744
submitted 11 months ago by tsonfeir@lemm.ee to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 206 points 11 months ago

Preparing for the worst (or the return of the Worst)

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 66 points 11 months ago

Exactly my thought. This looks like the Biden admin taking steps against the return of Trump. The conventional wisdom unfortunately suggests Trump will return, but this is the first official thing I've seen that suggests perhaps official staffers think the same.

I think the return of Trump is the end of the USA as we know it, but also the Democratic establishment has been late to the party to avoid it, and the left remains far more fragmented than the right.

[-] nickhammes@lemmy.world 33 points 11 months ago

I don't think it suggests they believe he will return, but that it's a serious enough possibility they should do something to prevent a seriously bad outcome. With a 25% chance of a Trump win, this kind of prevention is worth doing.. and it's unfortunately probably above that.

[-] invno1@lemmy.one 17 points 11 months ago

The Biden Admin had nothing to do with this. Laws are made by Congress.

[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 11 months ago

And Congress is influenced by many factors, not the least of which being the administration of any sitting president.

[-] cmbabul@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago

No no you’re right this time will be much worse somehow

[-] Anticorp@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

A second term trump? Of course it would be worse. A second term trump facing like a hundred different felony charges? Yes, definitely much worse.

[-] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 109 points 11 months ago

Serious question, if the orange dictator returns to power does this actually...you know...stop him in anyway? What happens if he just does it anyway? It's not like there will be any consequences...

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 49 points 11 months ago

You’re not wrong.

[-] AnonTwo@kbin.social 24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

What would he exactly do? This is basically saying he won't have the ability to order it on his own.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 79 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

He won't be able to withdraw from the treaty itself.

He'll be able to publicly say he won't defend NATO allies, he'll be able to withdraw troops, withdraw diplomats, withdraw ambassadors, no longer have US personell attend meetings, refuse to continue funding NATO HQ, sabotage command and control, undermine leadership, and on and on, until the NATO treaty is barely worth the paper it's written on, leaving European NATO wholly unprepared for a potential invasion. It's too late to prepare for that if they start right now.

Russia might then take a gamble. A lot of people thought they wouldn't take that gamble in 2014. People thought they wouldn't take that gamble in 2022. People think they won't take that gamble if Trump gets re-elected.

Or Russia doesn't take that gamble. They simply engage in provocations. Military exercises near the border. Bomber runs which are aborted at the last moment. Some more extravagent extra-territorial assassinations. The chance of a miscalculation skyrockets, the chance of accidentally starting a war increases significantly.

[-] FaceDeer@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago

I suppose he could order the US military to physically leave NATO bases, and physically eject NATO allied personnel from American bases.

[-] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It would be up to officers to recognized that as an illegal order and deify it.

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 11 months ago

I, for one, hope they don't deify illegal orders.

[-] Echinoderm@aussie.zone 8 points 11 months ago

A certain portion of the population seems to already deify anything Trump says.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

They'll just ignore him like they did most of the time.

[-] SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works 86 points 11 months ago

Gee, I wonder if they had someone in mind when they wrote it /s

[-] ours@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago

Might as well call it the T.R.U.M.P. bill.

[-] jaybone@lemmy.world 42 points 11 months ago

And if Trump wants, he asks his stacked SCOTUS to declare it unconstitutional, and withdraws from NATO. Zzz

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] obinice@lemmy.world 26 points 11 months ago

Only a fascist trying to be a dictator would actually do this.

Sounds like rather than patchwork mini laws like this, they need to revamp the system to ensure no single person can take such drastic overreaching action.

Lets not forget that a president/prime minister isn't the singular person in charge, they're merely the figurehead/frontman of an entire government of elected people, as well add representing their party, and of course ultimately are a civil servant working at the pleasure of the people.

95% of the things the president does should go through proper democratic channels within the government and not simply rubber stamped by a single person, that path is the path towards dictatorship.

The few exceptions are rare things that can't be put to a vote or through regular channels, like launching nukes, etc. But these are exceptions only.

