Stephen Miller erfindet neues Gesetz, um Trumps Besessenheit zu rechtfertigen

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-invents-new-law-to-justify-trumps-greenland-obsession/?via=mobile&source=Reddit

39 Kommentare

  1. Ok_Employer7837 on

    Even by Miller’s somewhat loose standards, this one is particularly bonkers.

    From [the article:](https://archive.is/20260117222710/https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-miller-invents-new-law-to-justify-trumps-greenland-obsession/)

    “ White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller gave a new defense for Donald Trump’s Greenland power grab.

    Miller presented a new law to defend the U.S.’ aggressive campaign to acquire Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of Denmark, during an appearance on Hannity on Friday night.

    He claimed that, under “the law,” nations were not entitled to their territory if they were unable to defend it. The Trump aide belittled the Danish government, saying its “tiny” military was inadequately protecting Greenland.

    “With respect to Denmark, Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy, and a tiny military,” Miller told host Sean Hannity. “They cannot defend Greenland. They cannot control the territory of Greenland. Under every understanding of law that has existed about territorial control for 500 years, to control a territory you have to be able to defend a territory, improve territory, inhabit a territory. Denmark has failed on every single one of these tests.”

    Annexation and territorial conquest are illegal under international law, but Trump has not ruled out military action. The United Nations Charter—which the United States is a member of—Article 2, Section 4, specifically addresses the matter of threat or use of force against “the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

    Trump has stated that the U.S. will take Greenland “one way or another.” „

  2. TheParadoxigm on

    >He claimed that, under “the law,” nations were not entitled to their territory if they were unable to defend it.

    Literally medieval shit.

  3. Greenland is defended by Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. The USA is a member of this treaty.

    Article 5

    The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

    Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

  4. DoNotBeSmugandDumb on

    This is literally the same logic the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Spanish Conquistadors and the Nazis used. He is defending Trump by using the same rhetoric that has led to war and genocides in the past. 

  5. InnerFish227 on

    The dweeb read Machiavelli and thinks it is a great political strategy ignoring Voltaire, the outcome Napoleonic wars and the Congress of Vienna.

  6. gunslinger_006 on

    Quoting Miller, emphasis mine:

    > to control a territory you have to be able to defend a territory, *improve territory*, inhabit a territory. Denmark has failed on every single one of these tests.”

    The “law” he is referencing was used by the original settlers of the what became the USA to justify the genocide of indigenous peoples.

    Zinn talks about it in the first chapter of A Peoples History of the United States.

    Basically the notion was that you only had legal right to land if you developed or improved it somehow. Since the indigenous peoples of this area did not erect buildings or terraform the land in any way, they “had no legal standing”.

    Its a tale as old as time used by imperialists to take land from other societies.

    I quote:

    >When the pilgrims came to New England they too were coming not to vacant land but to territory inhabited by tribes of Indians. The governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Winthrop, created the excuse to take Indian land by declaring the area legally a ‘vacuum’. The Indians, he said, had not “subdued” the land and therefore had only a “natural” right to it, but not a “civil” right. A “natural” right did not have legal standing.

    -Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States.

    This book should be mandatory reading for every American.

  7. BakersThree on

    This is definitely from the minds of the producers of „small government“. 

  8. He may be the best person in line for who I can’t look at or listen to.

    His ghoul face and talking down to everyone. And lip licking. Ish.

  9. tapdancinghellspawn on

    Only Congress can create laws. He needs to shut the fuck up and let the rational grownups, if there are any left, run things. Little fascist dictator wannabe.

  10. Yeah so what happened is, actually pretty astounding, but the philosophical breakdown is basically this

    – Hobbes first describes that without a sovereign, there is no enforceable law.
    – In an equal scenario, states roughly equate to individuals such that there is no enforceable law. If one nation attacks another, there is nobody coming to help.
    – A larger state would then, necessarily become the sovereign. Mostly this was NATO, which was intended to counter the soviet expansion plans after WW2.
    – Miller is basically announcing that the US is taking the position that the strong can eat the weak. It is a rejection of social contract and importantly, of NATO, which would otherwise step in to prevent this sort of thing.

    This leads to a return to a perpetual state of war. That’s just according to the philosophy of the thing. Everyone knows that you can’t just attack another country, right? Well, you can, if you don’t fear repercussions. It remains to be seen if repercussions from the other countries in NATO or latin america or the east would be sufficient (I don’t think anyone east of the EU would care to do anything)>

  11. Brb going to go kick my neighbors out of their house. Pretty sure they can’t defend it so I might as well move in.

  12. freedadvice on

    Id hand Trump a peace prize myself if he fired Stephen Miller. The world would instantly be better off.

  13. Ultimately this just undermines the foundational principle of property rights. Everything that conservatism in this country vehemently “fights for”… if a nation cannot possess its territory simply because it cannot defend it, then no one can truly possess anything without being able to defend it. It’s the state of nature, it’s pre-civilizational thinking.

  14. catwiththumbs on

    Has anyone managed to extract a semi-coherent reason they’re interested in this? None of the explanations make sense.

    Is it just to have a bigger map?

  15. Short-Shopping3197 on

    Sooo…I’m guessing nobody in the US government actually still thinks of themselves as being in NATO and recognising that the whole point is defending other countries that belong to it, without invading them?

  16. True_Attorney_8543 on

    Miller’s literally inventing legal frameworks to justify whatever authoritarian shit they want to do next, and the establishment dems are too busy fundraising to actually push back. this is how fascism gets normalized, through these little intellectual gymnastics that sound official enough to fool the media.

  17. He sure did. How’s the price of eggs looking with the imminent destruction of NATO? Eggs any cheaper?

  18. Electronic_Goat_7927 on

    A small man with a small mind….I blame his parents for his dysfunction

  19. The US does not respect the sovereignty of other countries; end of story.

    IMHO, the age of the US being a defender of democracy is over.

  20. 1cat2dogs1horse on

    Has anybody else noticed that as of last night DJT is only taking about „buying“ Greenland, instead of his previous saber rattling? I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that he is rather quickly losing the support of his minions for this land grab in both houses of Congress?

  21. 10thflrinsanity on

    This man is a racist idiot. It is mind boggling he ascended anywhere near power. 

  22. spiralenator on

    “If you can’t stop me from robbing you, it’s not really your stuff.”

  23. Prometheus_303 on

    >He claimed that, under “the law,” nations were not entitled to their territory if they were unable to defend it. The Trump aide belittled the Danish government, saying its “tiny” military was inadequately protecting Greenland.

    Have the Danes failed to defend Greenland? It has been under their control for over 300 years now… That’s gotta account for something right …

    And now that an (unfortunately) viable threat is upon them, they have (I do believe) started to act in an appropriate manner to protect their interests by building a larger military presence, just in case…

  24. He claimed that, under “the law,” nations were not entitled to their territory if they were unable to defend it.

    We agreed to defend it under NATO. How is any country going to trust us if we cant keep an agreement as important as this?

  25. Positive_Chip6198 on

    Those are prison rules, not laws, Stephen. If you want to live under prison rules, that can be arranged, and probably will be arranged once the depth of your high treasons have been exposed.

    Stephen Miller is an enemy of the american democracy.

Leave A Reply