This is straight out of Nancy Pelosi's "HOW TO RUN A SMEAR" speech which can be found on C-Span.
How to run a smear: Step 1, take a vague incident and have some obscure press source make a vague accusation of wrong doing. Step 2, have a second obscure press source make a further accusation based upon the evidence of the first vague accusation. Step 3, repeat lies 1 & 2 endlessly.
The fact that the worst foreign leaders on the planet (Hamas, North Korea, Venezuela) use so much woke rhetoric ("colonialist aggression") really speaks volumes.
Let’s see if the Seditious Six want to go after and sacrifice an Admiral, one of their own, or treat him as collateral damage and as a minor and temporary block in going after Trump.
Per NYT today:
“According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.
But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.
Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.”
Those same Seditious Six were willing to sacrifice the careers, freedom, families, and possibly lives, of all military personnel who they could con into disobeying orders.
The SS Insurance Trust Fund is depleted by congress adding more immigrant beneficiaries who have never paid in. Senior citizens given citizenship are automatically given benefits despite never having paid into the insurance program.
Instead of investing the SS premiums we paid in all out lives, congress pulled that money and spent it with a promise to repay it.
It's not true as Rubenfeld says that sailors clinging to wreckage cannot be killed. During the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, 1943, American and Australian planes sank numerous troop ships carrying Japanese soldiers to make a landing to invade New Guinea. The command ordered a second strike with attack bombers to machine-gun soldiers in life boats, rafts, and clinging to wreckage, the argument being that many of the soldiers (as opposed to hors de combat sailors) might be able to swim to the invasion beach in the warm waters, which was dubious but plausible. Despite grave misgivings which are documented in diaries, the air crews made their attacks. Film of the attacks taken from the aircraft is widely available on the Internet and was shown as newsreels with enthusiastic voiceover in movie theatres at the time.
The punishment meted out to the German U-boat commander and XO likely reflects the deep personal disgust that Winston Churchill felt toward U-boats in general, as he said they were the one thing in the war that kept him awake at nights where he thought Britain might lose. He wanted Adm. Karl Doenitz executed as well for the unrestricted submarine warfare that Rubenfeld excuses. Doenitz's sentence was commuted through the intervention of Adm. Chester Nimitz who noted in a letter pleading to the Nuremberg tribunal that US Navy submarines had been following the same tactics since America's entry into the war.
So you have foreign assassins coming into the USA to kill Americans, do you let them come in and kill as many Americans as possible or do you take them out before they enter the country? DUH. Remember 911?
You're right. These libtard idiots who go all in at every opportunity to resist every effort to protect America are as big a problem as the narcos. No, actually they are a bigger problem and have been since the 1960s.
If the United States is not at war with whatever country where those boats are registered, how can it be a war crime? It might be illegal under U.S. law -- I'll leave that up to the lawyers -- but it's not a war crime.
This is not playing with words. A war crime against a belligerent nation is prosecuted by the International Criminal Court when the perpetrator can be arrested (usually by victorious forces but occasionally if he happens to stray into a foreign country that has decided to honour an arrest warrant issued by the ICC) and brought to justice, as the German and Japanese military leaders were in ad hoc tribunals after they surrendered to the Allies. A country may choose to prosecute its own soldiers or prisoners of the other side for crimes they committed unbidden on the battlefield. The ICC is there for when they won't.
If it is not a war crime, i.e., a crime committed during war, then the ICC has no jurisdiction, any more than it can try gang shootings in Memphis or misconduct by police in Minneapolis, or a shooting by an American citizen on a foreign cruise ship. If the U.S. Congress thinks the Administration is committing a crime against U.S. law then it will have to impeach and, if the President is removed from office, ask the Justice Dept. to try him as an ordinary civilian criminal.
Trump always said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. Maybe he's trying to prove the point.
