Trump administration 2024-2028

[Cloud Cover]

Yes, correct. The current administration is normalizing military acts of very questionable legality. On any given day it’s tough to tell what the next incremental escalation / edge case will be. SOUTHCOM is currently postured in a way that only makes sense if, most charitably, the U.S. wishes to appear prepared to imminently launch a war of aggression on someone in or bordering the Caribbean.

It is never, ever wrong for civil authorities - executive or legislative - to remind a professional military to be mindful of the law and what it says about how they act. It’s regrettable that it’s increasingly necessary to.

100%

 

[Brad Sallows]

Seems apt to remind officers to me when theyre on the verge of an illegal war in the Caribbean.

People who fight are generally held responsible only for jus in bello. Politicians answer for jus ad bellum. With a value that gets asymptotically very close to certainty, all wars are illegal on the part of those who initiate them. Your objection doesn't merit more than a shrug.

The fact is president is saying these people should be killed is what is the story here. Imagine if Biden, Bush or Obama did this? The impeachment would have started this morning.

If presidents were impeached for authorizing wrongful killings, all three of your paragons of morality were ripe for impeachment.

 

[HavokFour]

Already a response.

JOINT LEADERSHIP STATEMENT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP’S DEATH THREATS AGAINST DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic Whip Katherine Clark and Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar released the following statement:

democraticleader.house.gov

 

[Brad Sallows]

It is never, ever wrong for civil authorities - executive or legislative - to remind a professional military to be mindful of the law and what it says about how they act. It’s regrettable that it’s increasingly necessary to.

It depends on their intent (ends, means, intentions always all matter). If they're doing it to stir the political pot and using military or other enforcement professionals as the stick, they're wrong.

In one set of circumstances, military professionals can be trusted to push back against being harangued by the likes of Hegseth. On the other hand, they have to be reminded to be professional, right now for some reason. That's insulting.

An oath is redundant if solicited from a person who is already voluntarily willing to meet the conditions of the oath, and pointless if he is not.

Trump and the high-horse pontificating Democrats are both wrong on this one. They sound like a bunch of competing kings in Game of Thrones demanding everyone swear incompatible fealty.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Already a response.

To continue being an insufferable contrarian gadfly, I note that "this is the (archaic) law, punishable by death (also lamentably archaic), and I accuse them of violating it" isn't a "death threat".

"So-and-so violated such-and-such and ought to be investigated, perhaps prosecuted, and if found guilty, punished" has been common political rhetoric for years. It isn't different because "punishable by death".

 

[PrairieFella]

People who fight are generally held responsible only for jus in bello. Politicians answer for jus ad bellum.

Apparently the senior officers seeking outside legal advice disagree with you, but shrug if you like.

With a value that gets asymptotically very close to certainty, all wars are illegal on the part of those who initiate them. Your objection doesn't merit more than a shrug.

That is incorrect. War can be deemed legal in international law by consensus at the UNSC, for example Korea, Kuwait or Bosnia. If you want to shrug off wars of aggression that is your moral prerogative.

If presidents were impeached for authorizing wrongful killings, all three of your paragons of morality were ripe for impeachment.

Insinuating the killing of rival politicians is the same as drone strikes in warzones. Hard rog.