twice myself. That said, the officer positions I took responsibility for were only once removed from the one I was in at the time: one occasion I went from Platoon Sergeant to Platoon Leader and the other position was Battle NCO to Battle Captain.
I seriously doubt you could put an E-7 anywhere near a flag officer’s position without damn near an open revolt by the Admirals, the differences in military education and experience is too vast. It’d be like having a “businessman” that constantly files bankruptcy be Commander in Chief of the US military.
So I give it fair odds Trump tries it.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
And the question is whether he'd try to push the psycho to flag rank. All it would take is somebody like Miller getting in his ear about how this would raise his poll numbers and piss off the libs.
After all, he suggested we buy Greenland on a whim.
If what I have read on the internet is accurate (always a dicey proposition), only officers are eligible for promotion to flag rank. Usually these officers are decided upon by the respective service member's existing flag officers, though a President may nominate an officer that was not recommended through military channels. Civilians and enlisted personnel are not eligible as far as I can tell.
Would that stop Trump from trying? Probably not.
0
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
By the end of next week, Trump's gonna make that murderer general, just you wait
That requires Senate confirmation.
So?
I don't see a majority vote to elevate a now announced to retire murderer war criminal to flag officer against the advice of the Admiralty. What's your whip count?
Would it own the libs? Because if it would, then there is always a chance.
Have you not been paying attention to how many "acting" positions there are in the Trump admin? How many just empty ones?
Trump hasn't bothered to nominate people for Senate confirmation in a long time. He doesn't give a shit about "owning the libs" on this front and nor does the Senate. At least, not enough for them to complain at Trump about it.
I'm not seeing what there is about this position that would cause him to suddenly change course.
I mean, there's no such thing as an "acting" position in the military, as far as I'm aware.
Brevet, but this whole conversation is silly. No one is going to promote an E-7 to flag rank. Also as it turns out Brevet ranks need Senate approval now too.
In yet another twist, Esper also directed on Sunday that Gallagher be allowed to retire at the end of this month, and that the Navy review board that was scheduled to hear his case starting Dec. 2 be cancelled, Hoffman said. At Esper’s direction, Gallagher will be allowed to retire as a SEAL at his current rank, Hoffman said.
Hoffman said Esper’s position had been that the Navy’s disciplinary process should be allowed to “play itself out objectively and deliberately.”
“However, at this point, given the events of the last few days,” Esper decided that Gallagher should be allowed to retain his SEAL status, Hoffman said. He said Esper had concluded that Gallagher could not, under the circumstances, receive a fair shake from the Navy.
That smells like bull.
Turns out the reason the DoD gave for Esperc ancelling the disciplinary process was bull. Trump told Esper to cancel it.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Mark Esper says President Donald Trump gave him a direct order that a Navy SEAL accused of war crimes in Iraq be allowed to retire without losing his SEAL status.
Esper told reporters at the Pentagon Monday that was the reason he announced Sunday evening that Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher would be allowed to retire with his Trident Pin, retaining his status as a SEAL.
I am past pretending to be surprised they can't even keep their story straight.
All this trouble for one low-level scumbag. Trump really is an agent of chaos.
He just really likes war crimes and is very upset when someone is publicly punished for them cause he thinks it's bullshit.
Again, the avatar of the right-wing base. He's of the "be as horrible to them as possible so they know america is boss" and "just glass all the <insert racial epithet here>" schools of thought.
The only thing Trump considers when deciding to exercise his power to get something he wants is if exercising that power might reduce his power later
He worships it
Sexual assault
“Why have nukes”
Self-dealing
Handshake wars
Dictator adulation/disdain for democracies
Arguing he’s fully immune to laws and oversight
Etc
It’s not that Trump “loves” war crimes, but rather that he thinks laws that prevent you from using your full power to get what you want are stupid
It occurs to me that if Democrats were both clever and careful with how they handled it, they could craft campaign adds on how trump has undermined both the dignity and the discipline of the US armed forces.
The issue is that the attitude Trump has towards war crimes is not that uncommon among the public.
