Verfassungsblog

References:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krymnash

[2] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/07/navalnys-policy-shift-on-crimea-may-be-too-little-too-late-a80396

[2] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/26/most-russians-support-annexation-of-crimea-poll-a73741

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_green_men_(Russo-Ukrainian_War)

[4] https://www.fpri.org/books/less-know-better-sleep-russias-road-terror-dictatorship-yeltsin-putin/

[5] https://theintercept.com/2020/06/28/welcome-to-chechnya-gay-men/

[6]https://imgur.com/gallery/enby-kyiv-ukraine-jul-sep-2023-fcjsIoI

[7] https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2014-09-03/russian-military-intervention-eastern-ukraine

[8] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/26/russia-admits-soldiers-in-ukraine

[9]https://jamestown.org/program/levadas-last-poll-on-chechnya-russians-still-skeptical-about-the-success-of-putins-north-caucasus-policy-2/

[10] https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/09/my-country-right-or-wrong-russian-public-opinion-on-ukraine?lang=en

[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Tatarstani_sovereignty_referendum

[12] https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/09/30/fictitious-annexation-follows-voting-gunpoint

[13] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/16/ukraine-russia-truce-crimea-referendum

[14] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1992/03/23/tatarstan-votes-for-self-rule-repudiating-russia-and-yeltsin/6f780a8f-bbf6-4092-8f1e-b7aa7badbcd0/

[15]…

Somewhat related in rulings about the President's control of various agencies is the unitary executive, which has gained popularity (like originalism) in right-leaning circles in recent years (thanks Scalia):

* https://archive.is/https://www.vox.com/scotus/397729/supreme-court-unitary-executive-donald-trump

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_executive_theory

Right-leaning folks are all for it:

* https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/714860

Others less so:

* https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol98/iss1/3/

Pre-Trump, one famous SCOTUS ruling determined that some agencies were / acted 'in between' branches:

> What the Court held in Humphrey’s Executor is that if an agency is of the latter kind—that is, the agency’s job description involves a mixture of quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions that are not within the President’s explicit Article II powers—then it is up to Congress to determine whether this kind of agency’s heads serve at the President’s pleasure. If such an agency’s role is essentially “to carry into effect legislative policies embodied in statute,” then Congress may protect its members against discharge except for good cause.

* https://verfassungsblog.de/the-unbearable-lightness-of-the-unitary-executive-theory/

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey%27s_Executor_v._United_States

> as far as I understand that did not affect the individuals' ability to to bank

Did you read the article?

The judge reported closed/blocked bank accounts, booking being cancelled (successful booked, then later cancelled by the companies)...

https://verfassungsblog.de/sanctions-us-icc-united-states/

From a other poster:

> He cannot: open or maintain accounts with Google, Amazon, Apple, or any US company; make hotel reservations (Expedia canceled his booking in France hours after he made it); conduct online commerce, since he can't know if the packaging is American; use any major credit card (Visa, Mastercard, Amex are all American); access normal banking services, even with non-American banks, as banks worldwide close sanctioned accounts; conduct virtually any financial transaction.

Same with recently Garry Kasparov been designated a "T" by Russia. Banks simply do not take risks dealing with hot customers, as this can affect their entire business (especially if they have branches in the US).

So they rather railroad individuals that have little power, then take the risk that they will lose millions if the US sanctions their bank. Its also linked to a lot of other things.

Somebody who worked at a bank gave a description yesterday on how it works. And if your on that list, you are really in a world of hurt.

If you speak German you might be interested in this article regarding the very similar case of the US Base Rammstein located in Germany, which is used for drone strikes in the middle east https://verfassungsblog.de/ramstein-deutschlands-mitverantwortung-fuer-voelkerrechtswidrige-drohnenangriffe/

It's difficult to give a complete summary but basically there already have been some judgments by courts in Germany regarding the air base. Those judgments state that there are certain obligations arising from the constitution and also from international law when it comes to supporting the US in coordinating drone strikes. Things get tricky because it's not even clear what the US army is doing exactly in Rammstein and also the German governments obligations under international law (in particular their contract with the US) have to be considered when restricting their duty not to allow targeted killings.

I don't think you could argue that the current judgment "leaves a loophole" because the BVerfG might reasonably make a judgment in the future that the German government may not allow CIA monitoring in Germany. (Or it might not do this, but this judgement does not indicate anything in this regard)

These are one of those things that are hard to get statistics of due to the nature of the subject, but going to any website that features AI generated content like CivitAI will show you a lot more naked AI generated women than men, and that the images of women are greatly better in quality than the men. None of the people actually exist, of course, but some things stem from this:

1. There are probably AI portals that are OK with uploading nonconsensual sexual images of people. I am not about to go looking for those, but the ratio of women to men on those sites is likely similar.
2. The fact that the quality of women is better than the quality of men speaks to vastly more training being done on women
3. Because there's so much training on women it's just easier to use AI for nefarious purposes on women than men (have to find custom trained LORAs to get male anatomy right, for example).

I did try to look for statistics out of curiosity, but most just cite a number without evidence.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/women-face-new-sexual-harassment-with-deepfake-pornography

https://verfassungsblog.de/deepfakes-ncid-ai-regulation/

https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-shoulder-worries-ai

I am not predicting anything, this is how it has been implemented. You are aware this law is already in effect and thousands have been deleted/banned?

But this debate is pointless because you clearly neither speak German, understand German law, nor are interested in revising your opinion that this is anything other than a fight of the righteous against the bad. The law is likely unconstitutional, widely overreaching, and does in fact delete these things:

https://verfassungsblog.de/das-netzdg-und-die-vermutung-fuer-die-freiheit-der-rede/

https://netzpolitik.org/2018/die-meinungsfreiheit-und-das-netzdg-schwerwiegender-verstoss-gegen-grundrecht/

https://www.zeit.de/digital/internet/2017-03/heiko-maas-gesetzentwurf-soziale-netzwerke-hass-falschnachrichten

There are countless examples, e.g. Facebook censoring satire accounts:

http://meedia.de/2018/01/03/netzdg-twitter-sperrt-account-des-satiremagazins-titanic-wg-beatrix-von-storch-und-loest-zensur-debatte-aus/

You are celebrating authoritarian censorship because you think it targets the right people. You are calling me out for something you have no firsthand knowledge or expertise on because of tribalism. Stop.