There is no point us arguing about whether shooting these boats is a crime. That's up to a grand jury, which can indict the President only after he leaves office. Whether it's immoral is not particularly interesting to me, as this is an irrelevant consideration in your interactions with foreigners.
Where was this guy when President Obama was killing 35 to 40 Pakistani peasants to kill one Taliban leader? Hellfire missile vs a mud hut, hardly a contest. Every member of that boat’s crew knew what their cargo was, where they were heading and why they were going there.
I'm sure you'd apply this same line of thinking to gun laws; just throw out the constitution and make up the laws if you know someone who died from a gunshot, right?
It is exactly because we let our emotions impede our rationality, that we need laws and we need our leaders to follow and enforce them.
Besides, if Trump cared about people responsible for deaths by drugs, he wouldn't have just pardoned the notorious drug runner former president of Honduras.
The murder of the people on these boats have nothing to with drugs killing our youth, who mostly die from fentanyl, which mostly doesn't come from Venezuela. It's about intimidating Maduro. Don't carry water for this liar.
I don't particularly trust this administration either. I'm just saying that's the doctrine it's claiming.
If you don't trust this or other administrations to wield that doctrine, you'll have to find some way to limit the ability of all administrations to wield it. It seems to me that the only remedy is to impeach the President over this particular high crime or misdemeanor since the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting President for any crime. Then see if the Senate will convict. What else can you do?
A Congressional law barring this sort of thing entirely would probably violate separation of powers. The President has wide latitude to use armed force against foreigners outside the territorial limits of the United States as Commander-in-Chief of the military. If he says a particular boat is an enemy threat, the military can smoke it on his orders. The President with his Sec'y of Defense/War writes the rules of engagement for U.S. forces. The R of E will say at what level of command the order to shoot is made for any particular type of operation. In hot war, it's the ordinary rifleman who shoots when he sees an enemy soldier. Artillery fires on dictated targets which they usually can't even see. In sensitive black ops it might be the President himself who says "Shoot." Or it might be, "Let the enemy shoot first, then shoot lethally."
If you don't want the President doing this, you have to impeach him out of office. And then if he has broken any U.S. law while he was President, you have to draw up an indictment and have at him.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments; you circle around the crux of this mattter…Nixon’s doctrine, when the president does it it’s not illegal, seems to strengthen with each passing year, administration, and supreme court ruling. I can’t disagree with any of your points, but do lament the ever increasing emboldeness of the executive branch….so another futile and divisive impeachment process it must and almost surely will be.
Pretty obvious shift of responsibility from the buyer to the seller.
But, the fact is, "we, the people" have not been shown exactly much of anything om this. And, if it is a "war" crime, who authorized it? For me, too much power in one place or one man, no matter what man or what party, is way too much power, indeed.
President Daily Brief
https://youtu.be/x7nodFeVGZM?t=679
Bari, With TheFP running Nancy Pelosi smear campaigns against Trump, I'm debating my subscription.
This is straight out of Nancy Pelosi's "HOW TO RUN A SMEAR" speech which can be found on C-Span.
How to run a smear: Step 1, take a vague incident and have some obscure press source make a vague accusation of wrong doing. Step 2, have a second obscure press source make a further accusation based upon the evidence of the first vague accusation. Step 3, repeat lies 1 & 2 endlessly.
The fact that the worst foreign leaders on the planet (Hamas, North Korea, Venezuela) use so much woke rhetoric ("colonialist aggression") really speaks volumes.
Let’s see if the Seditious Six want to go after and sacrifice an Admiral, one of their own, or treat him as collateral damage and as a minor and temporary block in going after Trump.
Per NYT today:
“According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.
But, each official said, Mr. Hegseth’s directive did not specifically address what should happen if a first missile turned out not to fully accomplish all of those things. And, the officials said, his order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast.
Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat. As that operation unfolded, they said, Mr. Hegseth did not give any further orders to him.”
Those same Seditious Six were willing to sacrifice the careers, freedom, families, and possibly lives, of all military personnel who they could con into disobeying orders.
