Rand Paul Bashes Pete Hegseth Over Boat Bombings: 'He Was Lying…or He's Incompetent'

Paul says Hegseth misled Congress about deadly strikes on alleged drug smugglers in the Caribbean.

Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) expressed outrage at being misled by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth about the strikes on alleged drug traffickers in the Caribbean Sea.

Hegseth initially claimed to have had no knowledge of a reported second strike on a vessel, which killed two alleged drug traffickers who were clinging to their ship's wreckage after the first strike. The following day, the White House confirmed the second strike—maintaining that it had been authorized.

Rand Paul:

"Sec. Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news. And then the next day, from the podium of the WH, they're saying it did happen. So either he was lying to us on Sunday or he's incompetent and didn't know what had happened." pic.twitter.com/btmpIt6lcH

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) December 3, 2025

Paul is correct to harp on this point, since the second strike—if undertaken for the sole purpose of killing the survivors—is flagrantly illegal and immoral. It is a "war crime," according to legal analyst Andrew Napolitano.

But of course, the overarching problem is that the initial strike on the boat lacks clear legitimacy. In fact, on some level, it's a bit odd for the media to fixate on the second strike to such a degree, since there can be little doubt that the first strike was intended to destroy the boat and kill everyone on board. The expectation had to be that blowing up the ship would result in the deaths of all passengers, one way or another.

The proper question, then, is whether it is appropriate for President Donald Trump to designate alleged "narco-traffickers" as terrorists and consign them to death. Here too, Paul is correctly raising the point that most Americans would recoil at the idea of the president unilaterally determining that an individual is a terrorist and thus subject to being killed. If Trump really does want to go this route, then at the very least, Congress should vote to authorize military action against the alleged drug traffickers. Otherwise, it's akin to an overseas law enforcement operation, in which certain principles of due process should obviously apply.

On this week's episode of Free Media, I discussed the killings of alleged drug traffickers with Amber Duke and Niall Stanage. Watch here.

Comments

[LIBtranslator]

Rand Paul will shut up if Hegseth assures him the boats were crewed by pregnant women, none of whom have individual rights.

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

Yeah! Get him Hank!

[AT]

Paul is correct to harp on this point, since the second strike—if undertaken for the sole purpose of killing the survivors—is flagrantly illegal and immoral.

Illegal, technically. Immoral? Nah.

Here's an idea - and I am 100% serious when I pitch it. Not a whit of sarcasm or hyperbole.

How about we retire the Geneva Conventions. They're obsolete. (Or, at the very least, rewrite CA3) They were written around a WW2 idea of "war," and war has radically changed in the last 75 years.

The GC envisioned "war" as State vs State, Uniformed Soldiers, Mapped Battlelines, and Front Line Combat. With that in mind, the GC makes sense. "War crime" literally meant crimes committed during a declared state-on-state war.

But if you told someone from 1949 what "war crime" means in 2025, they'd look at you like you were insane.

Because they never considered asymmetric warfare. They never considered, or ever had any REASON to consider non-state actors engaging in modern warfare like terrorism, cartel actions (especially those that have cowed their governments), informal armies, mass border invasion, high-volume drugrunning and drug proliferation, global/instantaneous media warfare (including cancel culture and a perpetual propaganda feed), lawfare, cyberwarfare, intellectual property theft, insurgents hiding in hospitals and residential areas, subversive visa holders, etc. etc.

That just wasn't war then, like it is today. And by yoking ourselves with the obsolete GC's, we've got everyone from AQ, ISIS, Al-Shabaab, Hezbollah (aka Iran, A-Stan, Somalia, and the rest of that worthless sandbox) to cartels (aka Mexico/LA/Venezuela) to the United Front/APTs (aka China) to Wagner/Hacktivists (aka Russia) openly acting as insurgents and dealing very real strikes against America and other civilized nations. But we're hamstringed in treating them as insurgents because they hide behind the GC claiming that they're "civilians" (which they're not), not engaged in open/armed "conflict" (which they are), and there are no declared "battlefields/battlelines" (which there are).

