How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Kinophile]

 

 

[billbindc]

30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok but what happened to all the checks and balances?!  Are we assuming Trump gets all three houses/levels or whatever you call them?  If Trump can simply ignore the Supreme Court, who says anyone has to do what he says for that matter?  Certainly not the US military.  Trump won’t care if US troops get pulled into gunfights in the Baltics because his base doesn’t care…but his base is a tiny minority? 

I know as a Canadian military guy I cannot possibly “get it” but I am willing to bet on more dysfunction and chaos.  Not the Rise of the Trump Reich.  How is it something like 12 far right Republicans can hijack Congress but the Democrats in a Trump Admin are completely powerless?  How a year ago “Even Trump could not stop US support” and now we are talking Day 1 abandonment of swaths of Europe?  If this is real we could be in serious trouble but are we maybe jumping at shadows a bit?

What you would get is a constitutional crisis. Trump would attempt to do various things. There would be lawsuits and in most cases the SC would judge against him. He would say "Ok...try to enforce your judgement" and go ahead anyway. Then, states would resist in various ways, the folks carrying out his orders would be sued personally as well, he would pardon them, etc, etc. And he would, as he did but more than he did last time, send what parts of the national security state who agreed against his perceived foes. Large parts of Border and Customs, DHS, etc would gladly go along. Last time around, Lafayette Park saw the Texas prison system's SWAT team threatening protesters and passersby. I know...because I was one of the latter who had that experience.

So, you wouldn't likely have a dictatorship like Putin's...you would have paralysis, disfunction, violent protest and different parts of the American state pulling in different directions. No so bad, right? Except that that disfunction would include essentially the US writing off Taiwan, NATO, etc and a far more violent response by a second Trump administration. 

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, sburke said:

I am just curious if that is the best use they could find for 2000 train cars.

Exactly. Against what advancing ZSU forces? In 2025? 

[sburke]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

If dysfunction and chaos is the best we can hope for, that right there is not a good sign.  Epic levels of dysfunction and chaos are unsustainable.  Civil War 2 is perhaps more likely than Trump Reich.

And now we're getting ourselves off topic again. 

Steve

Well the Chiefs won so MAGA was right.  The Dems own the NFL. The Travis Swift (Taylor Kelce?) takeover has begun.

Edited February 12 by sburke

[kimbosbread]

49 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Edit: the point I am actually trying to make is members of the Presidents own party in Congress are completely unwilling to hold that President accountable, so the biggest and most important check has become all but null and void.

Yeah that’s a good way to frame the problem. Every election has become a good vs evil struggle; and critizing the lesser evil is basically a no go. With our system, two choices are the natural outcome, and so game on.

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

No, the epic mistake was assuming that the Trump problem would just magically go away.  The Democrats had control of the Executive and both chambers of Congress, and they did f'all to shore up the democratic institutions and norms that were trashed by the previous administration.  But I get it... no President ever gives up the powers he currently has, even if he should not have them in the first place.

I mean, without Congress taking their part of the balance of power seriously, what is the Executive Branch to do? A functioning Legislative branch has been a pipe dream for a decade and a half.

1 hour ago, Jiggathebauce said:

What exactly did he tack left on?

This is a good and interesting question- and you are right, it’s a lot less than the right claims. Not to sidetrack too much, but…

I would argue Biden’s election mandate was “Just don’t be Trump”, where “Trump” isn’t exactly a hard right Republican. The rich west coast liberals I know had basically hoped for a centrist government, so basically “Same same but not Trump”. Which it is in many foreign policy respects (China, Afghanistan), but not being a giant orange douchebag.

Unfortunately, on the domestic front there was definitely a push towards several different things, maybe not all true “left”, but definitely not “center” or “right” as far the usual US policy spectrum goes:

- Petroleum production (cutting thereof)

- Explicitly following a racial quota for his supreme court pick (I’m actually very happy with the idea of a public defender being on the court to be fair)

- Student loan forgiveness

- Giant economic stimulus

- etc etc

The problem is less perhaps left vs right and that a lot of it was kind of a mess. I think both left and right have appetite for an intelligent approach to immigration reform, and insurance, and many other things. But Biden’s team somehow felt he needed to please everybody, where really all he needed to do was not make mistakes, especially in an era of high inflation, and sell himself better (which is hard, cause he is the worst public speaker we’ve had as a president in my lifetime). Maybe that’s the problem: We have a lot of populist problems, and Trump appeals to those people, and even one semi-decent administration just can’t fix enough things to satisfy the demand.