Trump ruthlessly obliterates drug running narcoterrorists boats in the Caribbean. Yep, exactly what I voted for!
Go figure, the SS Trust fund will deplete the year I can start taking my SS. Thanks Boomers.
The SS Insurance Trust Fund is depleted by congress adding more immigrant beneficiaries who have never paid in. Senior citizens given citizenship are automatically given benefits despite never having paid into the insurance program.
Instead of investing the SS premiums we paid in all out lives, congress pulled that money and spent it with a promise to repay it.
Clearly Trump is to blame for Obama’s missile attacks that killed hundreds of civilians.
Certainly Trump approved Obama’s “signature strikes” — attacks based on patterns of behavior rather than identifying specific individuals.
Trump forced Obama to identify adult males in strike zones as “combatants” unless proven otherwise.
Trump required Obama to conduct over 450 airstrikes (mostly drone attacks) outside of active warzones between Jan 20, 2009 and Dec 31, 2015. 
Meaning Trump is responsible for the several hundred civilians killed In the Obama-Biden Administration.
It's not true as Rubenfeld says that sailors clinging to wreckage cannot be killed. During the Battle of the Bismarck Sea, 1943, American and Australian planes sank numerous troop ships carrying Japanese soldiers to make a landing to invade New Guinea. The command ordered a second strike with attack bombers to machine-gun soldiers in life boats, rafts, and clinging to wreckage, the argument being that many of the soldiers (as opposed to hors de combat sailors) might be able to swim to the invasion beach in the warm waters, which was dubious but plausible. Despite grave misgivings which are documented in diaries, the air crews made their attacks. Film of the attacks taken from the aircraft is widely available on the Internet and was shown as newsreels with enthusiastic voiceover in movie theatres at the time.
The punishment meted out to the German U-boat commander and XO likely reflects the deep personal disgust that Winston Churchill felt toward U-boats in general, as he said they were the one thing in the war that kept him awake at nights where he thought Britain might lose. He wanted Adm. Karl Doenitz executed as well for the unrestricted submarine warfare that Rubenfeld excuses. Doenitz's sentence was commuted through the intervention of Adm. Chester Nimitz who noted in a letter pleading to the Nuremberg tribunal that US Navy submarines had been following the same tactics since America's entry into the war.
So you have foreign assassins coming into the USA to kill Americans, do you let them come in and kill as many Americans as possible or do you take them out before they enter the country? DUH. Remember 911?
Depends if you're on the right or the left. And half the country votes left. Think about that?
You're right. These libtard idiots who go all in at every opportunity to resist every effort to protect America are as big a problem as the narcos. No, actually they are a bigger problem and have been since the 1960s.
If the United States is not at war with whatever country where those boats are registered, how can it be a war crime? It might be illegal under U.S. law -- I'll leave that up to the lawyers -- but it's not a war crime.
This is not playing with words. A war crime against a belligerent nation is prosecuted by the International Criminal Court when the perpetrator can be arrested (usually by victorious forces but occasionally if he happens to stray into a foreign country that has decided to honour an arrest warrant issued by the ICC) and brought to justice, as the German and Japanese military leaders were in ad hoc tribunals after they surrendered to the Allies. A country may choose to prosecute its own soldiers or prisoners of the other side for crimes they committed unbidden on the battlefield. The ICC is there for when they won't.
If it is not a war crime, i.e., a crime committed during war, then the ICC has no jurisdiction, any more than it can try gang shootings in Memphis or misconduct by police in Minneapolis, or a shooting by an American citizen on a foreign cruise ship. If the U.S. Congress thinks the Administration is committing a crime against U.S. law then it will have to impeach and, if the President is removed from office, ask the Justice Dept. to try him as an ordinary civilian criminal.
Trump always said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in broad daylight and get away with it. Maybe he's trying to prove the point.