Robby openly admits this. "Otherwise, it's akin to an overseas law enforcement operation, in which certain principles of due process should obviously apply."

This is the exact mindset of every jihadi, narcoterrorist, hacktivist, socialist, and subversive who have declared-without-declaring war on America.

The GC therefore creates glaring cracks for belligerents hostile to America to operate in, allowing them to act with impunity while weaponizing the GC's virtues against us and keeping us from self-defending.

So, retire the Geneva Conventions. Write new ones. The old ones were plenty noble and had moral and respectable ideas in mind, but we need a contemporary GC that takes modern/asymmetrical warfare into account.

It's not storming beaches or bombing capitals anymore. It’s sleeper cells, cyber-espionage, proxy attacks, and drug violence along the Americas’ borders (and now well within them). And so long as we're bound by a definition of "war crimes" that doesn't let us fight back against this sort of thing, it's just going to continue to be used by our enemies to wage a-war-we-can't/won't-call-war against us.

(And, not for nothing, but consider the enemy within as well - notably, "democratic" socialism, brainrot academia, and rainbow gender ideology. They exploit and weaponize the Constitution against Americans the exact same way any terrorist or drugrunner does the Geneva Conventions. It's time to strip their Citizenship and exile them. If they want to be belligerents, then let AQ and Sinaloa and the CCP take them in.)

since there can be little doubt that the first strike was intended to destroy the boat and kill everyone on board

The lesson we should take from this is: make sure nobody survives the first strike. Hit it with overkill. And keep it coming.

Every bombed drug boat and dead drugrunner makes Lady Liberty's torch shine a little brighter.

[AT]

Also: https://x.com/PeteHegseth/status/1995291042346852861

[JFree]

Because they never considered asymmetric warfare. They never considered, or ever had any REASON to consider non-state actors engaging in modern warfare like terrorism, cartel actions (especially those that have cowed their governments), informal armies, mass border invasion, high-volume drugrunning and drug proliferation, global/instantaneous media warfare (including cancel culture and a perpetual propaganda feed), lawfare, cyberwarfare, intellectual property theft, insurgents hiding in hospitals and residential areas, subversive visa holders, etc. etc.

What an insanely stupid comment. There has ALWAYS been examples of the weak trying desperately to fight back and survive against jack-booted orcs like you trying to stomp their life out using the power of the state. Orcs NEVER approved of 'laws of war' or anything else that might restrain the US - against our own citizens or others.

So now that we have turned thuggish violence against the weak and unarmed into our standard way of acting overseas, you want to pretend that we have restrained ourselves in some mythical past but it is now simply too much to bear. It is now time to unleash the dark side and start - bombing boats for no fucking reason at all and killing any survivors - and bystanders - and anyone within explosive range (since your ilk is always far too chickenshit to engage mano a mano).

Oh wait - we're already doing that! Well damn - let's go for third strikes and fourth strikes. Let's show those planks of wood and boat pieces that they should never again agree to be used to smuggle drugs or something from somewhere to somewhere else by someone. And if they can't be found - then kill their children, There are no rules. Only armed rage.

What a fuckwad

[AT]

Language.

against the weak and unarmed

See? There it is. That's exactly - to the letter - the kind of GC exploitation I was talking about. You're seriously going to sit there and pretend that America-hating drug-runners armed to the teeth to protect the poisons they want to dump onto American streets are "weak and unarmed." You want to characterize this way to make them seem like the victims of aggression, when they are in fact the aggressors and we have every right to self-defend against them.

Thank you, you illustrated PERFECTLY why the GC needs to be abandoned.

It is now time to unleash the dark side and start - bombing boats for no fucking reason at all and killing any survivors - and bystanders - and anyone within explosive range (since your ilk is always far too chickenshit to engage mano a mano).

It's not the dark side. It's the side of the righteous and free who merely want the ability to self-defend themselves, their people, their borders, and their society, and their nation against those actively trying to destroy them.