[dan/california]

 

Quote

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/11/us/republican-senators-ukraine-israel-bill.html

The Senate on Sunday pushed a $95 billion emergency aid bill for Ukraine and Israel past a critical hurdle, with a bipartisan vote that kept it on track for passage within days.

 

Now we just have to find ~five Republican house members with a spine.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Kinophile said:

K, I'm gonna start spamming with relevant stuff to poke this dead horse back to life. 

It looks like 2024 is shaping up to be a busy year for the Black Sea Fleet's ability to hide.  I think someone should make a Bingo card with all of Russia's Black Sea Fleet ship names on it.

Seriously though, look at what Ukraine has managed to do from almost zero.  Scoring some big successes this year is not really all that difficult to imagine.  As the old saying goes, Ukraine only has to hit once to have success... Russia has to dodge every one to be successful.  My money is on Russia not managing to dodge everything.

Steve

[cesmonkey]

A story from January, but still interesting:
 

 

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Yes we are all aware of the Ella Fitzgerald school of political assessment.  I have brought up states removing Trump from the ballot, Ukraine war and various other red lights.  The response has been “sure but XYZ checks, balances etc etc”  Now suddenly Trump is going to take over and rule you all like Stalin?  I am getting whiplash here.

Actually, yes, you are correct that a number of people have been leaning towards the “guard-rails” hopium. And they may still be. Bless them, and let’s all hope they are correct.  But whiplash? Nah. Not unless you have ignored the other voices here. Please do not carelessly lump the entire forum into one political monolith. It ain’t so and hasn’t been. The USA press has been full of reporting on the public and private pronouncements from the “We will uproot the guard rails” School of When We Take Power (this time).  Maybe we have been a minority here, and you breezed past us warning about Trump for quite a while. But The Dans have not been meek about either Trump or his MAGA Party sliding to the Russian side, away from our Republic’s patriotic democratic (small ‘d’) ideals and institutions. Heck…Steve has even mentioned egressing to Your Fair Nation, should November turn out badly! Trying to stay on topic for this forum, I consistently suggested (correctly) that the new House majority would at the least hold up aid to Ukraine, and that if elected Trump would torpedo support for Ukraine and in the nightmare scenario, drop many USA sanctions against Russia. I’ve written that both Putin and Trump *must* be re-elected - in order to survive. Literally, in Putin’s case. And they will do anything to ensure victory.

Yes, Trump ‘would* likely enjoy a Republican Senate. The odds heavily favor the Republicans regardless of the Presidential race, even if Biden wins. Too many D seats at risk. And far fewer Republicans. Trump would enjoy the White House executive powers including that of appointments for every USA federal Department, Agency, and importantly, the federal Judiciary. For at least four years. Plus, the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority. The final prize would be the House, which is at least a tossup. Meaning revenge investigations on a scale we have never witnessed since McCarthy.  Add to this stew his disdain for NATO, and you have not just a significant risk to the USA institutions, but worldwide trust in USA partnerships and treaties, let alone Allied unity in Europe.

As billbindc said above, 

4 hours ago, billbindc said:

Pax America won't be destroyed. It will commit suicide.

 

[Fernando]

32 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

A story from January, but still interesting:
 

 

Maginot Line 2.0. Good luck finding the troops to man a border which is about 800 km long. Hope it works this time.

Edited February 12 by Fernando

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

How a year ago “Even Trump could not stop US support” and now we are talking Day 1 abandonment of swaths of Europe?