And I'm given to understand that the military has a low view of warcrimes (along with a lot of the other less obviously evil but terrible things he's done in the past 3 years) given that this piece of shit navy seal was one of three individuals charged with murdering defenselss brown people, one of whom was a captain turned in by his own men and in the case of the seal the heads of both the navy and the seal program are willing to quit over this shit.
Like, campaign adds for restoring the armed forces honor wouldn't be aimed at some Y'all queda militia goon but rather the troops themselves who I'm assuming here don't want this kind of shit to be the norm.
The military is loath to commit war crimes for many reasons.
Aside from it being plain wrong, from a pragmatic perspective if we commit war crimes then it’s more likely those we fight will as well. You can make the argument that organizations like AQ and ISIS already do that, and they do, however there has been more than one instance in real life of locals providing shelter to isolated Soldiers in hostile countries. War crimes endanger service members in those situations. If nothing else, not committing war crimes protects us.
Even then, ISIS, Taliban, AQ, etc are more likely to surrender and cooperate if they know they won’t be treated harshly. If we commit crimes, not only will they fight harder (meaning US casualties) but they will find it easier to recruit (meaning more US casualties).
Furthermore, intel is better obtained through rapport and cooperation. Something that is destroyed by war crimes. Intel gathered through methods like torture or violent coercion is often wrong or straight fabrication. Despite how powerful and vast the US military is, resources are still finite and wasting time, money, personal, and effort on bad intelligence has real consequences. Even if you get one good piece of intel with torture, the other nine-thousand times you wasted everyone’s time and what you were looking for is gone, making it a poor investment of energy and resources on top of being reprehensible.
And beyond that, if we commit war crimes, then both neutrals and allies will be much less likely to work with us.
There’s all the reasons in the world to not do these things and many more that I haven’t mentioned, but it’s because it’s morally wrong and it protects the force. From my experience, only cowards who project their weakness on others want this, because they’re too pathetic to confront their own inadequacies and have to take it out on the vulnerable.
Bullies.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
This is also what the ICC is supposed to prevent, so, honestly, it was only a matter of time.
The US didn't withdrew from it, and passed laws against it, to ensure accountability when US troops commit war times.
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
I bet this fucker runs for office in a red state somewhere.
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
I bet this fucker runs for office in a red state somewhere.
That or he goes to work for Erik Prince.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
I bet this fucker runs for office in a red state somewhere.
And/or gets a job at Fox News.
Following in the footsteps of war criminal and former GOP congressman Allen West
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
Assuming Trump gets his way on the whole "keep this guy in the SEALs and exempt him all disciplinary possibilities" thing, I suspect active-duty military personnel going on the campaign trail for a sitting president might annoy a couple of people above Gallagher in the chain of command..
If you read up in the quote tree a bit, he's being "allowed to" retire, but without being stripped of SEAL membership first, which the Navy wanted to do.
If you read up in the quote tree a bit, he's being "allowed to" retire, but without being stripped of SEAL membership first, which the Navy wanted to do.
Well, that's good news for the population of the Middle East. Hope he doesn't start shooting "urban ferals"
Navy SEAL Eddie Gallagher will support President Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign should he be asked, according to his lawyer.
The Navy announced Monday that it would allow Gallagher, who was accused of war crimes, to retire with his rank and coveted SEAL Trident intact. That decision followed Trump’s intervention on Gallagher’s behalf.
“If asked, of course, Eddie would endorse the president,” Tim Parlatore told the Washington Examiner. “There can be no stronger testimonial for an elected official than one of their constituents whose life has been helped significantly by that elected official.”
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
Assuming Trump gets his way on the whole "keep this guy in the SEALs and exempt him all disciplinary possibilities" thing, I suspect active-duty military personnel going on the campaign trail for a sitting president might annoy a couple of people above Gallagher in the chain of command..
He won't be active duty after he retires, he'll be retired.
Smashing watermelons would be an improvement over current Republican antics.
Between Gallagher, the SEAL that murdered a Green Beret, and stories of discipline and behavioral issues, it seems like the whole program needs to be overhauled.
Black lives matter.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
Technically at more than 20 years but less than 30 he joins the Fleet Reserve and gets retainer pay, not retirement. I think the two are functionally the same, though, and I haven't found anything about restrictions on partisan political activity.