And yes, if we can do so without actually endangering any of our people by using ranged combat, all the better.

We don't kill cockroaches with tweezers and toothpicks, J. We, as you so aptly put it, stomp them under our heel from above. And why shouldn't we? Unless you have some particular love of cockroaches.

Is that the case?

Let's show those planks of wood and boat pieces that they should never again agree to be used to smuggle drugs

Precisely.

[JFree]

The American 'way of war' is to bomb from on high and afar. Precisely so no one can fight back. So don't pretend we are fighting anyone who can ever fight back.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Humans started using sticks and throwing rocks to put some distance between them and their enemy. This later became spears, javelins, arrows, bullets, and now missiles and bombs.

When did defending yourself by fighting at a managed distance become in your opinion, unfair?

You are confusing someone with a death wish versus someone removing a dangerous threat.

[mtrueman]

"When did defending yourself by fighting at a managed distance become in your opinion, unfair? "

Not a question of fairness. Honor, courage, intelligence and boldness are what the Warrior Ethos is all about.

[Azathoth!!]

The 'warrior ethos' is to return home, alive and victorious.

NOT to die for a fool's idea of what war is.

War is horror. There is no honor to it. One shows courage and intelligence in war by doing what is needed to end it as fast and with as little harm to one's own as possible.

And then, one is bold to try to stay strong enough to keep that hard won peace.

Right now, Islam is in open jihad with the west. But muslim nations do not declare war.

Right now, left wing terrorists wage their futile waves of terror to provoke the revolution they so desperately crave. But the nations that support them do not declare war.

Right not, criminal networks have acquired the weaponry of small nations--and they use this to attack communities, pursuing 'territory' like the outgrowths of idiot gangs, which is what they are.
And the nations that harbor them do nothing.

And we pretend that we are hamstrung by the Geneva Conventions while everyone else in the world except the west ignores them.

There are no gloves to take off. There never were.

If you harm us, from this point on, we make sure you never harm anyone ever again.

[mtrueman]

"The 'warrior ethos' is to return home, alive and victorious."

Not necessarily. You need to broaden your horizons. Do you know what Jihad is? You mention the word but you don't seem to understand it. Look it up. It's something to do with defending the faith and spreading the word of god. It's not about returning home. It's not about fairness or unfairness.

"War is horror. There is no honor to it. "

There is. Soldiers are often awarded medals for deeds of bravery. They wear them with pride for the most part. In days gone by when a soldier was found to commit an act that brought shame and dishonor to himself or his unit, any medals would ceremoniously be ripped from his uniform. It's all about honor. I suppose the modern American military is a different kettle of fish, though. Military service is seen as a means to paying the exorbitant costs of higher education, honor be damned.

"If you harm us, from this point on, we make sure you never harm anyone ever again."

You say that, and probably even believe that, but you insist on providing the cartels with enormous amounts of money and weapons. Your hollow threats and boasting fools nobody.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Well said.

[Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Feel free to enlist and go into combat armed with a sword and bagpipes. It worked out for Jack Churchill, maybe you'll be as lucky.

[AT]

I don't care if they can't fight back. They're belligerents, insurgents, and enemies. We want to stop them from being able to fight at all.

And, for the record, they've harmed/killed a whole lot more of us than we have of them. Like 1000 to 1. If not more. Just so you're aware.

[mtrueman]

"And, for the record, they've harmed/killed a whole lot more of us than we have of them. "

And yet you insist on buying their drugs and profiting from selling them the weapons they need. You need more thinking and less emotional outburst.

[AT]

I do no such thing and have no idea what you're talking about.

And frankly, neither do you.

[mtrueman]

"I do no such thing and have no idea what you're talking about."

I'm willing to answer any questions you may have.

[Bruce D]

And, for the record, they've harmed/killed a whole lot more of us than we have of them. Like 1000 to 1. If not more. Just so you're aware.

No, they haven't. People have harmed themselves. No one is forced to use drugs. Drug users knew the risks before taking their first dose.