Your oft expressed faith in the USA is welcome and appreciated. The problem is you apparently are  only remembering the opinions you preferred. I certainly did NOT say that. And I predicted correctly that well before this Presidential election, the new Republican House would  significantly delay if not end Ukraine support. They have. I had to explain several times that in the USA Congress, a tiny majority - that small pro Russia MAGA contingent - could and would control what legislation can get passed. And they have. They also forced the removal of two Speakers of the House. And my voice was not alone. Honestly, I think a lot of people outside the USA don’t realize how much the stability of the nation depends on those with authority accepting the norms of our democracy, and not daring us to stop truly egregious disregarding them. Trump realized he could and did get away with practically anything while in office.  

Also, pretty sure there was no widespread prediction of “Day 1 abandoning swaths of Europe”, apart from Ukraine hanging by a thread. But Day 2, watch out!  

[hcrof]

29 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Maginot Line 2.0. Good luck finding the troops to man a border which is about 800 km long. Hope it works this time.

But the Maginot line worked exactly as intended. It allowed France to man it's German border with lightly armed reservists and concentrate it's best troops against the actual location of the German attack. Their defeat in 1940 was due to other factors which we don't need to discuss in detail here.

[The_MonkeyKing]

3rd assault going to "save" Adviivka? To me this is smelling like the unfortunate end of Bakhmut all over again.

In Finnish military thinking defense is supposed to be flexible and bend, like we saw at the start of the Ukrainian war. No point in "no step back" orders, when the situation is not advantageous in the current positions anymore. Then the ground is returned with a counterattack after the attacker has culminated.

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Your oft expressed faith in the USA is welcome and appreciated. The problem is you apparently are  only remembering the opinions you preferred. I certainly did NOT say that. And I predicted correctly that well before this Presidential election, the new Republican House would  significantly delay if not end Ukraine support. They have. I had to explain several times that in the USA Congress, a tiny majority - that small pro Russia MAGA contingent - could and would control what legislation can get passed. And they have. They also forced the removal of two Speakers of the House. And my voice was not alone. Honestly, I think a lot of people outside the USA don’t realize how much the stability of the nation depends on those with authority accepting the norms of our democracy, and not daring us to stop truly egregious disregarding them. Trump realized he could and did get away with practically anything while in office.  

Also, pretty sure there was no widespread prediction of “Day 1 abandoning swaths of Europe”, apart from Ukraine hanging by a thread. But Day 2, watch out!  

Well first off you may be surprised to learn that we hear all sorts of opinions on the trajectory of the Defender of the Free World - your personal spin is but one of them.  I am still not sure what has changed here.  We already had a Trump admin and what I saw was a lot of his worst impulses blocked, delayed and generally smothered by legal action and good old bureaucratic friction.  Trump still has to deal with the state level governments etc as well.  So in his first incredibly chaotic admin we saw a whole lot of noise and light but little actual substance - kind of the brand.  Jan 6th and COVID were about as close to the cliff face as we saw and then the machine defended itself.

So ok we got your spin on all this - Trump = bad idea.  But what has fundamentally changed in 4 short years that would give Trump supreme dictator powers that he lacked last time?  His own party is just as weak at holding him in check as last time.  Security and armed forces are not entirely onboard.  So what is the big shift that would allow these nightmare scenarios to unfold?

I mean as an outsider “hey look the sky is falling, again…”. I am still not seeing how Trumps political opponents could not conspire to check and pushback any less than his supporters have during the last few years.  We already lived through one Trump-pocolypse.  Finally despite a lot of predictions Ukrainian aid continued to flow - held up in the gears now but also looks like it might get through eventually.  NATO held together and the US appears to agree on China as the threat.  So now Trump gets in and all that goes away?

So it is not “listening to what I want to hear”. It is listening to a lot of voices saying something other than you.  You know, like good balanced critical thinking should be doing?  I do get that it could be bad, very bad.  But you are basically taking about an inevitable slide into another US Civil War and I have to believe that there are some off-ramps and relief valves here.

[Kinophile]

4 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

. Please do not carelessly lump the entire forum into one political monolith. It ain’t so and hasn’t been. 

Nicely put. Not getting at The_Capt, just a succinct description of something we all fall into from time to time. 