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
If you read up in the quote tree a bit, he's being "allowed to" retire, but without being stripped of SEAL membership first, which the Navy wanted to do.
They wanted to punt him to Leavenworth with a DD, but for his court martial result.
Apple has complied with Russian demands to show the annexed Crimean peninsula as part of Russian territory on its apps.
Russian forces annexed Crimea from Ukraine in March 2014, drawing international condemnation.
The region, which has a Russian-speaking majority, is now shown as Russian territory on Apple Maps and its Weather app, when viewed from Russia.
But the apps do not show it as part of any country when viewed elsewhere.
The article goes on to state recognizing Crimea as a part of Ukraine is a crime under Russian law. Even though nearly no other nations recognize the annexation of the Crimean peninsula as legal.
Google and other companies don't label the area either way according to the article.
Is this where we're at? We wait for corporations to recognize and reinforce borders and just go along with it?
Should the United States responsibility be to tell Apple that recognizing Ukrainian soil as Russian owned by annexation is a violation of international borders treaties and if they would like to do business in the United States they can comply or get the fuck out?
Well, we are just one month away from the Cyberpunk Dystopia™. Corporate overlords, a resurgent USSR, a USGov that manages to be both proto-fascist and hopelessly corrupt and incompetent, appliances hooked up to the Net with no real reason to be (and constantly getting hacked as a result)... really, the main thing we they got wrong is that China is the scary East Asian powerhouse, while Japan continues to stagnate post-implosion and most of the robots they're building aren't sex and/or combat models but for taking care of all their old people.
Posts
Today I learned that Trump doesn't know what "likewise" means.
Yes.
They are, yes. A strong network of allies is one of the keys to America's ability to project both soft and hard power around the globe. US leadership is actively moving away from these partnerships, mostly, as far as anyone can tell, "Obama was for it," and our president has an extremely transactional view of the world, unchallenged by other Republican leadership.
I forgot to add: look at the revolving door of Secretaries of Defense if you want another example of being willing to disturb our military apparatus on a whim.
Have you not been paying attention to how many "acting" positions there are in the Trump admin? How many just empty ones?
Trump hasn't bothered to nominate people for Senate confirmation in a long time. He doesn't give a shit about "owning the libs" on this front and nor does the Senate. At least, not enough for them to complain at Trump about it.
I'm not seeing what there is about this position that would cause him to suddenly change course.
I mean, there's no such thing as an "acting" position in the military, as far as I'm aware.
After all, he suggested we buy Greenland on a whim.
This can include enlisted personnel in officer positions as I’ve done it twice myself. That said, the officer positions I took responsibility for were only once removed from the one I was in at the time: one occasion I went from Platoon Sergeant to Platoon Leader and the other position was Battle NCO to Battle Captain.
I seriously doubt you could put an E-7 anywhere near a flag officer’s position without damn near an open revolt by the Admirals, the differences in military education and experience is too vast. It’d be like having a “businessman” that constantly files bankruptcy be Commander in Chief of the US military.
So I give it fair odds Trump tries it.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
If what I have read on the internet is accurate (always a dicey proposition), only officers are eligible for promotion to flag rank. Usually these officers are decided upon by the respective service member's existing flag officers, though a President may nominate an officer that was not recommended through military channels. Civilians and enlisted personnel are not eligible as far as I can tell.
Would that stop Trump from trying? Probably not.
Brevet, but this whole conversation is silly. No one is going to promote an E-7 to flag rank. Also as it turns out Brevet ranks need Senate approval now too.
Turns out the reason the DoD gave for Esperc ancelling the disciplinary process was bull. Trump told Esper to cancel it.
https://apnews.com/2148f2182aa64d8c8102967d653b0ba0
I am past pretending to be surprised they can't even keep their story straight.
A low level scumbag that was in right wing news that Trump watches.
That is far more influential than almost anything for Trump.
That and Trump loves war crimes and has explicitly talked about loving war crimes since his first campaign.
He just really likes war crimes and is very upset when someone is publicly punished for them cause he thinks it's bullshit.
Again, the avatar of the right-wing base. He's of the "be as horrible to them as possible so they know america is boss" and "just glass all the <insert racial epithet here>" schools of thought.