[mtrueman]

Why stop at killing the drug runners? How about all those Americans who keep buying their product, or those other Americans who profit by selling the weapons the cartels need to stay in business.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Many ways to skin a cat. In this case, cutting off the supply leaves all those fuckers empty handed and crying much like you are now. Humm..

[mtrueman]

I don't see any 'cutting of supply.' America has the world's most drug addicts and weapons manufacturers, all more than willing to do business with the cartels.

[scotterbee]

"cutting off the supply"

You are dumb for repeating this and even more retarded if you believe it.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Oh okay. In your infinite wisdom blowing up boats with many KG's of drugs is doing nothing to cut off the supply. Just like seizures at the border and during arrests do not cut off any of the supply.

Can't stop it all on the same day so fuck it just let it all continue to flow...

[Square = Circle]

cutting off the supply leaves all those fuckers empty handed and crying

No, it doesn't. It leaves their hands still full of the cash they already are planning to spend on the drugs that they are now going to acquire from somewhere else.

It's almost like we've been down this road before. More than once.

[Neutral not Neutered]

It leaves whom with cash in hand? Buyers in America? I am talking about the Cartels and the traffickers. All those boats didn't pay them a nickel now did they?

Just like closing the border is no longer putting money into traffickers hands. Tell me about how happy your friends are now...

Some of the fuckers trying to sell them the drugs have no hands to sell with now which equals cutting off the supply.

Gee Johnnie, you need to get your crack from Jimmy now cause Bobbie got blown up. Hopefully Jimmy hasn't sold it all yet because supply is being cut off and he's on the other side of town.

Maybe take up a different hobby then getting wacked on drugs every weekend?

[Bruce D]

Buyers in America.
If there's demand, someone will figure out a way to make money off of it. Drug supply will adapt. It'll move to the U.S. fueling gang violence in the U.S. The drugs will be smuggled and delivered by drone, untraceable. They'll double down on Fentanyl and methamphetamine because it's easier to produce, conceal and transport. We could impose dictatorship but the drugs would still be there, but we would still have dictatorship. Conservatives eroding the Constitution is way more dangerous than the drugs.

[AT]

Or, for that matter, the ones directly aiding terrorism? How about the American that spends four years in a public college and is indoctrinated there to go join ISIS. Wouldn't it be arguable that he's turned against his State, regardless of the fact that he's still a citizen by law?

How about this chick: https://x.com/megbasham/status/1995510334115991600

Or these guys: https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/1991909735306776600

These are people openly announcing that they are enemies of America, that their allegiances are elsewhere, and that they would immediately turn on Americans if hostilities escalated. Exactly how long should we tolerate/suffer their presence, MTR? And why?

Don't bother replying if you're not going to answer those questions.

This, incidentally and for the record, is the absolute poison and danger of "diversity and inclusion." The melting pot was supposed to take the good and filter out the bad. Instead, the left has allowed it to be filled with sewage, poisoned it for everyone, demands we choke it down, and calls you a Nazi if you don't.

Screw that and screw them and screw you. How about all those "Americans" - you say with a straight face? It's long past time to deal with them too. Strip their citizenship and kick them out. If they put up a fight, then they've proven our point for us haven't they.

[mtrueman]

"It's the side of the righteous and free who merely want the ability to self-defend themselves,"

Especially if those defending themselves have a penchant for scalping and desecrating corpses, both activities proscribed by the Conventions you find so offensive.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Oh now they're scalping and desecrating corpses?

Odd how killing terrorists becomes desecrating corpses in your delusional mind.

But I suppose mental illness is still not well understood even today.

[mtrueman]

"Oh now they're scalping and desecrating corpses? "

Not yet. I'd hold off until AT gets his way and the Conventions are scrapped.

[AT]

I never said the GC was offensive. I said it was obsolete in its current form.

Maybe you didn't get this far before you kneejerked your response(s): So, retire the Geneva Conventions. Write new ones. The old ones were plenty noble and had moral and respectable ideas in mind, but we need a contemporary GC that takes modern/asymmetrical warfare into account.