[Ultradave]

Changes? Well, Democrats used to have a majority in the House, and Nancy Pelosi, whatever you may think of her politically, was a masterful Speaker of the House. So things like aide for Ukraine could make it through the House. The Senate, being (supposedly and usually) the more rational of the two houses, had broad support for Ukraine.

Now, Republicans control the House, with a weak and vulnerable Speaker, who has to do a lot of the bidding of the 8 or 12 or whatever the number is based on subject, rebellious Republicans - rebellious to their own party - or lose his job just like the last one did. The Senate remains more or less the same, at least on issues like Ukraine and NATO. Still supportive, but as we've seen just recently with the border security bill, scared witless of Trump, and ready to drop support at his bidding. Maybe that would change after election, should he win. Maybe not.

And the biggest danger that I see is that because of legislation Congress passed, a president cannot remove the US from NATO without the 2/3 consent of the Senate (an impossible hurdle to overcome, IMO), he could effectively render US participation in NATO non-existent. He could, by himself, remove all troops from Europe, or anywhere else. He could refuse to support with arms or troops a NATO ally under attack. He could, as he signaled just recently, invite Russia to do "whatever they Hell they want". He could send home our representatives to NATO's organizational structure and not replace them. He could gut the State Department. ALL of these things are functions of the Executive Branch, under the President's control. All he has to do is give orders for any of that, without Congress being involved.

So while I'm pretty sure their is very broad support for NATO in the Senate, and probably in the House, even with the Republican fringe trying to throw wrenches in the works, they themselves can't order troop movements, or provide aid even if it was voted for successfully and a president signed it. Again, the implementation of any of that falls under the Executive Branch.

Congress only other recourse should a president not honor NATO obligations would be a formal declaration of war against the aggressor. That is in Congress's control. But then, what would a president do, if he didn't agree with the declaration? I think, theoretically, he could just ignore it. If Congress passed bills and a president ignored them, the president could be impeached. But we see how that went, with a closely divided Congress.

This is how I currently see it, anyway. 

Dave

[The_Capt]

16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Nicely put. Not getting at The_Capt, just a succinct description of something we all fall into from time to time. 

No offence taken. Honestly I am really not sure what he is going on about.  I am asking questions against the “political monolith” grain but somehow that is grouping everyone into a  “monolith”.  In fact I am not even sure how this is possible given the entire topic is about political divides and fracturing - what monolith?  A monolith would be great right now.

We have heard all sort of voices on this forum coming at this from different angles and they definitely are not all saying the same thing.  Beyond a bunch of “I warned you.  I told you so!”  I am still no better informed than I was yesterday as to what exactly we are looking at.  “Well you should just listen to me” does not seem to be a viable or logical deduction from all of this either.

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Changes? Well, Democrats used to have a majority in the House, and Nancy Pelosi, whatever you may think of her politically, was a masterful Speaker of the House. So things like aide for Ukraine could make it through the House. The Senate, being (supposedly and usually) the more rational of the two houses, had broad support for Ukraine.

Now, Republicans control the House, with a weak and vulnerable Speaker, who has to do a lot of the bidding of the 8 or 12 or whatever the number is based on subject, rebellious Republicans - rebellious to their own party - or lose his job just like the last one did. The Senate remains more or less the same, at least on issues like Ukraine and NATO. Still supportive, but as we've seen just recently with the border security bill, scared witless of Trump, and ready to drop support at his bidding. Maybe that would change after election, should he win. Maybe not.

And the biggest danger that I see is that because of legislation Congress passed, a president cannot remove the US from NATO without the 2/3 consent of the Senate (an impossible hurdle to overcome, IMO), he could effectively render US participation in NATO non-existent. He could, by himself, remove all troops from Europe, or anywhere else. He could refuse to support with arms or troops a NATO ally under attack. He could, as he signaled just recently, invite Russia to do "whatever they Hell they want". He could send home our representatives to NATO's organizational structure and not replace them. He could gut the State Department. ALL of these things are functions of the Executive Branch, under the President's control. All he has to do is give orders for any of that, without Congress being involved.

