All Activity
- Past hour
-
We signed the UNCLOS treaty but the Senate never ratified it.. - Today
-
Notice how they keep leaving the submarine out of the photo collections of released drone footage. Almost like they want to not acknowledge what that vessel would clearly have been because they can’t “allege ” it was a fishing boat. I stand by my assertion this has nothing to do with concerns about human rights and is a political big game hunt. Anybody that can put Hegseth’s scalp on the wall affords themselves the right to claim leadership of the party, and Kelly knows it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For all you guys with liberal friends asking you to remember your oath, and these boats. Tell them to Google 10 USC 124, 14 USC 522, 14 USC 526, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) and tell them to never miss an opportunity to STFU.
Perhaps the question is really like this, when the new tile pops up OR what @Lawman wrote... Secondary, legit question: how many would pick the burning tile if asked if that boat was destroyed? Like a crowdsource morality poll
Maxwell Cousins joined the community
Some boat guys owe a couple of aviators beer for life.
Yup. Like I said above. Theatre for political points.- Yesterday
Takeaway - never trust Red Crown, avoid as far as tactically feasible.
The fact that none of those Congressional members came out of the meeting and demanded the resignation of the targeting authority that committed the engagement was telling of this being little more than a political witch hunt. They want Hegseth to resign, and they want to have the fight in the court of public opinion only because they know it doesn’t actually meet the criticism that’s been levied out of “sources.” Democratic critics will happily use the term “war crime” and water down its meaning though just like they did racist and fascist for the convenience it provides to their argument. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I believe so, but then an updated AUMF was floated. Not sure where that all stands right now. @busdriver From what I can find it seems like WPA (president can take action against national security threats) was initially cited, but generally they’ve moved to citing the AUMF (which is a standard play this century). But yes, legal jiu jitsu. I think AUMF needs to be reined in, but it’s important the president retains authority granted in the WPA. Reagan was very against the WPA limitations as they relate to terrorists, and I do agree to an extent. Maybe the right answer is don’t kill the AUMF, but do update it.
Drones sighted over Ireland allegedly targeting Zelenskyy’s aircraft during his visit.
Wasn't the AUMF suggested to be removed this year? Sen. Kaine sponsored for AUMF revocation in 2023.
No worries, just part of an actual conversation. As much my fault for not being more clear. I think the broad and never ending application of AUMF is the root cause of the "problem" (for that side of the argument). As far as War Powers, my understanding is the admin is operating under the theory that it does not apply. I've read somewhere that the legal logic being used is the cartels writ large are fighting allies (Mexico) and therefore they're all terrorists. Executive branch legal Jiu-Jitsu like this certainly isn't new. I keep hoping that congress will eventually put their big boy pants back on and take power back from the executive...... I may be naive.
Sounds like you have exactly what I didn’t know I had until I went to WP. The eye doc there was not very hopeful for any sort of waiver. Although a private eye doc said I could fix this with some eye exercises. I would visit an eye doctor prior to WP to see how many diopters you are off as this is most likely the deciding factor for any sort of waiver. I am currently sitting on a DQ FC1 hopping for a waiver or retest at least.
One heck of a cruise for the Gettysburg and Truman Task & PurposeNavy releases investigation on 3 lost planes, including o...One of the planes was accidentally shot down by the cruiser USS Gettysburg, which also fired on another Super Hornet.
Montana joined the community
So if the one side thinks this is a true war crime, they are pressing for courts martial against everyone from bottom to top right? Guys on the crew of whatever asset was used. Lawyer(s) who approved it. Leadership who ordered it. I'm thinking thats not what they are screeching about, they just want Hegseth if they can get him. Hegseth is a complete douche but I don't think this will work out.- Last week
Certainly that’s the other narrative, although it’s hard to see what’s giving you confidence in it over the alternative. The legislator was quoted saying that the boat was already a “destroyed vessel” and that they didn’t have any “means of locomotion.” I guess if that were true, would it then be problematic in your eyes?
Boat was the primary target, it was not destroyed with first shot, so follow up was taken. Not our legal problem if two guys decided to get back on.
Rep Hines after viewing today said “You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.” If true, seems like that’d be pretty cut and dry based on the DoW law of war manual:
OK, that is more a reasonable take, apologies for not understanding that initially. The 2001 AUMF has been very broadly applied to target terrorist without regard for location. Historically the current strikes are fairly inline with precedence. Now that said, I completely see the logic in Congress wanting to update this to rein it in. Additionally in accordance with the WPA, the president always has the authority to conduct mil operations when “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces". Certainly can be debated if throwing drugs at the American population is an “attack upon the US.” Keep in mind China is very involved in this from a supporting role, so I can absolutely see the argument that this is an attack, albeit not in the “traditional sense” with bombs or missiles. Bottom line, a lot nuance and gray area with valid perspectives on both sides of the debate, and therefore it is not currently a “black and white, crosses the line” situation.