You're an NPC. Reading the first sentence, and then regurgitating your programming.

[mtrueman]

Your first sentence is called the 'lede' in journalistic circles. It's the first thing read and often enough, the last. Craft it with care, is my advice.

[AT]

Cool - so, you're a lowfo that doesn't read beyond the first sentence. Weird flex, but OK.

If willful ignorance is your thing, then ride that donkey cowboy.

[mtrueman]

I skimmed beyond the first sentence. Didn't see anything worth the effort of a more careful read. Can you blame me?

[AT]

Yes, actually. I can blame you for that, and do.

You are speaking in ignorance, which means you're just parroting narrative. You have openly admitted as much.

[mtrueman]

I am pointing out that care for POWs predates the Conventions, and that instituting a policy of cold blooded murder will back fire. Put aside your sadistic impulses and think it through.

[AT]

I didn't say anything about a policy of cold blooded murder.

Which you'd know had you actually read the post - but instead of bothering to do so originally OR now, you just keep replying in ignorance while defending not reading what you're parroting narrative at in reply.

[Alberto Balsalm]

You're seriously going to sit there and pretend that America-hating drug-runners armed to the teeth to protect the poisons they want to dump onto American streets are "weak and unarmed." You want to characterize this way to make them seem like the victims of aggression, when they are in fact the aggressors and we have every right to self-defend against them.

You stupid fuckers think that the cartels are putting their best and brightest on theses boats when they know full well the USA is blowing the fuck out of them? Far more likely, some poor fisherman are coerced under PENALTY OF DEATH to drive these boats or else. I expect nothing less from heartless sociopaths like you. Being anti-war/murder used to one of Trump's redeeming qualities. And go fuck yourself with your concern for bad words while wholesale endorsing murder of people that are most likely put into horrendous situations beyond their control.

[AT]

Language.

Far more likely, some poor fisherman are coerced under PENALTY OF DEATH to drive these boats or else.

Always a "fisherman." Never a farmer. Never a shopkeep or a mechanic or food vendor. They have all those guys under their thumb too. But you automaton MSM pimps always go with the exact same talking point.

Because you don't think on your own. You say what you're told to think.

Now go ahead and Beep Boop back whatever your Masters told you to reply.

[Alberto Balsalm]

Farmers, mechanics or food vendors probably don't know how to drive a boat, Einstein.

[AT]

Oh, I'm sure the cartels will teach them. At gunpoint. Driving a boat - especially of the sort that we're happily bombing - is not rocket science.

Of course, all those "fisherman" could - once out on the open water and well out of cartel eyesight - wave a white flag. Surrender themselves and the drugs to US Custody, and gosh then there'd be no reason to annihilate them.

If they were fishermen.

Which they're obviously not.

But keep swallowing and repeating what's regurgitated into your mouth by your betters, NPC. You do you.

[Bruce D]

See? There it is. That's exactly - to the letter - the kind of GC exploitation I was talking about. You're seriously going to sit there and pretend that America-hating drug-runners armed to the teeth to protect the poisons they want to dump onto American streets are "weak and unarmed."

No one is forced to use the drugs. The addicts knew the drugs are addictive before they ever took their first dose.

The drug-runners are not "America-hating". They make money off us. They love us. They don't want to hurt their customers.

They're not selling poisons. Drugs are not poison. Poison is harmful at any dose. Drugs are only harmful at overdose. One can overdose on aspirin, but aspirin is not "poison".

[Neutral not Neutered]

You called it and I agree as probably most here do, what a fuckwad you are.

Your delusional post of weak victimhood disingenuously describes terrorists and cartel members and you should really put some thought to your posts, reread them and be sure you understand what the fuck drivel you are writing before pushing the submit button.

[Alberto Balsalm]

Go watch a movie or read a book on how the cartels/organized crime operate or even use your own pea-size brain. Then maybe you'll realize that the people driving these boats are most likely coerced to drive them by people that know there is a good chance that the USA is gonna fuck them up into a billion pieces. But go on and keep endorsing murder, fuckwad.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Okay so you are sanctioning attacking them at the source instead of hitting the supply ships?