So while I'm pretty sure their is very broad support for NATO in the Senate, and probably in the House, even with the Republican fringe trying to throw wrenches in the works, they themselves can't order troop movements, or provide aid even if it was voted for successfully and a president signed it. Again, the implementation of any of that falls under the Executive Branch.

Congress only other recourse should a president not honor NATO obligations would be a formal declaration of war against the aggressor. That is in Congress's control. But then, what would a president do, if he didn't agree with the declaration? I think, theoretically, he could just ignore it. If Congress passed bills and a president ignored them, the president could be impeached. But we see how that went, with a closely divided Congress.

This is how I currently see it, anyway. 

Dave

So first question: is this doomsday scenario only if Trump can gain control of all three houses?  What is the likelihood of this?

Next - $$$.  So the US has roughly 70k troops in Europe and significant infrastructure footprints.  So old Orangey wakes up one morning and says “fooogettaaaboutit…I want them all out.”  Well the redeployment planning alone is going take months if not years and cost billions.  The military brass are going to drag their feet like a cat on a leash because military presence in Europe/NATO equals defence funding.  Trump is going to have so many bureaucratic hurdles thrown at him so US DoD funding doesn’t get cut in half that one of his boys will have to succeed him to make it work.   He could fire all the generals “Your fired” but that will make thing s even worse as appointing new ones is an onerous process…more delays.

Russia is dumb enough to invade someone again and the US public are ok with it?  They weren’t last time.  Trumps base is but they are a small minority…right?

I mean I get the mess and the concern.  But nothing works this fast or easily in a government where everyone agrees, let alone whatever this thing will be.  So this whole Trump will become a Dark Alexander the Great really seems a little over hyped…maybe?  Hey, I really hope the Great Referendum of ‘24 goes the better way too, but we seem pretty bleak on any sort of sane pushback.  I mean what is stopping Biden from simply ruling like a king too?  Democrats are weak and soft?  

I guess I just do not see the Dark Matter alignment while others clearly do.  I have worked in government my entire adult life and have seen enough sand thrown in gears to empty a beach.  The entire monster is destined to protect the status quo.  But suddenly this one guy - who sure didn’t pull it off last time - is going to essentially break the entire American Experiment? 

[billbindc]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So first question: is this doomsday scenario only if Trump can gain control of all three houses?  What is the likelihood of this?

Next - $$$.  So the US has roughly 70k troops in Europe and significant infrastructure footprints.  So old Orangey wakes up one morning and says “fooogettaaaboutit…I want them all out.”  Well the redeployment planning alone is going take months if not years and cost billions.  The military brass are going to drag their feet like a cat on a leash because military presence in Europe/NATO equals defence funding.  Trump is going to have so many bureaucratic hurdles thrown at him so US DoD funding doesn’t get cut in half that one of his boys will have to succeed him to make it work.   He could fire all the generals “Your fired” but that will make thing s even worse as appointing new ones is an onerous process…more delays.

Russia is dumb enough to invade someone again and the US public are ok with it?  They weren’t last time.  Trumps base is but they are a small minority…right?

I mean I get the mess and the concern.  But nothing works this fast or easily in a government where everyone agrees, let alone whatever this thing will be.  So this whole Trump will become a Dark Alexander the Great really seems a little over hyped…maybe?  Hey, I really hope the Great Referendum of ‘24 goes the better way too, but we seem pretty bleak on any sort of sane pushback.  I mean what is stopping Biden from simply ruling like a king too?  Democrats are weak and soft?  

I guess I just do not see the Dark Matter alignment while others clearly do.  I have worked in government my entire adult life and have seen enough sand thrown in gears to empty a beach.  The entire monster is destined to protect the status quo.  But suddenly this one guy - who sure didn’t pull it off last time - is going to essentially break the entire American Experiment? 

Put very simply, the attitudes and staff that were in the first Trump administration simply won't be there any more. There won't be a Pat Cippoline telling Trump he simply can't do certain things. You won't have a Esper counter programming Trump at the Pentagon, You will lhave instead Jeffery Clark, Kash Patel and Steven Miller calling the shots and Trump is openingly advertising a potential administration about 'retribution'. And the tools exist to make that happen short of a full scale dictatorship. For instance: 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/07/trump-power-grab-00125767

So no, Trump doesn't need all three branches. 

