this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
39 points (97.6% liked)

Canada

12498 readers
540 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

  2. Provide sources when making a claim. Do your research or google it doesn't cut it. The one making the claim is responsible for backing it.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What has changed is that this treaty directly with Greenland and Denmark, outside of NATO, becomes the Law of the Land in the US, 'forever', independent of NATO. Under the American Constitution, any treaty signed by the US is so entrenched that no Act of any legislature, nor even of the President himself, can legally order military action in contravention of that treaty. And under the Military Code and under general law, no military officer can obey an order that is not legal. Basically, it completely prevents Trump from issuing a legal order to invade Greenland. I am sure his military leaders will tell him this. In essence it completely protects Greenland from ever being taken over by America, with almost no gain by America except for access to the mineral resources. Incidentally, I see nothing that would prevent DENMARK from entering into an agreement with any another country to develop Greenland's resources through a Danish company.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The important part is that Trump has made it acceptable to ignore previous agreements whenever.

So tomorrow, Denmark can scrap the agreement and say, "Art of the deal."

The word of the US now means nothing.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago

That was already established precedent before Trump.

This just gives him a popularity win.

[–] Martok@startrek.website 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

To become permanent and part of the US constitution a treaty must be ratified by the Senate.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

If this treaty is not ratified by the Senate, it is not legal. In that case, Trump will be livid and will throw a tantrum.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Remember that even if the house flips (or whatever they call it) there is no reason they would have no reason to say no.

[–] Headofthebored@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Well you also have to remember that Trump and many in his circle are sadistic toddlers who don't actually care about laws, treaties, morality, or even common sense.

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

under the Military Code and under general law, no military officer can obey an order that is not legal. Basically, it completely prevents Trump from issuing a legal order to invade Greenland.

Nothing is stopping him from issuing an illegal order and his generals would be in more hot water by disobeying it than obeying it.

Any military is purpose built to remove individual autonomy. The ones who rise to the top are the ones who most believe in the chain of command. The idea that one of our generals (who have been purged during Trump's second term) would disobey an order is laughable to me. Maybe every modern president has used the military in a way that is illegal according to US law, a treaty, or both.

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

His generals have already been told b their JAG lawyers that they can NOT obey such an order without being prosecuted, and no officer under them will obey such an order either.

[–] cal@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The new agreement also prohibits foreign adversaries of the U.S., like Russia and China, from establishing bases on Greenland.

I assume the U.S. gets to unilaterally decide who their adversaries are. Will that include us soon, if it doesn't already?

[–] ProudCanadianCitizen@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Nope, NATO adversaries only. Just an extension of the current agreement within NATO.

[–] Malica@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

should give him a diamond studded gold pacifer, it would work too. he likes the guady stuff.