• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trump administration 2024-2028

PrairieFella said:
Is that death tweet actually real? Yuh oh
Click to expand...

Starting to work it's way into today's coverage.


www.bloomberg.com

Trump Calls for Sedition Trial After Democrats Warn Troops

President Donald Trump said a group of Democratic lawmakers should be put on trial — and suggested they should even face the death penalty — after they released a video telling intelligence community and military members to disobey orders that would break the law.
www.bloomberg.com www.bloomberg.com

A few hours prior, when the article first came out and before he himself made that post.

1763659187145.png
 
brihard said:
“Obey the law and remember your oath to the Constitution” is sedition now? Neat. Good thing the President is a fan of pardoning or commuting sentences for that.
Click to expand...
Sure, they just wanted to remind serving officers of what they already knew. Not hoping to push someone over the edge of propriety and law at all.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Sure, they just wanted to remind serving officers of what they already knew. Not hoping to push someone over the edge of propriety and law at all.
Click to expand...
Seems apt to remind officers to me when theyre on the verge of an illegal war in the Caribbean.

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.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Sure, they just wanted to remind serving officers of what they already knew. Not hoping to push someone over the edge of propriety and law at all.
Click to expand...
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.
 
brihard said:
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.
Click to expand...
100%⬆️
 
PrairieFella said:
Seems apt to remind officers to me when theyre on the verge of an illegal war in the Caribbean.
Click to expand...
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.
PrairieFella said:
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.
Click to expand...
If presidents were impeached for authorizing wrongful killings, all three of your paragons of morality were ripe for impeachment.
 
brihard said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
HavokFour said:
Already a response.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Brad Sallows said:
People who fight are generally held responsible only for jus in bello. Politicians answer for jus ad bellum.
Click to expand...
Apparently the senior officers seeking outside legal advice disagree with you, but shrug if you like.
Brad Sallows said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Brad Sallows said:
If presidents were impeached for authorizing wrongful killings, all three of your paragons of morality were ripe for impeachment.
Click to expand...
Insinuating the killing of rival politicians is the same as drone strikes in warzones. Hard rog.
 
PrairieFella said:
Apparently the senior officers seeking outside legal advice disagree with you, but shrug if you like.
Click to expand...
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.
PrairieFella said:
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.
Click to expand...
Those wars were not legal "on the part of those who initiate them". I stated that criterion clearly.
PrairieFella said:
Insinuating the killing of rival politicians is the same as drone strikes in warzones. Hard rog.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
If there was an Academy Award for "Understatement of the Year" we'd definitely have a winner here.

Seriously, WT actual F!
 
GR66 said:
If there was an Academy Award for "Understatement of the Year" we'd definitely have a winner here.

Seriously, WT actual F!
Click to expand...

I'm kind of wondering myself if this may be a possible back door attempt at making this DHS policy and thus, ICE policy.
 
Nazis appropriated the swastika. I can guess that if I see a swastika here, or in the US, or Europe, that it's meant to be a Nazi swastika. Otherwise, "potentially" not.

The new guideline strikes me as the kind of thing an intensely "woke" person would favour: "we must not blackguard swastikas without unambiguous Nazi associations" (colour scheme, etc).

If anyone's outrage meter peaks, please refer again to second sentence of first paragraph. It's possible to explore an idea without condoning particular flavours of it.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Nazis appropriated the swastika. I can guess that if I see a swastika here, or in the US, or Europe, that it's meant to be a Nazi swastika. Otherwise, "potentially" not.

The new guideline strikes me as the kind of thing an intensely "woke" person would favour: "we must not blackguard swastikas without unambiguous Nazi associations" (colour scheme, etc).

If anyone's outrage meter peaks, please refer again to second sentence of first paragraph. It's possible to explore an idea without condoning particular flavours of it.
Click to expand...
OJ Simpson's defense team would have welcomed you with open arms back in the day.

Your ability to put a spin, left - right - up - down - forwards - backwards - on anything is mind numbing. I would have enjoyed being present in your political philosophy classes I assume you took in Uni.
 
Czech_pivo said:
OJ Simpson's defense team would have welcomed you with open arms back in the day.

Your ability to put a spin, left - right - up - down - forwards - backwards - on anything is mind numbing. I would have enjoyed being present in your political philosophy classes I assume you took in Uni.
Click to expand...
From time-to-time I come across something in which someone laments that swastikas were appropriated from his culture.

Much more frequently I come across arguments that cultural appropriation is wrong and cultures should be able to claim/reclaim that which was original theirs.

Also much more frequently I come across arguments that laws which are over-broad are unjust.

At the junction of those, and probably a bunch of other things, my conclusion: if some pro-Nazi anti-Jewish anti-Israel extremist in the administration slipped that in, his intent is wrongful. If some pro-cultural-ownership advocate in the administration slipped that in, his intent is righteous. Maybe there are some flavours in between. Regardless (irrespective of the motivation), the end-point is righteous.

It's a righteous policy, and absent further investigation and explanation of how it came to be, suspicions and attempts to draw attention to it to throw up more political FUD are just guesses.

[My degree is Physics/Comp Sci. Never seen the inside of a poli sci room.]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top