Edited February 12 by billbindc

[LongLeftFlank]

Sigh.

 

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Put very simply, the attitudes and staff that were in the first Trump administration simply won't be there any more. There won't be a Pat Cippoline telling Trump he simply can't do certain things. You won't have a Esper counter programming Trump at the Pentagon, You will lhave instead Jeffery Clark, Kash Patel and Steven Miller calling the shots and Trump is openingly advertising a potential administration about 'retribution'. And the tools exist to make that happen short of a full scale dictatorship. For instance: 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/11/07/trump-power-grab-00125767

So no, Trump doesn't need all three branches. 

Ugh, that is a recipe for a legal trainwreck.  The suites and counter-suits will be epic.  I am no expert beyond what tv has told us but it looks like Trump would essentially need to dismantle the US federal legal system to pull some of this off.  The fractures in the law enforcement spaces could be terminal.  It will be fun and games until someone starts shooting.

FYI, this is exactly what phase 3 of a Subversive Warfare campaign looks like.

 

[billbindc]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ugh, that is a recipe for a legal trainwreck.  The suites and counter-suits will be epic.  I am no expert beyond what tv has told us but it looks like Trump would essentially need to dismantle the US federal legal system to pull some of this off.  The fractures in the law enforcement spaces could be terminal.  It will be fun and games until someone starts shooting.

FYI, this is exactly what phase 3 of a Subversive Warfare campaign looks like.

 

I would strongly recommend Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism" or John Ganz's online writings about anti-Dreyfusard and/or Boulangiste France. The model of fascism represented by Mussolini or Hitler is not quite what's happening to the GOP, subject as it is to the cultural and political mores specific to the United States. On the one hand, that's a good thing because the essentially immigrant/moderate/revolutionary/democratic foundation of the state makes blood and soil dictatorship a much harder prospect. But on the other, the United States also contains within it strains of racism and violent action that, should they ignite fully, can be positively Balkan. 

Luckily, there's one simple and decisive thing Americans can do. Vote. Vote for the current administration even if it isn't your cup of tea. Because if nothing else, it will remain within the normal bounds of politics. And (to remain on topic)...because it is far more likely to see the war in Ukraine to a positive conclusion. 

Edited February 12 by billbindc

[Fernando]

5 hours ago, hcrof said:

But the Maginot line worked exactly as intended. It allowed France to man it's German border with lightly armed reservists and concentrate it's best troops against the actual location of the German attack. Their defeat in 1940 was due to other factors which we don't need to discuss in detail here.

Yes, Maginot Line wonderfully worked indeed. Like the Mannerheim line, the Gustav line, the Sigfried Line, the Molotov/Stalin Line etc. All of them were a great success stopping cold the enemy offensives they faced and allowing their side to win the battle, didn't they? Especially for the French, who expected a war of attrition, denial and corrosion but found themselves facing a war of movement and maneuver instead.

 

Edited February 12 by Fernando

[Jiggathebauce]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

 

And the biggest danger that I see is that because of legislation Congress passed, a president cannot remove the US from NATO without the 2/3 consent of the Senate (an impossible hurdle to overcome, IMO), he could effectively render US participation in NATO non-existent. He could, by himself, remove all troops from Europe, or anywhere else. He could refuse to support with arms or troops a NATO ally under attack. He could, as he signaled just recently, invite Russia to do "whatever they Hell they want". He could send home our representatives to NATO's organizational structure and not replace them. He could gut the State Department. ALL of these things are functions of the Executive Branch, under the President's control. All he has to do is give orders for any of that, without Congress being involved.

....

Congress only other recourse should a president not honor NATO obligations would be a formal declaration of war against the aggressor. That is in Congress's control. But then, what would a president do, if he didn't agree with the declaration? I think, theoretically, he could just ignore it. If Congress passed bills and a president ignored them, the president could be impeached. But we see how that went, with a closely divided Congress.

 

If he ignores a congressional declaration of war like that, it's treason 

 

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

 

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.