I don't anticipate the boats transport system will be lasting much longer before another means is tried or the shipments are stopped.

They care about the cargo and getting paid and if it is constantly getting blown up they will change direction.

I can say the same for you, keep on endorsing murder fuckwad. My nephew was murdered two weeks ago, in the USA, from Fentanyl laced Ecstasy.

I don't want your nephew murdered too.

[mtrueman]

"Because they never considered asymmetric warfare. "

They don't really need to. Hostage taking and exchanging has long been part of the deal, particularly in western Asia. Look at Hamas or the Taliban. Read The Great Game about the maneuvering of Britain and Russia over Central Asia. All that took place at least a century before the Geneva Conventions. If America decided unilaterally to murder anyone who opposed them regardless of their status or ability to pose a threat, you wouldn't like the blow back.

[AT]

Hostage taking and exchanging has long been part of the deal

Is that what you think is the extent of asymmetric warfare?

you wouldn't like the blow back.

Y'know, funny thing about that - we're already getting blow-back, have been for far too long, and have basically stopped caring at this point.

Blow back all you want. We're going to blow you out of the water, and you're going to like it. You want to raise the stakes, well then go ahead - just remember, Jill Biden ain't president anymore.

[mtrueman]

I understand how the murder of helpless drug traffickers might be emotionally satisfying to a person of your sadistic tastes, but I don't think scrapping the Conventions is going to damage the cartels or do anything to wean Americans of their insatiable appetite for what the cartels are offering.

[AT]

helpless drug traffickers

There it is.

"Helpless."

How do you even say stuff like that with a straight face.

[mtrueman]

The remaining survivors were clinging to the boat. They don't appear to have been in a position to threaten the navy or carry out the task of delivering your drugs.

[AT]

So they were drug traffickers then.

[mtrueman]

So the government claims. Two guys clinging to wreckage aren't in any position to traffic drugs or anything else.

[AT]

No, you said they were drug traffickers while you whined about their "murder."

[Square = Circle]

Because they never considered asymmetric warfare.

Yes. Little known fact, Africa did not exist in the 1940s, but in fact only appeared in the world relatively recently.

[DaveKunard]

That's the thing. All these ideas go back to what is VERY essentially american. You are right. People use these things to hide. They also know that to fight them, you have to give up your principles. Become more like them. This is the satanic lure that most humans try to do better.

The US is far from perfect. But this exact conversation is nothing new. The same arguments kept coming up. And there was a principle of sorts behind how the US conducted law enforcement- "Better one person guilty go free, then Ten innocent in jail"

Now maybe you disasgree with that. But that's exactly the bargain you're making.

I feel like the reason a libertarian website is dominated by MAGA comments is that people have been convinced the enemy/enemies are so severe, Maintaining those higher principles doesn't matter.
But libertarianism is very much about principles, of what is right and wrong, and why it is so and aspiring to be a bit above the muck that so many people go for.

Remember Geneva was lead by the western liberal order and its enlightenment sense of how the state should be minimalized.

[AT]

Please feel free to take your virtue signaling and shove it directly up your rectum. Then collect it from your next bowel movement and swallow it.

There is not one single principle we have to give up here. Our American principles do NOT demand that we roll over and be steamrolled by jihadis, communists, cartels, drug users, abortionists, gender ideologists, or any other straight up evil that walks the face of this planet.

Heck, even our Christian principles do not demand that.

What "higher principle" do you think you're standing for, Dave? Because, spoiler alert, your version of "libertarianism" leads to nothing principled. It leads to anarchy.

And maybe that's what you want. Fine. But at least be honest about it. Don't hide behind the "libertarian" moniker if you're, in fact, an anarchist. Reason is notorious for that garbage. You don't get to complain about MAGA when you're being just as disingenuous as they are about your so-called "libertarianism."