I guess he regrets missing out on the chance to personally take part in some due to his cowardice causing him to miss Vietnam.
He worships it
Sexual assault
“Why have nukes”
Self-dealing
Handshake wars
Dictator adulation/disdain for democracies
Arguing he’s fully immune to laws and oversight
Etc
It’s not that Trump “loves” war crimes, but rather that he thinks laws that prevent you from using your full power to get what you want are stupid
He’s real life Geoffrey Baratheon
Towards use of power, not just war crimes
And I'm given to understand that the military has a low view of warcrimes (along with a lot of the other less obviously evil but terrible things he's done in the past 3 years) given that this piece of shit navy seal was one of three individuals charged with murdering defenselss brown people, one of whom was a captain turned in by his own men and in the case of the seal the heads of both the navy and the seal program are willing to quit over this shit.
Like, campaign adds for restoring the armed forces honor wouldn't be aimed at some Y'all queda militia goon but rather the troops themselves who I'm assuming here don't want this kind of shit to be the norm.
Aside from it being plain wrong, from a pragmatic perspective if we commit war crimes then it’s more likely those we fight will as well. You can make the argument that organizations like AQ and ISIS already do that, and they do, however there has been more than one instance in real life of locals providing shelter to isolated Soldiers in hostile countries. War crimes endanger service members in those situations. If nothing else, not committing war crimes protects us.
Even then, ISIS, Taliban, AQ, etc are more likely to surrender and cooperate if they know they won’t be treated harshly. If we commit crimes, not only will they fight harder (meaning US casualties) but they will find it easier to recruit (meaning more US casualties).
Furthermore, intel is better obtained through rapport and cooperation. Something that is destroyed by war crimes. Intel gathered through methods like torture or violent coercion is often wrong or straight fabrication. Despite how powerful and vast the US military is, resources are still finite and wasting time, money, personal, and effort on bad intelligence has real consequences. Even if you get one good piece of intel with torture, the other nine-thousand times you wasted everyone’s time and what you were looking for is gone, making it a poor investment of energy and resources on top of being reprehensible.
And beyond that, if we commit war crimes, then both neutrals and allies will be much less likely to work with us.
There’s all the reasons in the world to not do these things and many more that I haven’t mentioned, but it’s because it’s morally wrong and it protects the force. From my experience, only cowards who project their weakness on others want this, because they’re too pathetic to confront their own inadequacies and have to take it out on the vulnerable.
Bullies.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The US didn't withdrew from it, and passed laws against it, to ensure accountability when US troops commit war times.
So be braced for the "pose with Gallagher and the picture of a dead terrorist" events on Trump's rallies.
I bet this fucker runs for office in a red state somewhere.
The Secretary of the Navy was technically ousted before he could resign.
That or he goes to work for Erik Prince.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
And/or gets a job at Fox News.
Following in the footsteps of war criminal and former GOP congressman Allen West
Assuming Trump gets his way on the whole "keep this guy in the SEALs and exempt him all disciplinary possibilities" thing, I suspect active-duty military personnel going on the campaign trail for a sitting president might annoy a couple of people above Gallagher in the chain of command..
Well, that's good news for the population of the Middle East. Hope he doesn't start shooting "urban ferals"
He won't be active duty after he retires, he'll be retired.
It goes murders —————————————————————————————> Saying literally when you mean figuratively —> Socks with sandals——————-> smashed watermelons
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Between Gallagher, the SEAL that murdered a Green Beret, and stories of discipline and behavioral issues, it seems like the whole program needs to be overhauled.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
They wanted to punt him to Leavenworth with a DD, but for his court martial result.
The article goes on to state recognizing Crimea as a part of Ukraine is a crime under Russian law. Even though nearly no other nations recognize the annexation of the Crimean peninsula as legal.
Google and other companies don't label the area either way according to the article.
Is this where we're at? We wait for corporations to recognize and reinforce borders and just go along with it?
Should the United States responsibility be to tell Apple that recognizing Ukrainian soil as Russian owned by annexation is a violation of international borders treaties and if they would like to do business in the United States they can comply or get the fuck out?