Allegations? You mean the fact he openly admitted it to his biographer?
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
442 points (99.3% liked)
Ukraine
8285 readers
607 users here now
News and discussion related to Ukraine
*Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
*Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
*Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human must be flagged NSFW
Donate to support Ukraine's Defense
Donate to support Humanitarian Aid
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Journalists are generally not allowed to report on cases like this until a court case has been concluded
The biographer who has since retracted and clarified that it was never on over Crimea.
And even if you think the biographer is lying in his retraction, that then ruins all credibility for the book as anything can be a lie.
In which case an investigation would still be in order. If Musk is not in fact a traitor who actively worked against US interests and is not actively colluding with an enemy of the state indirectly resulting in civilian deaths, I would care to know as well.
Also, there's been 0 word from Ukraine saying they successfully used Starlink in Crimea prior to this problem.
If it truly was on in the past, they could claim he's lying as they used it successfully.
All we've heard from Ukraine is them condemning the move but nothing backing up it was actively turned off.
Them making a claim would further warrant an investigation.
Given the contradiction, something is probably worth doing ya.
But we are in the alleged territory not admitted territory.
A whole investigation is probably overkill though. I imagine it won't be hard for SpaceX to show their active coverage at a given time and just send the report to congress.
No need for hearings or anything like that.
40 hryvnia says that those logs will be mysteriously missing, or they simply "don't keep logs that long in the past" when it's requested.
I think I'd be surprised if they say they don't keep them that long. I have a feeling there might be some requirements imposed on them by the DoD in that regard.
It'd be nice to see something more official from SpaceX on the matter.
Someone else posted this yesterday relating to these allegations:
It’s being pushed hard by someone, a few weeks ago there were vague “unnamed sources in the government” stories about them being “concerned” with how much power Elon has over Starlink, this morning Issiacson had to walk back his description of “drones washing up on shore” after it was clarified that there never was coverage in Crimea, Ukraine asked for it and Elon said “no, that’s a conflict area” which is consistent with where they have enabled Starlink up to that point.
That quote is wrong though. There absolutely was coverage for Crimea at one point. Elon took it away when he decided Ukrainians should not be able to use Starlink too far in Russian occupied Ukraine.
That "conflict area" thing is a joke also. The front lines elsewhere in Ukraine are not a conflict area?
He openly admitted at the start of service he wouldn’t allow use in crimea.
Not sure why people are acting all surprised when it’s been known from the start.
This has never been a secret.
18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
I am willing to bet that someone in the Ukrainian foreign ministry was aware of this law, and then had some pointed questions for the US State Department on whether or not Elon’s refusal to share intelligence should be taken as an official US position on the matter, and if not, why Elon/SpaceX’s behavior is effectively contradicting official US policy.
This should get interesting, and it could put Elon in some real legal jeopardy on a matter that the US tends to not fuck around with.
How does that relate to, oh I don't know? Lets say congress budgeted and authorized money for a foreign government but then a president told that government he would not release the money till they did him a personal favor.
While that’s complete bullshit and absolutely an abuse of the system as it’s intended to function, it’s also technically legal, because the person occupying the office of the president at the time (and I know exactly to whom you’re referring) was a duly elected officer of the government - not to mention, the head of state.
The difference here is that Elon was never elected or appointed to any role in the US government, and thus cannot serve as an official representative of the US in any capacity. The law is quite clear and unambiguous on that point.
Unlikely. SpaceX and Starlink are critical parts of the DOD's current, and future plans. Or rather, their capabilities are. Additionally, the USGOV isn't known for holding billionaires to account, but even if they made an exception, don't hold your breath. The earliest it would happen is AFTER another defense contractor builds out equivalent capabilities and infrastructure to support the DOD.
Seeing the entire Free world which is spending Hundred of Billions of Dollars supporting Ukraine in it's fight against the Russian invasion of aggression and genocide, be shocked into virtual silence on the matter, it's nice someone is saying "fuck that, what's going on here", but the fact literally EVERYONE else in the Free world governments are as silent as lambs tells me Musk has got his hooks deep into multiple nations Defense infrastructure, and until the United States moves to formally nationalize Starlink, the only important positive moves bringing Musk into line, will be behind the scenes we'll never get to see or know about.
While I would love seeing it nationalized for the pure schadenfreude, there are other more likely punishments, like refusing further government contracts until a certain someone is removed from day to day decisions. SpaceX could easily stay private as long as Musk loses the ability to play Risk with geopolitics. If the US government is paying most of the bills, they could mandate such a move.
If you're not with us, you're against us
Uh oh, Spaghetti-o's! Someone might be found out as an agent of foreign principal... let's watch...
I would be interested to see if Ukraine has a law similar to the US law on sedition. If so, Musk should be extradited for prosecution.