And here you go..... The difference between a first strike and a second strike is really no difference at all.

[leftwinger]

So why isn't the UK blowing them up?

Stupid OX much? Incompetent leaders. Like USA under Obiden not blowing anything up either. Incompetence 100% deep state criminals.

 

[TNHarley]

It's no different than if an enemy combatant throws down their weapons and waves a white flag.
Under your theory, you can just shoot them.
No quarter, no surrender, no POW's.

She would have been shot in the head and left for the buzzards.

There is a huge difference. They didnt raise any white flag, they just got lucky on where they were standing.
I have no idea who that is.

 

[meaner gene]

Stupid OX much? Incompetent leaders. Like USA under Obiden not blowing anything up either. Incompetence 100% deep state criminals.

So you think we should start blowing up Chinese cargo ships heading to Mexico.

I'm sure the Chinese wouldn't mind us doing that.

 

[Care4all]

Screw international consensus.

He's following US law.

What US LAW? Can you cite it????

 

[meaner gene]

What US LAW? Can you cite it????

Trump is using the law that we can go after people who attacked us on 9-11, or the people that support them.

So their theory is that Venezuelan drug lords support middle east terrorism.

While ignoring and rewarding the Saudi's, that supported BinLaden

 

[meaner gene]

There is a huge difference. They didnt raise any white flag, they just got lucky on where they were standing.
I have no idea who that is.

No difference. Under the Geneva Conventions, Laws of Wars and the UCMJ, it's based on if a combatant is unable or unwilling to fight back against you.

 

[martybegan]

What US LAW? Can you cite it????

Whenever I search all I get are articles bitching about the attacks.

This is what the administration is on record saying:

https://thehill.com/homenews/5603976-doj-opinion-caribbean-strikes/

“Our current operations in the Caribbean are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in complete compliance with the law of armed conflict. Lawyers up and down the chain of command have been thoroughly involved in reviewing these operations prior to execution,” chief Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.

“There is a robust system of internal checks and balances within the War Department that offers those involved in operations the opportunity to disagree, yet no lawyer involved has questioned the legality of the Caribbean strikes and instead advised subordinate commanders and Secretary [Pete] Hegseth that the proposed actions were permissible before they commenced.”

 

[martybegan]

Trump is using the law that we can go after people who attacked us on 9-11, or the people that support them.

So their theory is that Venezuelan drug lords support middle east terrorism.

While ignoring and rewarding the Saudi's, that supported BinLaden

You forget the goal of the 9/11 attackers was to overthrow the then and current Saudi government and take over themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What US LAW? Can you cite it????

Throwing a tantrum does not support your position.

 

[Cassandro]

No difference. Under the Geneva Conventions, Laws of Wars and the UCMJ, it's based on if a combatant is unable or unwilling to fight back against you.

Narco terrorists are not "combatants." Any other questions?

 

[meaner gene]

You forget the goal of the 9/11 attackers was to overthrow the then and current Saudi government and take over themselves.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[meaner gene]

Narco terrorists are not "combatants." Any other questions?

Then they are civilians. And under the Geneva conventions, US laws , UN Charter, etc. etc. etc.
You're supposed to protect civilians.

 

[martybegan]

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

That the Saudis you are trying to stupidly link to causing 9/11 were the ultimate target of the people who perpetrated 9/11?

 

[meaner gene]

That the Saudis you are trying to stupidly link to causing 9/11 were the ultimate target of the people who perpetrated 9/11?

Most of the hijackers were Saudi
BinLaden was Saudi

do the math as they say.

 

[martybegan]

Most of the hijackers were Saudi
BinLaden was Saudi

do the math as they say.

Bin Laden wanted to overthrow the Saudi government and take over. The hijackers were of the same political persuasion.

 

[Bitterhook]

WTF?
All those people the president can't trust A'INT THERE ANY MORE.
Trump can certainly trust his own man John Ratcliffe, then

The President is calling on and putting to task those he does trust. If the President hasn't called on the CIA to play a more significant role, then there is a reason for that. Then again, perhaps Director Ratcliffe just does a better job running our covert and clandestine operations, while keeping his mouth shut, and out of the limelight.

You know, kind of the way that shit is supposed to happen.

 

[Care4all]

Whenever I search all I get are articles bitching about the attacks.

This is what the administration is on record saying:

https://thehill.com/homenews/5603976-doj-opinion-caribbean-strikes/

Thanks, but that doesn't really help....they fired the experienced constitutional and military legal beagle advisors and brought in their own, incompetent.... They fired the Inspector General, so there is no neutral overseers to investigate or make rulings or voice concerns.....and lastly, this statement comes from the alleged perps themselves.....who naturally can not be trusted to do anything but cover for themselves.

I'D like to see the Law they are doing this under....they do not have a War authorization from Congress that they passed that I know of, and Trumps initial first act of war was Sept 2nd with this particular attack, Nov 2nd was the president's 60 day window to get congressional authorization or retreat from his wartime actions....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks, but that doesn't really help....they fired the experienced constitutional and military legal beagle advisors and brought in their own, incompetent....

You have no factual or rational basis for your statement.

 

[martybegan]

Thanks, but that doesn't really help....they fired the experienced constitutional and military legal beagle advisors and brought in their own, incompetent.... They fired the Inspector General, so there is no neutral overseers to investigate or make rulings or voice concerns.....and lastly, this statement comes from the alleged perps themselves.....who naturally can not be trusted to do anything but cover for themselves.

I'D like to see the Law they are doing this under....they do not have a War authorization from Congress that they passed that I know of, and Trumps initial first act of war was Sept 2nd with this particular attack, Nov 2nd was the president's 60 day window to get congressional authorization or retreat from his wartime actions....

It shows you the position of the admin, and the fact it took me 5 minutes of digging through pages of opinion pieces ranting about the SECOND STRIKE shows you how crap search algorithms can be.

They got rid of the progressive morons and replaced them with people that agree with the administration's intent, nothing wrong with that. We won the election.

This isn't a war, this is action against unlawful smugglers bringing death to our country.

 

[meaner gene]

The President is calling on and putting to task those he does trust. If the President hasn't called on the CIA to play a more significant role, then there is a reason for that. Then again, perhaps Director Ratcliffe just does a better job running our covert and clandestine operations, while keeping his mouth shut, and out of the limelight.

You know, kind of the way that shit is supposed to happen.

Where do you think the information that they were running drugs came from?

The CIA are the one's telling Trump who and what were on those boats. So they would know the situation best.