Remember Geneva was lead by the western liberal order and its enlightenment sense of how the state should be minimalized.

That doesn't make it any less obsolete 3/4 of a century later, and with several technological revolutions in the meantime.

[creech]

I always thought the GC dealt mainly with treatment of soldiers surrendering or captured and their subsequent treatment. It didn't seem to apply to double or triple tapping Berlin with tons of bombs day after day, or plastering some hill in Okinawa over and over again with no consideration that there were wounded Japs on the hill from the previous strike.

[SQRLSY]

Major difference here being that... The Japanese were shooting back from those hills, ass were Shitler and His Assholes from Berlin. The speed-boaters were NEVER shooting at us, at Dear Orange Caligula, or at Hag-Smith. They sure ass hell were SNOT shooting at ANYONE ass they desperately clung for dear life, to a smoldering wreckage!

Also, two or three or twenty wrongs don't make a right. The US and Britain pounding the shit out of Dresden, which was loaded with refugees from the East, was utterly, disgustingly shameful.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Cartels shooting and killing, raping and enslaving, looting and thieving, and terrorizing is just normal everyday activity in sqrlsy's delusional mind.

I am not sure if you had kids if you would be so happy to give them a pass if they took your daughter and made you pay daily through your life to get her back knowing you will not and if you did she would be broken, abused, mentally distraught and essentially not the person you remember because of the harm and pure evil done to her?

Now consider the 800,000 children Biden lost that were under the control of the cartel members high on the drugs you are defending right now.

[DaveKunard]

Understand the motives of the treatment of soldiers. It was understod that, if soldioers expected to be tortured, they wouldnt surrender, they would fight to the last man. There was also the idea of game theory, that other people would follow certain rules if we did.

So yes, it didn't have mass bombings in mind.

But- it lead to the process of rules of warfare. And that certainly has lead to a decrease in that kind of warfare. Not a total erasure. but enough that regimes at least try to hide what they are doing, which makes it more difficult with more profound consequences if thay got caught. The fact is, acess to information has way overstated the danger we are actually in. There is much less total war then during the cold war, just way more awareness. During the Cold War, over half the people couldn't tell you all the stuff the US was involved in.

The point it, the fact these things don't work perfectly doesn't mean they don't work at all. Same thing with the far left. So much has improved with racism and sexism, but because things are not perfect, there is a willingness to "throw at all the rules because its an emergency".

But when people are convinced they are in an emergency, they are fast to cede principals and power. So we have try to look at the world in a historical way, not just focus on the specific hotspotd.

It's true the US has lost some share of global influence, but I think that has more to do with the neoliberal idea that the US could permanently bask off its post ww 2 position and be the consumer nation while offshoring our industrial base then with the genevea convention.

If anything, what has restrained China has been people recognizing the US is more respectful of their desired international norms, though that opinion has faded.

[GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND]

Is the official Reason position no longer that Ron is a racist?

Did Robbie get Rand to denounce his father's racist views?

Did the topic come up? I have to be honest, I'd have a hard time doing an interview with a publication that slandered my father as racist without bringing it up.

Then again Rand is a much better politician than I could ever be.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

So this is the 5th article based on a false premise relying heavily on ordering a 2nd strike solely to kill survivors, a claim the NYT has now debunked. A claim that has been refuted by those involved.

A lot of heavy criticism over a false claim.

[scotterbee]

Not long ago you admitted here that you have no wife nor kids but would like to some day. But then you keep up this sort of behavior? You're not just another internet loser, are you Jesse?

[Jaydog]

ABC has now debunked it as well. I think Reason is the only publication still talking about this at this point.
I'm also still waiting breathlessly to see what the libertarian take on a Muslim extremist shooting at 20 year old national guard troops in broad daylight is.

[DesigNate]

The timing of this story is highly suspect, given the ridiculous video by those fucktarded congresscritters just a week ago and the fact that the media was actually doing its job for once and asking them what orders were illegal and they all said they had no knowledge of any.