There is no point us arguing about whether shooting these boats is a crime. That's up to a grand jury, which can indict the President only after he leaves office. Whether it's immoral is not particularly interesting to me, as this is an irrelevant consideration in your interactions with foreigners.
Canclled my yearly. Good luck I guess.
Same here.
Why in the hell would you do that?
Well, I thought it was fair to wish them Goodluck because I used to like the product and I respected the founders. I guess next time I won't do that.
The Navy will now use more powerful weapons on narco-terrorist water vessels.
Where was this guy when President Obama was killing 35 to 40 Pakistani peasants to kill one Taliban leader? Hellfire missile vs a mud hut, hardly a contest. Every member of that boat’s crew knew what their cargo was, where they were heading and why they were going there.
Assuming it was drugs, when did the legal punishment for drug trafficking become death?
When it causes death(s).
That’s just not the case under American laws.
Said ‘no one’ that had a stupid teen die because of it!
Not mine but a neighbor- in an upper class neighborhood.
I'm sure you'd apply this same line of thinking to gun laws; just throw out the constitution and make up the laws if you know someone who died from a gunshot, right?
It is exactly because we let our emotions impede our rationality, that we need laws and we need our leaders to follow and enforce them.
Besides, if Trump cared about people responsible for deaths by drugs, he wouldn't have just pardoned the notorious drug runner former president of Honduras.
The murder of the people on these boats have nothing to with drugs killing our youth, who mostly die from fentanyl, which mostly doesn't come from Venezuela. It's about intimidating Maduro. Don't carry water for this liar.
On the high seas, the punishment is pretty well anything you like.
That’s the new doctrine…one you’d trust other administrations to wield?
I don't particularly trust this administration either. I'm just saying that's the doctrine it's claiming.
If you don't trust this or other administrations to wield that doctrine, you'll have to find some way to limit the ability of all administrations to wield it. It seems to me that the only remedy is to impeach the President over this particular high crime or misdemeanor since the DoJ won't prosecute a sitting President for any crime. Then see if the Senate will convict. What else can you do?
A Congressional law barring this sort of thing entirely would probably violate separation of powers. The President has wide latitude to use armed force against foreigners outside the territorial limits of the United States as Commander-in-Chief of the military. If he says a particular boat is an enemy threat, the military can smoke it on his orders. The President with his Sec'y of Defense/War writes the rules of engagement for U.S. forces. The R of E will say at what level of command the order to shoot is made for any particular type of operation. In hot war, it's the ordinary rifleman who shoots when he sees an enemy soldier. Artillery fires on dictated targets which they usually can't even see. In sensitive black ops it might be the President himself who says "Shoot." Or it might be, "Let the enemy shoot first, then shoot lethally."
If you don't want the President doing this, you have to impeach him out of office. And then if he has broken any U.S. law while he was President, you have to draw up an indictment and have at him.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments; you circle around the crux of this mattter…Nixon’s doctrine, when the president does it it’s not illegal, seems to strengthen with each passing year, administration, and supreme court ruling. I can’t disagree with any of your points, but do lament the ever increasing emboldeness of the executive branch….so another futile and divisive impeachment process it must and almost surely will be.
Is it war crime? It doesn't have to be, to be simply immoral, unethical and wrong.
Shedding tears over a few intent on killing more 16 year olds in southeastern Ohio. Fair enough.
Imagine starting your day posting a comment sympathetic with the violent, murderous drug cartels. Can anyone explain the loony left? Anyone?
We’ll wait while you demonstrate knowledge of that intent..
Pretty obvious shift of responsibility from the buyer to the seller.
But, the fact is, "we, the people" have not been shown exactly much of anything om this. And, if it is a "war" crime, who authorized it? For me, too much power in one place or one man, no matter what man or what party, is way too much power, indeed.
Don't stop there. Invade Mexico and murder every drug lord and their ilk. I volunteer.
Live Free or Die.