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.

 

[Brad Sallows]

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

They might be professionals concerned about the future. They might be worried about past grand-standing that amounted to disobedience of a lawful command or straying too far outside their lane into political advocacy and interference. They might be grand-standing, period. 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.

Those wars were not legal "on the part of those who initiate them". I stated that criterion clearly.

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

I'm not going to check whether they all occurred in "warzones", but the question of "whose warzone" certainly arises - if two other guys are fighting, the US isn't automatically free to kill whom it pleases on their turf. And drones strikes aren't the only source of killing.

 

[HavokFour]

Meanwhile, the quacking is getting a little louder at the USCG.

U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols
Archive

 

[GR66]

Meanwhile, the quacking is getting a little louder at the USCG.

U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses as hate symbols
Archive

The U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify the swastika, an emblem of fascism and white supremacy inextricably linked to the murder of millions of Jews and that more than 400,000 U.S. troops died fighting against in World War II, as a hate symbol, according to a new policy that takes effect next month.

Instead, the Coast Guard will classify the Nazi-era insignia as “potentially divisive” under its new guidelines.

If there was an Academy Award for "Understatement of the Year" we'd definitely have a winner here.

Seriously, WT actual F!

 

[HavokFour]

If there was an Academy Award for "Understatement of the Year" we'd definitely have a winner here.

Seriously, WT actual F!

I'm kind of wondering myself if this may be a possible back door attempt at making this DHS policy and thus, ICE policy.