And even though I’m not a fan of the murderdroning policy in general, it’s not like it’s some brand new thing we’ve never used before.

[mtrueman]

"it’s not like it’s some brand new thing we’ve never used before."

It's always been subject to criticism. Dresden, Mai Lai, Afghan weddings etc. Even the strident defense seen in these comments is nothing new. War crimes and atrocities have always had their ardent defenders. And if they can't defend, they simply deny.

[DesigNate]

“It's always been subject to criticism.”

And yet the only people that have consistently criticized it have been libertarians, Rand Paul, and non-interventionist conservatives. Weird.

[mtrueman]

I wouldn't say that. Quakers, Mennonites and Leftists have traditionally been anti-war. There are others, too. It's easy to forget because these are fairly marginal in today's America.

[mtrueman]

Within days of the bombing of Dresden an Anglican cleric denounced the bombing in the House of Lords. There were also several Members of Parliament from the Labour Party who spoke against the 'terror bombing' as it was called back then. If you know of any Libertarians or conservatives who were critical of the attack on Dresden, let us know.

[DesigNate]

Dresden has nothing to do with droning policies under Bush, Obama, Trump or Biden…

[mtrueman]

Dresden was a notorious bombing raid during WW2. I didn't mean to lead anyone to believe otherwise. Mai Lai - Vietnam, Afghanistan weddings - Afghanistan. You seem to take umbrage at those who are critical of war crimes and atrocities. "The timing is suspect," you say. As though that were the real crime here.

[DaveKunard]

What you're mising is the different flow of information. People condemned it after the fact because it wasn't immediate general knowledge.

[mtrueman]

The Bishop who denounced Dresden in the House of Lords had a long history of speaking out against the killing of civilians going back before WW2. He was a Christian who took the teachings seriously.

[Neutral not Neutered]

Yup. The democrats plan their deceptions well and appear to always be a step ahead with the Leaks and lies the media spews at their command.

[DaveKunard]

It seems as though after the official denouncement, the white house has now confirmed it was a given order.

[Pear Satirical (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Reason: "The Jedi's unprovoked attack on Chancellor, now Emperor, Palpatine is flagrantly illegal and immoral."

[Neutral not Neutered]

Paul does a lot of harping. yet has no success. I thought he would carry the fight with Covid and ensure Fauci was held to account.

Seems he simply forgot that fight.

He is always a champion for reduced spending, cutting spending, reducing debt, but when has a bill he proposed to do this pass through and been made into law?

I appreciate his opinions and align with him on virtually everything. But he needs to pick battles and fight them through and not simply grandstand his opinions on issues and then move to the next whistle without following through.

[JohnZ]

A lot of people loke Rand Paul but they complain about his lack of success in congress. Between him and his dad, Ron, they stood for liberty, sound money and less wars.
It's difficult to get any success when 533 other members of congress are bought, sold and paid for.

[JohnZ]

I stand with Rand along with Thomas Massey both are true representatives of the people unlike the other members of the House and Senate who have sold themselves like the whores they are. People have often complained that neither Ron nor Rand ever managed to get one of their own bills passed. Remind yourselves they are at odds with a corrupted lot of slimy politicians who have done the rest of us no favors.
Check out Ron Paul's latest concerning pistol Pete Hegseth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmfCUWKWrIE
As for war crimes there were plenty committed by both sides during WWII. Eisenhower ordered the deaths of nearly 2 million German soldiers by allowing them to die of starvation and exposure to freezing and disease. This is thoroughly documented.
Viet Nam was another debacle that should never have happened. The amount of lives lost on both sides is criminal. The damage done to that country will continue for decades as for the American boys who were sent to that needless war, the 56,000+ who never came back alive and the 2.7 million veterans, many continue to suffer from PTSD and permanent injury is a crime in itself.

[charliehall]

'He Was Lying…or He's Incompetent'

He is both.

[jagjr]

doesn't have to be either/or. both/and seems appropriate for him.

[NM Dave]

Why must Hegseth be a liar OR an incompetent? Can't be be both?