There should never have been a situation where it was possible for a president to personally decide to change the future of the entire nation and indeed world, in such a dramatic and drastic way, without any checks and balances to ensure that it is the will of the people, out even the will of anyone else in government.

Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform, rather than just making this one little change :-(

[-] Duralf@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Yes, past presidents have gradually expanded the power of the position beyond any reasonableness over time.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 11 months ago

Which is why it sounds to me like they need some significant reform

Unfortunately the US founder had the same idea as you about reform. IE no one person or small group should be able to do so.

Now over decades Heck centuries. Power has migrated to the president. As groups continued to objects to slow change. So took the easy answer of trusting one elected member.

But any change to significantly limit power. Would need the constitution to be reworked to limit such power. Would require a huge approval. 66% of every state I think.

The very fact that Congress has to worry about such things. Is clear evidence such agreement is not and may never be possible.

[-] Hyperreality@kbin.social 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This deterrent effect doesn’t come just from the NATO treaty ... Deterrence comes from the Kremlin’s conviction that Americans really believe in collective defense, that the U.S. military really is prepared for collective defense, and that the U.S. president really is committed to act if collective security is challenged. Trump could end that conviction with a single speech, a single comment, even a single Truth Social post, and it won’t matter if Congress, the media, and the Republican Party are still arguing about the legality of withdrawing from NATO. Once the commander in chief says “I will not come to an ally’s aid if attacked,” why would anyone fear NATO, regardless of what obligations still exist on paper? ... When I asked several people with deep links to NATO to imagine what would happen to Europe, to Ukraine, and even to Taiwan and South Korea if Trump declared his refusal to observe Article 5, all of them agreed that faith in collective defense could evaporate quickly. Alexander Vershbow, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and a former deputy secretary-general of NATO, pointed out that Trump could pull the American ambassador from his post, prevent diplomats from attending meetings, or stop contributing to the cost of the Brussels headquarters, all before Congress was able to block him: “He wouldn’t be in any way legally constrained from doing that.” Closing American bases in Europe and transferring thousands of soldiers would take longer, of course, but all of the political bodies in the alliance would nevertheless have to change the way they operate overnight. James Goldgeier, an international-relations professor at American University and the author of several books on NATO, thinks the result would be chaotic. “It’s not like you can say, ‘Okay, now we have another plan for how to deal with this,’ ” he told me. There is no alternative leadership available, no alternative source of command-and-control systems, no alternative space weapons, not even an alternative supply of ammunition. Europe would immediately be exposed to a possible Russian attack for which it is not prepared, and for which it would not be prepared for many years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/trump-2024-reelection-pull-out-of-nato-membership/676120/

[-] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago

I’m sure he was promised the title of “Lord Trump” by Emperor Putin

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago

fuck we might succeed and get trump back, quick put up the child safeties!

[-] Kedly@lemm.ee 9 points 11 months ago

Damn, usually ml is at least SLIGHTLY better than hexbear, but not when it comes to anything that might be bad for Russia I see

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.

The provision underscores Congress’s commitment to the NATO alliance that was a target of former President Trump’s ire during his term in office.

“NATO has held strong in response to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s war in Ukraine and rising challenges around the world,” Kaine said in a statement.

Biden has invested deeply in the NATO alliance during his term, committing more troops and military resources to Europe as a show of force against Putin’s war.

He has also overseen the expansion of the alliance with the inclusion of Finland and ongoing efforts to secure Sweden’s full accession.

The former president’s advocates say his tough talk and criticisms of the alliance served to inspire member-states to fulfill their obligations to reach 2 percent of defense spending, lightening the burden on the U.S.


The original article contains 343 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 52%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

NATO and OTAN are in the snippet. Is OTAN the French way to say NATO?

[-] read_deleuze@lemmy.ml 9 points 11 months ago

Yes; Organisation du traité de l'Atlantique nord

[-] dewritoninja@pawb.social 4 points 11 months ago

It's also OTAN in Spanish and Portuguese

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
744 points (99.3% liked)

World News

32359 readers
357 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS