Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

The prospect that Senator Mark Kelly will be reinstated to active duty in order to impose some kind of military discipline on him for contributing to a video reminding armed services personnel of their sworn duty to disobey illegal orders has led me to think about the interplay between military justice and First Amendment guaranties in regard to military retirees. I have found very little law in this area.

Per Article 2 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, "[r]etired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay" remain subject to discipline under the UCMJ. 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4). The provisions of the UCMJ, however, remain subject to First Amendment guaranties, albeit on a significantly lesser scale than applies to a civilian criminal code. The sweep of First Amendment protection is less comprehensive in the military context, given the different character of the military community and mission. Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 758 (1974); United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442 (C.A.A.F. 2008). https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2008Term/05-0159.pdf

Parker v. Levy, supra, upheld Article 134 of the UCMJ (prohibiting conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline in the armed forces, as well as all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces) against First Amendment facial attack for vagueness and/or overbreadth. SCOTUS there reiterated the point that differences between the military community and the civilian community result in military law that “regulate[s] aspects of the conduct of members of the military which in the civilian sphere are left unregulated.” 417 U.S. at 749. But the Supreme Court upheld
Article 134 against constitutional attack for vagueness and overbreadth in light of the narrowing construction developed in military law through the precedents of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and limitations within the Manual for Courts-Martial itself. Id., at 752-61; Wilcox, slip op. at 12-13.

As SCOTUS opined in Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006), official reprisal for protected speech “offends the Constitution because it threatens to inhibit exercise of the protected right,” and the law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out Id., at 256, citing Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U. S. 574, 588, n.10 and 592 (1998),. In the civilian sphere, criminal prosecution without probable cause in retaliation for exercise of First Amendment rights is itself a First Amendment violation. See, Hartman 547 U.S. at 265-266.

If recall to active duty pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4) is invoked solely in retaliation for Sen. Kelly's exercise of First Amendment protected speech, I have grave doubts that such resort to § 802(a)(4) would itself be constitutional as applied.

[Commenter_XY]

Not to worry NG, Senator Nutjob won't be court-martialed.

[Martinned]

Isn't it marvellous how Trumpists always come up with the cleverest nicknames?

[Commenter_XY]

Yes eurotrash, it is marvelous.

[Martinned]

Another example of a great nickname! So ingenious!

[Michael P]

A hit dog yelps, to coin a phrase.

[not guilty]

If Senator Kelly is recalled and discipline were to be sought but not imposed, he would likely have a meritorious Bivens action for damages against President Trump's underlings who participated in the recall. The lack of probable cause is the linchpin under Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).

[Commenter_XY]

NG, I thought it was 'impossible' to have success with Bivens action suing federal employees. That is what I read here at VC.

You say no, Bivens is good case law, just waiting to be used.

[not guilty]

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), has been curtailed in many respects, and SCOTUS in recent years has repeatedly declined to extend it to previously unrecognized causes of action.

Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006), however, is itself a Bivens action, which has not been overruled. Retaliation by federal officials' instituting a criminal prosecution in response to a government employee's exercise of First Amendment rights remains actionable under Bivens, provided that the plaintiff can plead and prove the absence of probable cause for such prosecution.

[Dr. Ed 2]

""[r]etired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay"

What part of "who are entitled to pay" do you not understand?

[not guilty]

"What part of 'who are entitled to pay' do you not understand?"

I am not disputing that 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4) on its face reaches retired military personnel. I question whether it can constitutionally be applied in this circumstance, consistent with the First Amendment.

Dr. Ed. 2, what part of the difference between a facial challenge and an as applied challenge do you not understand?

[Michael P]

Is your questioning here as predictive of outcome as it was in the Fani Willis matters (among other cases)?

[not guilty]

Questions don't predict outcomes, Michael P. Why would you ask such an insipid question?

[Michael P]

Not all questions predict outcomes, but some do. In the Fani Willis matters, you asserted confidently and were profoundly wrong. Similarly when some crazy in Colorado attempted to remove Donald Trump from the state's ballots. In this matter, you don't assert -- you merely "question". Your track record implies an answer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If one chooses to "retire" and maintain an active status as an officer, receiving not only pay but "TriCare" health care, PX (tax free shopping) privileges, and more, then one must avoid "conduct unbecoming an officer."

One has waived First Amendment rights.

[not guilty]

A service member's First Amendment rights are significantly curtailed, but they are not nonexistent.

[David Nieporent]

If recall to active duty pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4) is invoked solely in retaliation for Sen. Kelly's exercise of First Amendment protected speech, I have grave doubts that such resort to § 802(a)(4) would itself be constitutional as applied.

There is a separate question of whether a sitting member of Congress can constitutionally be recalled to active duty in any case; the Incompatibility Clause says that members of Congress cannot hold any office.

[Martinned]

It would certainly be an interesting result if the President could force a member of Congress to vacate their seat by recalling them to active duty.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess "interesting" doesn't mean the same thing in Belgium

[Dr. Ed 2]

"could force a member of Congress to vacate their seat by recalling them to active duty."

What about the members in the Guard and Reserve?

[Krayt]

I suppose a faceter looking to hassle a congressman for other reasons could rely on those good old standbys: laws of general applicability, nobody is above the law, rational basis, and so on, or something akin to all this.

The philosophies! The grand philosophies! The most important!

Today.

[A Japanese Student]

Maybe lawful, maybe unlawful, but definitely non-justiciable for now. Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee, 418 US 208 (1974) (no person has standing to remove members of Congress from the roll of Reserves, and "otherwise no one can sue" is not a valid ground for standing)

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Would Kelly himself have standing?

[David Nieporent]

Maybe lawful, maybe unlawful, but definitely non-justiciable for now.

Kelly himself would have standing to challenge a recall to active duty. His claim is probably not ripe now, based on the The-Trump-Administration-Is-Full-Of-Lazy-Blowhards-Who-Rarely-Follow-Through Principle, but otherwise he could bring a claim for declaratory judgment.

[David Nieporent]

What about the members in the Guard and Reserve?

This link discusses some of the issues.

[not guilty]

"It would certainly be an interesting result if the President could force a member of Congress to vacate their seat by recalling them to active duty."

That would be precluded by Article I, § 5, providing in relevant part that each house of Congress shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and that expulsion of a member requires the Concurrence of two thirds of its members.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Practice has applied this requirement somewhat selectively, as seen by Senator Lindsey Graham's service while in Congress, but it is something worthy of examination.

[Riva]

The piece of shit would be recalled and charged with suborning mutiny, not for exercising his first amendment rights, although he’s welcome to raise any appropriate defense if he wants.

But, and here’s an important point, you seem to have no issue with sitting congressman trying to undermine the administration and military readiness by disrupting the chain of command by means of color revolution tactics to sow seeds of doubt and encourage mass insubordination. How the fuck is this effort to undermine the chain of command not a sick, reprehensible use of the first amendment meriting strong criticism, if, for the sake of argument, that’s all it is?

[Krayt]

I dunno. Sanctuary cities put in an escape clause, "unless as required by law." Thr original free speech case about pamphlets urging resistance to joining the army for WWI were using legal resistence.

As long as they claim merely some general truism, like illegal orders may, indeed should, be resisted, would they not similarly be protected?

[Riva]

You believe that such a use of the first amendment, if that's all this is, is to be lauded? As noted, sitting congressman trying to undermine the administration and military readiness by disrupting the chain of command by means of color revolution tactics to sow seeds of doubt and encourage mass insubordination? That's something to be proud of? A lot of repulsive, reprehensible shit within the first amendment can be found online without too much effort. We generally condemn, not applaud the authors.

[David Nieporent]

See how we know the Riva account is a bot? Doesn't respond to the comment to which it is replying, and instead just reposts the same deranged claims word-for-word.

[Riva]

See how we know asshole is just a troll? (And a stupid one at that) Asshole repetitively and, dare I say, robotically trolls the same insults rather than responding to my comment. Part of my comment asked, why the message of the seditious pieces of shit should not be condemned, even assuming it was protected speech. The response from “Krayt” actually ignored this question and my subsequent response related the matter back to the question at issue: the message should be condemned even if within the first amendment (although the matter touches upon more than free speech).

[David Nieporent]

why the message of the seditious pieces of shit should not be condemned, even assuming it was protected speech.

Because no non-deranged person (or bot programmed by a non-deranged person) thinks that the video's message bears any resemblance to sedition.

[Riva]

I suppose asshole trolls may find nothing objectionable about sitting congressman using their offices in color revolution tactics to sow the seeds of doubt and encourage mass insubordination. But asshole trolls probable find acceptable many things that would make a normal person nauseous. So repulsive was the conduct of these seditious pieces of shit, coupled with more inevitable leftist violence in the headlines, that the WP felt it necessary to publish its latest anonymous hit piece lies to change the narrative.

[Krayt]

Refusing orders you feel is illegal is always a roll of the dice.

Part of my comment asked, why the message of the seditious pieces of shit should not be condemned, even assuming it was protected speech.

Which was the exact point in my response. Suggesting a truism is not seditious. Now they should have bravely given real world examples of their fears, if they thought some issues might occur, or perhaps already had.

I note in the press conference, just over now, she kept dodging shooting two Bobs bobbing in the ocean, neither confirming nor denying it, just forcefully reiterating they were an ongoing threat to the United States and it was in accordance with the law of war, and international waters (as if shooting Bobs was ok because international. Perhaps as opposed to Venezuelan waters, but if it's a real attack on the US, I don't see being foreign waters as any kind of limit. No nation is required to sit passively while another nation pulls back its fist in a windup.)

[Riva]

They're not simply "suggesting a truism." This is not some public service exercise. As noted by another poster on X:

The “Seditious Six” video isn’t some neutral civics reminder; it’s built like the same regime‑change propaganda the U.S. has used overseas. It takes a legal truism everyone agrees with – “don’t follow illegal orders” – then wraps it in ominous music, military credentials, and direct emotional appeals to the troops in a way that’s designed to build distrust in the elected commander‑in‑chief rather than fix any real problem. In other countries, that style of messaging is used to soften up the security forces before a push to weaken or topple a government; recycling that template at home, on American soldiers, is what alarms people who see it as crossing from normal dissent into “color revolution” territory.
https://x.com/cyborg_bob/status/1993691484282081597

And just to be clear, there are NO illegal orders and there is NO evidence of any wrongdoing. There is only a WP hit piece based on a false narrative from anonymous sources. Shades of the Russian collusion fraud.

[David Nieporent]

There's no "ominous music," and no such "style of messaging is used to soften up the security forces before a push to weaken or topple a government"; every word of that was just made up.

And just to be clear, there are NO illegal orders and there is NO evidence of any wrongdoing.

Just to be clear, there ARE illegal orders and there IS evidence of wrongdoing. They don't even deny it!

[Riva]

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

[David Nieporent]

Exactly. A confession, not a denial.

[Riva]

A confession that narco terrorists were targeted. Uh that was the point of the operation.

[David Nieporent]

Targeted… for murder. Which was, and is, illegal.

[not guilty]

Riva, I have asked you before, and you have declined to answer -- what exception to First Amendment protection do you claim applies to the video made by the six members of Congress?

The video is not obscene. It is not false and defamatory. It does not constitute fighting words. It contains no true threats. It is not intended to incite or provoke imminent lawless action and likely to do so. It does not propose an unlawful commercial transaction. It is not itself integral to illegal conduct. It is not pornography involving use of actual children. It is not false or misleading commercial speech.

What exception to First Amendment protection, if any, do you claim applies here?

[Riva]

Are you proud of sitting congressman trying to undermine the administration and military readiness by disrupting the chain of command by means of color revolution tactics to sow seeds of doubt and encourage mass insubordination? Again, there is a lot of repulsive, reprehensible shit within the first amendment to be found online. If that was all this was, it should be condemned on principle.

[not guilty]

Riva, what exception to First Amendment protection, if any, do you claim applies here?

[Malika la Maize]

It’s mutiny to say illegal orders should t be followed? I get bots follow their programming but people in constitutional democracies think that’s not always ok.

[David Nieporent]

As noted yesterday, nobody who isn't brain damaged thinks the video members were trying to undermine readiness by disrupting the chain of command, and "color revolution tactics" is gibberish word soup.

[Zarniwoop]

https://www.duffelblog.com/pentagon-recalls-hegseth-to-active-duty-for-violating-most-of-the-ucmj/

[Martinned]

I just had a quick skim through the comments yesterday's "let's not murder people" post, and they were predictably depressing. Even though the OP went out of his way to avoid saying that murder is generally bad, and explicitly didn't avoid on any of the laws that we all specifically agreed in order to achieve some kind of consensus among humankind on the definitions of war crimes, many of the comments were predictably "but Obama!" or "but drug dealers".

Meanwhile, the actual US Regime still does government by trolling, which seems like a swell prospect for the next three years (or more).

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

[Martinned]

For the record, this is the Rome Statute definition of the relevant war crimes:

Article 8
War crimes
(...)
2. For the purpose of this Statute, “war crimes” means:
(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(i) Wilful killing;
(...)
(b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(...)
(vi) Killing or wounding a combatant who, having laid down his arms or having no longer means of defence, has surrendered at discretion;
(...)
(xii) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(...)
(c) In the case of an armed conflict not of an international character, serious violations of article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts committed against persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause:
(i) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(...)
(d) Paragraph 2 (c) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature.

(e) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(...)
(x) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(f) Paragraph 2 (e) applies to armed conflicts not of an international character and thus does not apply to situations of internal disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts of violence or other acts of a similar nature. It applies to armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.

Sorry for the lengthy blockquote, but the only interesting legal question at issue here is actually which of these regimes, if any, is applicable. Is this an international armed conflict (war between the US and Venezuela), a non-international armed conflict (war between the US and a drug cartel), or not an armed conflict at all? As you can see, this matters for the definition of the offences.

[not guilty]

If only there were a branch of government charged by the United States Constitution with declaring war or not!

[Martinned]

Sort of. The US Congress declaring war on someone or something is neither necessary nor sufficient to make something an (international) armed conflict. But it would certainly help clarify the US view, because if we have to rely on what Trump says the legal nature of this mess would change day by day and hour by hour, depending on his mood and depending on whether he's having a bright day.

[Commenter_XY]

The US is not an ICC signatory, eurotrash.

Take it up with Congress. Oh wait, you're not a voting constituent. So go pound sand.

[Martinned]

I didn't say it was. I said the Rome Statute was relevant for determining whether something is a war crime. Whether the culprits can be prosecuted is a distinct (and much less interesting) question.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The Rome Statute has nothing to do with whether something is considered a war crime. The proper standard is 18 U.S.C. § 2441.

[Mr. Bumble]

@Martinned:
"...t (and much less interesting) question."
???

[Martinned]

The US has never shown any interest in punishing its war criminals before. Dick Cheney died peacefully in his bed. The odds of the US suddenly having a change of heart are slim to none, and so are the odds of anyone else meting out some punishment. So this entire discussion is entirely academic.

[SRG2]

The US has never shown any interest in punishing its war criminals before.

And Kissinger remained unpunished, Calley was largely unscathed - the majority of Americans supporting him, to their eternal discredit - and when Americans are convicted, they tend to get commutations.

The majority view in the US seems to be that our boys don't commit war crimes and the victims deserved it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

here WERE VC in that village -- they got away.

[Frank Drackman]

and like the gunner in "Full Metal Jacket" says, the VC that didn't run away were "Well Disciplined VC"

Frank

[David Nieporent]

here WERE VC in that village -- they got away.

It's from his dissertation, folks!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kissinger remained unpunished"

Because he did not commit "war crimes" except in fevered leftist dreams.

[SRG2]

Because the only war crimes he committed were against foreigners, so according to Assimilated Bob, they didn't count.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/2023-12/2023-11-30_wapost-kissinger_war_criminal.pdf

[Bob from Ohio]

Pretty weak sauce.

Nixon ordered the Cambodia bombing. Kissinger was just an advisor, he was not in the chain of command.

Refusing to publicly criticize a country [Pakistan] is a crime now?

Politically backing Pinochet post-coup is a crime in what way?

[Krayt]

The US has never shown any interest in punishing its war criminals before. Dick Cheney died peacefully in his bed.

And people wonder why the US and other major countries have no interest in letting squeedunk kibitzers weaponize war crimes trials, that wouldn't exist but for the US, against the US.

[Krayt]

And I'm no fan of Cheney's. I can rip him a new one as good as anyone. "Here's my new company, a logistics company. Let us handle all the military "in the rear with the gear" stuff, so your soldiers can focus on the war itself!"

Pretty much everyone: Sounds reasonable.

"Now all we need is a war!"

"Wait, what?"

[Martinned]

Sure, why would smaller countries worry about leaders of larger countries being a little too trigger happy on the torture?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Dick Cheney died peacefully in his bed. "

Because he did not commit "war crimes" except in the view of dumb Eurotrash.

[Brett Bellmore]

The Rome Statute is relevant for determining whether something is a war crime in states that are signatories to it, anyway.

[Mr. Bumble]

Believe someone signed for the US but thankfully the statute was never ratified by the Senate.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties binds states to treaties based on just a signature, regardless of internal law, but, of course, the US never ratified that one, either.

The Executive branch has taken the position that the Convention is "customary international law", and as such binding anyway. The Senate has taken the position that, hell, no, get us to ratify it or it's meaningless.

I think the Senate has the stronger case here, constitutionally.

This goes back to Trump's treatment of the Paris accord, another unratified treaty. He followed the accord's procedure for leaving it, in his first administration, and I thought that was a big mistake. He should have simply repudiated the Vienna Convention, and stated that it was the unified position of the US government that ratification was necessary for legal force, and so there was nothing, legally speaking, for the US to leave.

[Martinned]

the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties binds states to treaties based on just a signature, regardless of internal law

For the record, no it doesn't. Art. 18 VCLT requires states that have signed a treat not to "defeat [its] object and purpose", but that is very much not the same thing as being bound by it.

The Executive branch has taken the position that the Convention is "customary international law", and as such binding anyway.

As with UNCLOS, the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, some parts are and some parts aren't. IIRC, the art. 18 obligation is widely considered as not codifying customary international law.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Art. 18 VCLT requires states that have signed a treat not to "defeat [its] object and purpose", "

That's binding enough for government work, and is certainly more binding than "Totally devoid of legal force".

[Martinned]

For sure, under art. 18 VCLT the mere act of signing a treaty has legal effects. But that's not what you claimed.

[David Nieporent]

It's hard to see any rational basis for claiming that entering into an agreement by someone everyone agrees isn't legally authorized to enter into an agreement would have any legal effects.

One can't hide behind the doctrine of apparent authority; it is very well known that the president cannot bind the U.S. to treaties, so he has no such authority.

[Commenter_XY]

The 'Senate' is correct; a treaty is not a legally binding treaty upon the US until 67 vote to agree to it.

Khamenei found that out, courtesy of Senator Cotton.

[Martinned]

The Rome Statute the closest thing there is to a set of consensus definitions of war crimes (and other international crimes). If you want even more consensus you have to look at the Geneva Conventions, but not all breaches of the Geneva Conventions are crimes, so that doesn't tell you anything about war crimes.

[Bob from Ohio]

"consensus definitions "

Not in the US.

Besides not ratifying the treaty, we completely rejected it as US policy by passing the "Invade the Hague Act".

As 12inch said, the US definition is found in 18 U.S.C. § 2441

[Frank Drackman]

I saw lots of Statues in Rome, didn't realize they were relevant at anything other than testimony to the genius of their Creators. They just sort of stood there.

[not guilty]

I am curious, Commenter_XY. Your people are commanded in Leviticus 19:33-34 (RSV):

"When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

How do you reconcile your harsh attitude toward immigrants with that directive?

[Mr. Bumble]

sojourn /sō′jûrn″, sō-jûrn′/
intransitive verb

To reside temporarily. To dwell for a time; to dwell or live in a place as a temporary resident or as a stranger, not considering the place as a permanent habitation; to delay; to tarry.
Similar: sojourned

[Malika la Maize]

That’s a good response.

[Commenter_XY]

Dina d'malkhuta dina

Obeying the law passed by Congress is harsh now? If you don't like the law, change it.

[Sarcastr0]

You don't obey, you cheerlead for it.

[not guilty]

I was not asking about secular law, XY. I am asking how you, as a Jew, reconcile your personal attitudes with the command of YHWH.

[Michael P]

Mr. Bumble answered your troll dispositively, so of course you ignored his answer.

[Sylvie1]

Do you avoid meat from animals with cloven hooves? Offer blood sacrifices on holy days? Shall we put gays to death? Is death also the appropriate penalty for playing football (touching pigskin) on the Sabbath? There are scores of Old Testament prescriptions and prescriptions we don't feel bound by as Christians.

[not guilty]

"There are scores of Old Testament prescriptions and prescriptions we don't feel bound by as Christians."

I realize that. That is why I didn't pose my question to a Christian.

[Krayt]

"I did not come to overturn the laws, but to complete them."

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Paul argued that non-Jewish converts did not have to follow a range of rules that bound Jews.

Acts references an agreement that they would follow a few basic rules:

"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements. You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things."

OTOH, as noted, the gospels can be cited to uphold a broader requirement.

[hobie]

XY, your rude comments have been getting more and more juvenile

[loki13]

I understand that something terrible must have happened to you to make you so full of hate, XY, but ... this isn't just an issue of international law, or the Geneva Conventions, or any of the stuff that you love to hate (like you take such pleasure in seeing your supposed enemies suffer regardless of whether they deserve it).

It's ... you know, in our law as well. It's unlawful under American law to issue a "no quarters" order- such an order is always an unlawful order, and this is precisely the problem.

This is why the lawlessness that we are seeing (and that you studiously ignore for your keyboard jollies) is precisely the problem. Because it's not just an international precedent that is well-established; we put Nazi sailors to death in a well-established case from 1944 where their U-Boat destroyed a Greek freighter, and then the Nazi sailors went back and "double-tapped" the survivors.

It's established in our own law. You'd know that, if you bothered to do a basic bit of research of wanted to understand the issues. This is why this is so important - because when we have a bloodthirsty idiot who has systematically removed the legal checks and barriers we end up with a chain of command where unlawful orders are issued, and we end up putting our men and women down the line in the terrible position of having to take it upon themselves to either follow an order (which they have been trained to do for good reason) or take the ultimate risk of disobeying an order that they believe to be unlawful.

For the rest of us, we have to wonder what possibly has happened to make people say, "Yes, issuing orders to kill survivors clinging to wreckage with such language as 'Kill them all," is just great! Nothing to see. That's the American Way, right? SHINGING CITY ON THE HILL FTW!!!!!"

Meanwhile, the rest of us look around and realize, "Oh, shit. We're the baddies, aren't we?"

[Riva]

Allow me to respond to the nonsense accusations by reposting another block quote from yesterday that raised some points you decided to ignore in your above tirades. The WP was advised by the administration that its entire hit piece narrative, based on more anonymous sources, was false. As noted by John Hinderaker (from powerlineblog.com):

1) The story is based on anonymous “sources,” i.e., deep state leakers. Unless and until someone steps forward, identifies himself, tells us what he knows and how he knows it, and takes responsibility for his statements, I assume everything in the story is probably a lie.

2) Given the lack of regard for the “law of armed conflict” that is consistently shown by our enemies, my reaction is: boo hoo.

3) Is there really a “law of armed conflict” that says you can only shoot at a target once? And if someone escapes an initial bombing, or burst of fire, or whatever, he is home free and can’t again be targeted? I’d like to see that law. I haven’t seen any news source cite to it.

4) If such a rule exists and applies in the present context, it is stupid. If it applies, and one were determined to follow it, it would incentivize a massive first strike that would eliminate any chance of survivors. And would also increase the risk of collateral, unintended damage.

I will add to point 3 that nothing in the Art. 8 text above allows a military only one shot at a target. The quoted text is not relevant to the present circumstances at all.

(As Rush used to say, for those of you in Rio Linda, the text following the colon is a block quote)

[Krayt]

There is well-established law that sinking a ship, which is fine, but then shooting on Bobs bobbing about, is indeed a war crime. A Nazi captain of a U-boat who did that was executed.

In pre-modern, i.e. pre-gun days, the winners of a battle went around necking the injured survivors laying about. With neither interest in, and precious little ability to, care for so many badly injured, I suppose you could say it was a product of its time.

Not so much in modern days.

[Riva]

Uh huh, so what? There is no evidence that there was "shooting on Bobs bobbing about..." A still floating threat can be targeted a second or even multiple times. Who would leave a threat still floating?

[Malika la Maize]

Threat? They’re gonna throw debris at them?

[Riva]

The narco terrorist boats smuggling poison into the US were heavily armed shithead.

[David Nieporent]

No, they weren't. And not just because there were no boats smuggling anything into the U.S.

[Riva]

As an aside, may I interest anyone in a stalking asshole troll? I have a cyber Monday special, anyone can have him at no charge. But caveat emptor, he is not too bright and a monumental asshole. So no returns, no exchanges.

[Krayt]

She just finished the press conference, and was pointedly asked at least twice. She demurred, stating forcefully it was in accordance with the laws of war, sidestepping the point.

"...to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States ended."

Then she gets into how dangerous they were, as if that authorized popping corks bobbing about. I doubt they were waiving weapons about. She did acknowledge the Admiral was authorized by H, but in a context it was all according to the laws of war.

So more to come. There may be a sliver of separation from the administration proper forming, especially if there's an embarrassing dashcam.

[Riva]

That answers your question. The threat was destroyed. Just so you know, this isn't some stupid ass game where you only get one turn. There is No rule limiting the military to one shot or bombing. The same target can be engaged multiple times.

[bloocow2]

But don't you understand? Conservative lawyers (who aren't conservative anyway) lied about it because they hate Trump! Progressives want children to die! It's not murder because we're at war with them! They're terrorists because the government said so! They're basically murdering people with drugs! We should murder them too! And Obama did it!

But anyway none of that matters because the media lied about it! Show us the unredacted tapes with commentary!

(did I miss anything?)

[Martinned]

You might have missed an explanation of why Trump pardoned the guy who promised to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses”, and who is currently serving 45 years on drugs and weapons charges.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernandez-drug-trafficking.html

It's almost as if the US Regime doesn't actually care about stopping the drugs trade.

[bloocow2]

...wrongly accused?

[Martinned]

Clearly

A Drug Enforcement Administration agent, who worked on the investigation into Mr. Hernández and spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, called the pardon “lunacy.”

Mike Vigil, a former chief of international operations at the same agency, also reacted with disbelief to the news of the pardon. Mr. Vigil said the move imperiled the reputation of the United States and its international investigations into drug trafficking.

“This action would be nothing short of catastrophic and would destroy the credibility of the U.S. in the international community,” Mr. Vigil said on Friday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/28/world/americas/trump-pardon-honduras-hernandez.html

[Mr. Bumble]

"...because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, called the pardon “lunacy.”"
But he did, anonymously.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Yes, Bumble. That is an example of an institutional publisher respecting your interest to be fully informed about where the story came from, consistent with the indispensable need to withhold a source's identity to get the story at all.

The publisher does that because it understands people to whom the story comes may differ on at least two kinds of questions: first, questions about the reliability of accounts from anonymous sources, second, questions about government exercising a power to deprive its employees from otherwise protected expressive freedom.

In the first instance, you are properly cautioned that the story comes from a source you will not be permitted to access yourself, to double-check the allegations. In the second instance, you are properly cautioned that the government blocked your access to information which would otherwise let you better assess the credibility of the story.

That has all been done for your benefit. You are churlishly complaining about it.

It is unfortunate for you that your temperament led you to do that. It puts you in the position of someone who insists on shaking his fist at heaven, while others doing the best they can strive futilely to deliver help.

If you wish to gather experience which could help you cure that flaw in your temperament, I have a suggestion. Take some time out of your normal schedule, and instead devote it to activity to dig out from government-employed sources whatever accounts of malfeasance you suppose the government conceals. The more of that you attempt, the better your insight into those two kinds of questions will become.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There was a little boy who repeatedly cried "wolf"
--- and the day that there really was a wolf there,
no one believed him.

Even if Trump were to be in the wrong here -- IF -- I don't care because it's far more likely more NeverTrump propaganda and Trump likely has a good reason for doing this.

[Martinned]

I think in this case it's more a matter of a little boy being surrounded by literally millions of wolves. But, as one of the proverbial wolves voting what to have for dinner, I can see why you might disagree.

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course, the simplest reason for missing the explanation is that essentially every media site is reporting on the opposition to the pardon, and they don't seem to think what Trump may have said about it is worth reporting.

I mean, I don't think it's easily justified, and I'm quite comfortable with saying he shouldn't have done it, but it IS pretty conspicuous how hard it is to find what he actually said about it.

[Martinned]

It's almost as if Trump was uncharacteristically not keen to say anything about it.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve posted two NYT articles on the pardon and both contained quotes on Trump’s defense (such as it is) of the pardon:

“But on Saturday, Mr. Trump said in a statement to The New York Times that “many friends” had asked him to pardon Mr. Hernández: “They gave him 45 years because he was the President of the Country — you could do this to any President.’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/nyregion/honduras-hernandez-drug-trafficking.html

[Martinned]

That makes sense. He wouldn't want to set a precedent of presidents going to jail, would he?

[Malika la Maize]

Behold the anti-elitist champion!

[Brett Bellmore]

I've remarked before on how the media have taken to treating people's actual words like some rare spice to be sparingly used in paraphrases to give a bit of flavor. It's rare these days to see in context quotes, and given the ease of it with the internet, unconscionably rare to see links to complete remarks.

So it's nice to see at least one complete sentence, even shorn of context. A pity that's paywalled; Was there more to what he actually said?

Well, anyway, we do have an explanation: Trump thinks heads of state should not be held personally accountable for government policies.

I guess that's an understandable position for a head of state to take. And I recall that when Noriega got put on trial, it was considered rather controversial.

[SRG2]

Trump thinks heads of state should not be held personally accountable for personally-enriching activities.

FTFY

[Martinned]

Trump thinks heads of state should not be held personally accountable for government policies.

Your theory is that it was the Honduran government that was smuggling drugs into the US?

[ducksalad]

Controversial? As I recall he died in prison after some decades there.

That would be a reasonable compromise. You'd be free to do as much controversy as you like while Trump and Hegseth stay in prison.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, at the time arresting someone who was effectively a foreign head of state and trying them under US law for acts conducted entirely outside US territory was very controversial. Proceeding with the trial was widely viewed as legally dubious.

[Sarcastr0]

Ah, so we are talking fundamentally unamerican and more of a royalist.

Well, thanks for explaining!

[Bob from Ohio]

“They gave him 45 years because he was the President of the Country — you could do this to any President."

As I said:

Bob from Ohio 23 hours ago
"head of a government-wide conspiracy"
Trump just does not think a President should be in prison. Thanks Wiliis, Smith and Bragg!

[Malika la Maize]

Trump doesn’t have agency?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Trump doesn’t have agency?"

Sure. He got threatened with loss of his freedom by multiple partisan indictments and took it personally.

[Malika la Maize]

Why the “thanks?” That implies they’re the cause of Trump’s pardon.

I think what you mean is “Trump got treated unfairly and that made him angry and so in this matter he acted wrongly via his anger.”

[Bob from Ohio]

"cause of Trump’s pardon"

Not directly, but they are the cause of Trump's general attitude toward head of state prosecutions.

His anger is fully justified. You guys were warned about bad effects from partisan prosecutions of Trump. Yet you persisted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/trump-pro-crypto-or-pro-crime?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2

[Michael P]

I'm curious where the quoted material in this Xeet came from; I don't have a Xitter account, so I can't practically search the @SecWar account history:

"Drone imagery showed the initial Hellfire engagement incinerating the vessel from bow to stern, with no signs of life amid the inferno. No “two men clinging to wreckage,” no improvised follow-up." -
@SecWar

https://x.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1995203244516315424

[David Nieporent]

I do have a twitter account, and I searched it, and the quote appears to be simply a fabrication. Moreover, it directly contradicts what Hegseth has previously claimed.

[John F. Carr]

Obama is relevant. Reagan is relevant. Nixon is relevant. For generations the US military has been blowing people up under questionable circumstances. Congress has been grumbling impotently about its stolen war powers for most of my lifetime. If we're going to say Trump's folks are criminals or war criminals we have two choices

1. Say most or all administrations of the past 60 years ought to hang.
2. Draw a really fine line between good homicide of civilians and bad homicide of civilians.

If you just want to say as a matter of policy we ought not to bomb Cambodian jungles, Afghan weddings, or fishing boats off the coast of Colombia, that's another story.

[Bob from Ohio]

"fishing boats"

We have not bombed a single fishing boat. Look at the videos, they are high powered speedboats, no one fishes with those.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No one can afford to -- the fuel bill alone would bankrupt you.

[loki13]

If you want to say that there is precedent, then you are welcome to. But .... you actually have to discuss and engage with the precedent.

You gave three examples.

1. "Cambodian jungles." Assumedly, you refer to people killed during bombing operations regarding the cross-border issues re: the Ho Chi Minh trail. You're welcome to discuss and debate the Gulf Of Tonkin Resolution, as well as later developments (incl. repeal) that led to the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (a/k/a War Power Act) that governs conflict moving forward.

2. "Afghan weddings." Assumedly, you are referring to the AUMF and subsequent actions taken pursuant to that. Again, there was a Congressional authorization (the AUMF) and you can discuss discrete actions taken pursuant to it; "war crimes" have been alleged (and there have been convictions) even when actions were taken pursuant to the AUMF - this was an issue with .... um, Hegseth. See, e.g., Maywand. So it's case-by-case. But generally, an accident in war is not a war crime.

3. "Fishing boats off the coast of Columbia." We have two separate issues there. On the first, all experts (and all allies) pretty much agree that what we are doing is wrong. There is no legal justification. Also, there is no Congressional authorization. This is for the "overall mission." That is a grave concern. I hesitate to say that it's a war crime so much as it is unlawful, unAmerican, and counterproductive.

However, if the reporting is accurate and orders were given to kill survivors in open water, that is 100% against American law and is a war crime, full stop. Also, for those curious, there has always been a differentiating factor between battles at sea (if you can call this a battle) and battles on the land. If you are at war (again, questionable) and you hit an enemy soldier outpost and there are survivors on land, you can continue to strike until they have affirmatively surrendered and pose no threat, because it is presumed that they can continue to engage in hostilities. In the water, if you hit a craft and there are survivors, you can never, ever, ever attack the survivors after the vessel has been disabled- and it is always unlawful to kill survivors in the water.

This has been a brief reminder for those who don't bother understanding things. Feel free to talk to a JAG.

[John F. Carr]

The legality of the bombing of Cambodia was disputed and an injunction ordered it to stop. See Schlesinger v. Holtzman. The full Supreme Court stayed the injunction but did not rule that the bombing was legal.

The Afghan wedding bombings are much like the bombings in Gaza. From one point of view, both are disproportionate uses of force against civilians target that have the misfortune to be near a military target. Whether any individual committed a war crime does have to be decided on a case by case basis.

The drug interdiction feels more wrong, but I'm having trouble coming up with a rule that does not seem ad hoc in light of the long history of using America's big stick.

On the evidence offered I'm not choosing to believe that Hegseth saw pictures of two people clinging to the remains of their boat and said "kill them". If he did that Trump might have to pardon him before Democrats take over. But Trump is going to do that anyway.

[Dr. Ed 2]

John, never forget that the Bay of Pigs was planned during the Eisenhower Administration.

We don't know all of what the CIA did back then, nor how much of it was essential -- e.g. keeping Greece from going Communist, and that got nasty, but from what I understand, Eisenhower did a LOT of this stuff.

[John F. Carr]

If you add in covert operations there's a lot more that people might get in trouble for. Possibly the last 50 years have been less active than before the Church Commission. I was thinking about military actions, the kind that ought to be reported under the War Powers Act.

[Commenter_XY]

SCOTUS will soon issue a decision on the IEEPA tariff case.

Does POTUS Trump win or lose this case? On what grounds?

I think he wins, b/c the Court can't undo the fiscal aspects of the tariffs w/o severe negative repercussions to the economy. The Court won't sign an economic suicide pact. I am sure they'll use nice legal language, but that is the long and short of it.

[Martinned]

Define "win". Does "win", in your book, mean "he doesn't have to repay the illegal tariffs"? Or do you mean by "win" "he gets to tax Americans at will"? Because one of those seems a lot more plausible than the other.

(And that's not just my view, but the view of various prediction markets and Wall Street dealmakers, who have been busy trading contracts contingent on the tariffs being repaid.)

[Kazinski]

The court won't order Trump to repay the tariffs, they won't go any further than allow parties to bring a suit in the court of claims.

And then there maybe some reluctance to actually bring claims, because it will disclose trade secrets, such as wholesale cost of imported components.

[OpinionsVary]

Re-the court of claims, doesn't the United States Court of International Trade have exclusive jurisdiction over tariff matters? And it is an appeal from the CIT that the SCOTUS is hearing (plus some cases joined from other places).

[A Japanese Student]

Assuming V.O.S. prevails and not Learning Resources, yes; see 28 U.S.C. §1491(c) ("Nothing herein shall be construed to give the United States Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction of any civil action within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade")

In addition, §1500 serves as an additional bar for jurisdiction of CFC for named plaintiffs.

[A Japanese Student]

Well, in another, very recent unconstitutional money collection case (coincidentally also involving a law signed by Trump), the Court did allow retrospective-only reliefs. United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, 602 U.S. ___ (2024)

I do however expect the opposite to be true. There's a law providing for refunds of wrongly assessed tariffs.

[SRG2]

I think that Thomas will support Trump's position using three or four lengthy and largely incoherent paragraphs larded with citations and then state that Trump wins, QED. It's his SOP when he has no actual logical argument but wants to find in a given direction regardless.

[ducksalad]

What are those severe repercussions? Prior to his tariffs there seemed to be stuff on the shelves at Walmart and people had enough to buy it. Same thing afterward.

Trump was considering simply giving the money away in $2K checks on a whim, and then decided not to, again on a whim. That's an admission it's not a matter of survival. Trump treats it as a plaything and the court can take away his toy.

[David Nieporent]

b/c the Court can't undo the fiscal aspects of the tariffs w/o severe negative repercussions to the economy.

I don't know what this means in English. Cancelling the tariffs would not have any negative repercussions.¹ If you're talking about Trump's "We'd have to pay back trillions of dollars to other countries" batshittery, there's no money that has been paid by other countries, let alone trillions.
​
​
¹I wondered whether this term was redundant, so I looked. Technically, it isn't; the denotation of repercussion isn't inherently negative. But the connotation is, and I've never seen anyone use the term to refer to a positive consequence.

[loki13]

I know. It's almost like XY doesn't pay attention to reality, but only to what Trump lies about.

First, as you correctly note, it isn't trillions. Not even close. If the tariffs last until the end of the year, the "Trump Tariffs" portion will bring in $158.4 billion in 2025 (source: Tax Foundation). If they are in place all of next year, they will bring in $207 billion. These are estimates, given Trump tends to raise and lower them capriciously and without warning, but the first number is pretty accurate. But not even close to "trillions."

Second, it would be rebated to importers (who pay the tariffs) ... assuming that it goes through the regular mechanism and we don't get an opinion that is like, "Nope, no tariff power, but not retroactive." While not all importer are American companies, the vast majority are. It would effectively be a ... stimulus, like a government payout. Not much of one (for various reasons), but one. If it has to go through the tariff rebate system, it will be a longer process.

Third, removing the ability of a single person to unilaterally and capriciously upend business expectations depending on what commercials he sees or what he watches on Fox & Friends would not have severe repercussions- it would actually promote economic stability. This is, admittedly, a bit more difficult to quantify because a lot of the Trump stupidity (both capriciousness and TACOness) is already priced in, but it wouldn't be a negative.

[David Nieporent]

I just want to clarify my reference; it's not to the tariffs themselves: Trump has claimed that foreign countries like the EU (yeah, I know it isn't a country), South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc., have each agreed to invest hundreds of billions in the U.S. as part of trade deals to lower some of the insane Liberation Day tariffs. (But not eliminate them; he wants a permanent floor of 10% on tariffs of any country's goods.) Because he literally has the mind of a second grader, every time he discusses this he comes up with a higher aggregate figure for those investments. None of them agreed to any such thing, and — more importantly — none of them have actually paid anything. But in his dementia-ridden mind he has decided that if SCOTUS strikes down the IEEPA tariffs, that the U.S. will have to write checks totaling trillions to these countries.

[loki13]

I think you're being generous to his dementia and assuming that there is any reasoning, as opposed to him just making shit up and lying as per usual.

The BS "announce a big deal for foreign investment to get the PR buzz" and never follow through because it never was an actual deal goes back to his first term in office. Again-

1. He did this last time; remember ending the first China trade war because they said they would invest hundreds of billions? And what did we actually get? Bubkes. It's rinse, repeat. Countries either announce investments that they had already planned, or just make stuff up knowing that there isn't an enforcement mechanism and he has the attention span of a five year old who consumed all the pixie stix.

2. But even if it was real (it isn't) ... I will again remind everyone of Econ 101. If this is about trade deficits (it isn't), then why does he keep demanding DIRECT FOREIGN INVESTMENT? It makes me want to hit my head repeatedly on a wall.

All together now- what is directly linked with a trade deficit? It's a surplus in .... foreign investment. I can't even.

[bernard11]

what is directly linked with a trade deficit? It's a surplus in .... foreign investment. I can't even.

Correct. And anyone who understands this (though it's the current account, which includes more than trade) knows that Trumpism is idiotic.

He wants two things:

No current account deficit.

Large foreign investment in the US.

These are contradictory. As a matter of simple arithmetic it is impossible to have both . Every time he boasts (lies, actually) about huge foreign investments he is boasting (lying) about worsening the current account deficit, which he regards as ruinous.

What a jackass.

[David Nieporent]

1. He did this last time; remember ending the first China trade war because they said they would invest hundreds of billions? And what did we actually get? Bubkes. It's rinse, repeat. Countries either announce investments that they had already planned, or just make stuff up knowing that there isn't an enforcement mechanism and he has the attention span of a five year old who consumed all the pixie stix.

Right, but in the instance you're talking about with the China stuff in his first term, it was a one day thing for him to win the headline. Here he comes back to it repeatedly.

Countries either announce investments that they had already planned, or just make stuff up knowing that there isn't an enforcement mechanism

Not just countries; individual companies do the same thing. Letting him take credit for things that were already happening is like the easy mode way to game this administration.

[not guilty]

Has anyone who boasts of being "pro-life" weighed in on the boat strike executions in the Caribbean Sea?

[Mr. Bumble]

It's early but get serious.

[Kazinski]

Pro-life means innocent life, as in babies.

It doesn't mean people making choices that they know is criminal and dangerous.

[not guilty]

"Pro-life means innocent life, as in babies."

The late George Carlin said it best. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZijLQGH1v0

[Frank Drackman]

Don't click links I didn't pay for, but is that the one where he says most of the women who are against Abortion are the ones nobody wants to fuck anyway???
Of course you could do the joke just as well the other way, I'll demonstrate, as the great Rodney D.
"No Respect! my Mother got an Abortion after I was born! and did you ever notice all the women supporting Abortion you wouldn't want to screw anyway???"
I still can do a great impression of his "Baseball vs Foo-bawl" bit, you remember, "(gay lilting voice) "In Baseball if the game's tied, we get "Extra Innings"!!!!!! (NFL Films "Voice of Doom" John Facenda) "In Football we go to SUDDEN DEATH!" (well they used to, when they only had Overtime in the Playoffs)

Frank

[not guilty]

"Don't click links I didn't pay for, but is that the one where he says most of the women who are against Abortion are the ones nobody wants to fuck anyway???"

He has said that, but not in the YouTube clip that I linked to.

[Malika la Maize]

I think a fair amount of folks find it to be broader than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_life#:~:text=A%20culture%20of%20life%20describes,is%20a%20consistent%20life%20ethic.

[not guilty]

Right. Who was it that said, “Someone who says ‘I’m against abortion but says I am in favor of the death penalty’ is not really pro-life.”? “Someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”?

Hint: He was formerly known as Robert Cardinal Prevost.

[Bob from Ohio]

The Pope is entitled to his opinion.

[Commenter_XY]

Tell the drug dealers to save their own lives, and not become shark shit: Stop transporting drugs to America, and live.

How much more pro-life do you want?

[Malika la Maize]

Summary execution for suspected drug dealing?

[Stephen Lathrop]

But limited. It applies only to cases where the evidence giving rise to suspicion has been withheld, and all the intended victims are known dead.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Summary execution for suspected drug dealing?"

Outside the US, sure.

[Malika la Maize]

And how’s that right?

[Bob from Ohio]

The strong will do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

[Sarcastr0]

Vice signaling.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I will: Exodus 22.2 -- killing them is justified.

[not guilty]

"I will: Exodus 22.2 -- killing them is justified."

Interesting. Exodus 22:1-2 (RSV) in fact states:

"If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and kills it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. He shall make restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the stolen beast is found alive in his possession, whether it is an ox or an ass or a sheep, he shall pay double."

Is anyone surprised that Dr. Ed 2 didn't, uh, read that passage before citing it? I'm not.

[NvEric]

Is anyone surprised you did not quote Exodus 22:1-2, but just 22:1 ?
While the good Doctor trimmed Exodus 22:2, it does make some sense as modern legal thinking goes.

[not guilty]

Au contraire, NvEric. I did quote Exodus 22:1-2 (RSV) verbatim and in full, in order to identify the antecedent that the "stolen beast" of Exodus 22:2 refers to.

[Malika la Maize]

22:2 reads “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed”

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2022%3A2&version=NIV

[not guilty]

I quoted accurately from the Revised Standard Version. The New International Version states at Exodus 22:1-4:

1 “Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep.
2 “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed. “Anyone who steals must certainly make restitution, but if they have nothing, they must be sold to pay for their theft.
4 If the stolen animal is found alive in their possession—whether ox or donkey or sheep—they must pay back double.

Neither translation has a damned thing to do with military forces summarily executing nationals of a foreign nation on the high seas.

[Life of Brian]

I quoted accurately from the Revised Standard Version.

I can't believe you tripled down on this. Here's an actual source for the RSV, which you conspicuously did not cite.

2. If a thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him

Your original quote was verse 1 only, as multiple people have pointed out. Stop digging.

[not guilty]

Wrong, Life of Birdbrain. I quoted verses 1 and 2 verbatim.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/exodus/22.html

Your horseshit hasn't spooked the words off the page, nor the pixels off the monitor.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, got it. So you went out of your way to find a specific translation AND an outlier verse-split of that specific translation, just so you could pretend that you didn't understand the reference to Exodus 22:2.

It's pretty sad you have to pull out these sorts of tactics to try to convince yourself you're actually right about something -- certainly no one else is fooled at this point.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first."

[not guilty]

When enclosing content within quotation marks, it is customary to cite the quoted source. And bad form in the extreme not to do so, Dr. Ed 2.

[David Nieporent]

That quote is not from Exodus, and doesn't of course say anything like what Dr. Ed wishes it said. It's essentially the halachic version of the castle doctrine; it says that if someone breaks into your home at night, you can assume that the person was willing (and perhaps intending) to kill you, so you can kill them w/o waiting to find out.

It does not say that you can preemptively kill anyone you think might be a criminal. It doesn't apply to daytime burglaries. It doesn't apply to crimes outside the home.

[Life of Brian]

I did quote Exodus 22:1-2 (RSV) verbatim and in full

Hmmm, how does that go? "Is that as true as anything you've ever said, NG?"

[Bwaaah]

Is anyone surprised that NG didn't, uh, refer to the passage Dr. Ed cited? I'm not.

(Sorry for the snotty tone; I used NG's rhetorical template.)

[Malika la Maize]

Recently sadly disaffected from tone?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exodus 22:2 (King James Version):

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

[Frank Drackman]

How about just pissing in a Gatorade bottle that you know he's going to steal?

[Ska]

Gatorade is only mentioned, briefly and in passing, in the New Testament if memory serves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Word to the wise, from personal experience: If you're going to keep an empty soda bottle handy in your car in case you're trapped in a traffic jam when nature calls, make sure it's not a Mt. Dew bottle.

Accidents may happen, later.

[bernard11]

Best comment of the thread.

[Joe_dallas]

not guilty 5 hours ago
Has anyone who boasts of being "pro-life" weighed in on the boat strike executions in the Caribbean Sea?"

NG exalts in his evil hypocrisy. Its open season on killing innocent babies (abortion ), yet condemns killing criminal drug runners which prevents those criminal drug runners from continuing to run drugs.

No doubt NG fails to grasp his own hypocrisy

[not guilty]

"NG exalts in his evil hypocrisy. Its open season on killing innocent babies (abortion ), yet condemns killing criminal drug runners which prevents those criminal drug runners from continuing to run drugs."

No, Joe_Dallas, I have never advocated nor attempted to justify killing babies. If done intentionally, that is a heinous crime in every state. Dr. Kermit Gosnell was appropriately tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Of course, a fetus or an embryo is not a baby. Conflating the various stages of human gestation is fundamentally dishonest.

[Joe_dallas]

NG - nobody expected you to grasp the evil-

Killing babies is evil, trying to justify the killing of babies with the claim they are born yet only highlights your embracement of evil.

They are still human,

[Joe_dallas]

NG - "a fetus or an embryo is not a baby. Conflating the various stages of human gestation is fundamentally dishonest."

Trying to defend and justify killing babies because they are still in the womb is morally and ethically dishonest - and evil. Babies/fetuses feel pain at around 12 weeks. Ginsburg's Baze v rees dissent just further highlights the evil. Not only kill the innocent, but refuse pain medication when killing the innocent, but for the guilty, save them.

Do you still fail to grasp your evil hypocrisy?

[David Nieporent]

Babies/fetuses feel pain at around 12 weeks.

Biologist bookkeeper_joe strikes again!

[Joe_dallas]

DN proves himself ignorant of common knowledge ! Not at all surprising.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935428/

https://www.webmd.com/baby/when-can-a-fetus-feel-pain-in-the-womb

[not guilty]

Joe_Dallas, how would a baby "still in the womb" avoid suffocation?

An acorn is not an oak tree.

A tadpole is not a frog.

An egg is not a chicken.

And a zygote, an embryo or a fetus is not a baby.

[David Nieporent]

yet condemns killing criminal drug runners

What we do we call someone accused of being a drug runner? Innocent.

[Joe_dallas]

Unconvicted criminal drug runners. they are still criminal drug runners

[David Nieporent]

You can engage in whatever personal namecalling you want, but to the government, they are innocent.

[Joe_dallas]

Accurate description of what they are matters

The are in fact criminal drug runners with or without a conviction.

[David Nieporent]

They aren't in fact anything without evidence.

[Joe_dallas]

DN playing word games - while ignoring the substance

"NG exalts in his evil hypocrisy. Its open season on killing innocent babies (abortion ), yet condemns killing criminal drug runners which prevents those criminal drug runners from continuing to run drugs."

[Malika la Maize]

President Trump has set free a private equity executive who had served less than two weeks of a seven-year sentence for his role in what prosecutors described as a $1.6 billion scheme that defrauded thousands of victims.

David Gentile, 59, a onetime resident of Nassau County, N.Y., had reported to prison on Nov. 14, and was released on Wednesday, according to Bureau of Prisons records and a White House official who was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Mr. Gentile and a co-defendant, Jeffry Schneider, were convicted in August 2024of securities and wire fraud charges, and sentenced in May. Unlike a pardon, the commutation granted to Mr. Gentile will not erase his conviction.

In court filings, prosecutors said that Mr. Gentile and Mr. Schneider over several years used private equity funds controlled by Mr. Gentile’s company, GPB Capital, to defraud 10,000 investors by misrepresenting the performance of the funds and the source of money used to make monthly distribution payments.

More than 1,000 people submitted statements attesting to their losses, according to prosecutors, who characterized the victims as “hardworking, everyday people,” including small business owners, farmers, veterans, teachers and nurses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/29/us/politics/trump-david-gentile-commutation.html

[OpinionsVary]

Bests on if there's been a suspiciously large donation to the Epstein Memorial Ballroom?

[SRG2]

Elsewhere the cultists have defended this preposterous commutation by claiming that it was Biden prosecutors who alleged that it was a Ponzi scheme and it really wasn't, so unfair, Trump did the right thing.

Reality is, Trump frees conmen and swindlers for reasons of professional courtesy.

[Malika la Maize]

The most white-collar crime friendly administration in recent history?

It’s interesting how that’s alongside his supporters thinking he’s an agent to fell the dreaded “elite.”

[Jerry B.]

"President Trump has set free a private equity executive who had served less than two weeks of a seven-year sentence for his role in what prosecutors described as a $1.6 billion scheme that defrauded thousands of victims."

Was he a Somali?

[apedad]

Public Service Announcement - FBI Announcement

Account Takeover Fraud via Impersonation of Financial Institution Support

The FBI warns of cyber criminals impersonating financial institutions to steal money or information in Account Takeover (ATO) fraud schemes. The cyber criminals target individuals, businesses, and organizations of varied sizes and across sectors. In ATO fraud, cyber criminals gain unauthorized access to the targeted online financial institution, payroll, or health savings account, with the goal of stealing money or information for personal gain. Since January 2025, the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received more than 5,100 complaints reporting ATO fraud, with losses exceeding $262 million.

https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA251125

[Stephen Lathrop]

apedad, my own bank record may show fraud consistent with that description. I have been struggling to stop recurring payments placed on the account, on the false basis that I ordered monthly reports from one of the three major credit reporting agencies.

Attempts to get my bank's help to cancel the payments have enjoyed only limited success. Canceling the credit card and appealing the payments got some money restored to the account. But afterwards the payments were mysteriously renewed on a new credit card number, and allegedly continued to be assigned to the same credit reporting agency.

In its turn, the credit reporting agency has thwarted attempts to get cooperation. Before I can even communicate with it at all, it insists on a multi-factor identity test using bizarrely obscure questions—demanding answers to vaguely-framed queries related to decades-old financial history of which I have no memory and no source for information. Zero cooperation has happened so far.

I have been proceeding in the belief that the credit reporting agency itself, or some entity working with it, was defrauding me. I have for decades enjoyed a top-tier credit rating, so have no basis to complain otherwise about the agency. Or, for that matter, to need its damned reports, which in any event have never been sent unless by email in a junk file I routinely discard without opening.

My state's attorney general was of no help. When I called to ask if the credit reporting agency in question had any address where I could present myself with a passport, or otherwise assure them of my identity, the attorney general's rep referred me to the state's law librarian. The law librarian seemed energetic and cooperative, but reported no such place seems to be on record. The closest physical location anyone has found is apparently more than a thousand miles from me. I do not much trust a credit reporting agency so thorough in its efforts to conduct business nation-wide, while practicing near-total non-existence in locations everywhere.

Now, thanks to your comment, everything has become yet more obscure. But I do thank you for the notification and the link.

More generally, my personal experience with attempted frauds has been terrifying. My wife and I are now approaching 80 years, and not a day passes without a telephone call trying to fish personal identity information from us. Often, it is multiple calls per day. We have a land line and cell phones, and the calls come in on all of them, usually asking for either of us by our first names.

This week, I got a renewed attempt—this one has happened so often I have lost track of how many times—from a fraudster purporting to work for a magazine to which we subscribe, with an offer to do a subscription renewal. On the possibility that the caller was unaware she was being employed fraudulently, I engaged her in conversation, and got a confession that although the incoming call was attributed locally, she was calling from out of state. She said the auto-dial was programmed to display a random location, "for my protection." I asked for the address where she worked. She evaded. I renewed the question, insistently. Just before she hung up, she answered, "Good luck with that. You ain't never going to find it."

I assume our experience is representative. I expect it shows a tidal wave of fraud is likely going under-noticed and un-countered, while it drains the bank accounts of older Americans. My personal experience is that this was barely a problem at all, 3 years ago, but during the last year has become overwhelming. Has anyone noticed any sign of government response to stop this?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if you weren't such a Prick people wouldn't fuck with you so much.

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices

[Malika la Maize]

Surprise heirs like Thomas are popping up because of DNA test kits, lawyers say, and wreaking havoc for families handling their loved ones’ estates. States are grappling with how to rewrite laws to address the issue, and lawyers are encouraging people to rethink their estate plans….

In many states, genetics determine who can make a claim on inheritances in the absence of a will or trust. People can inherit from their biological father even if he never knew of them. Other states consider factors such as if there was a relationship with the deceased. It also matters how long after death the claim is made.

Even if there is a will or trust, common phrases such as “to my descendants” or “to my children” can open the door for a surprise relative to make a claim…

To avoid any unexpected disputes, lawyers advise people to have a will or a will and a revocable trust that accounts for such scenarios. Estate-planning documents can spell out whether biological children who aren’t known to the family will inherit, overriding state definitions of descendants, said Carole M. Bass, an estate lawyer in New York. 

https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/they-found-relatives-on-23andmeand-asked-for-a-cut-of-the-inheritance-251e5f4c

[Moderation4ever]

Of course a much simpler plan is to not have illegitimate children. Use a condoms if you don't want an unknown heir popping up.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s sensible advice, but sex is a pretty heavy thing of passion and people being people can get caught up in the moment.

[Moderation4ever]

That the thing about passion, it often leads to undesirable consequences. It true of both love and hate, passion will get you into trouble.

[Martinned]

It improves the odds, anyway.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

[Frank Drackman]

With the kind of Sex Queenie has Illegitimate Children (why are the kids the "Illegitimate" ones, shouldn't it be the Parents?) aren't a problem.

[Krayt]

Can't...tell...if you think that's a good thing or not.

[Malika la Maize]

“why are the kids the "Illegitimate" ones, shouldn't it be the Parents”

A sore spot for Frankie (related to another of his mother’s).

[David Nieporent]

Of course a much simpler plan is to not have illegitimate children. Use a condoms if you don't want an unknown heir popping up.

As far as I know, condoms only work prospectively, not retroactively, though.

[Ridgeway]

I learned in health class that you could use them both ways. No judgments or kink shaming!

h/t Charles Shackleford

[Martinned]

For the record, having a will doesn't necessarily solve the problem. It depends on the jurisdiction. Particularly in civil law countries a parent's ability to disinherit their child or children may well be severely curtailed.

https://taxperience.nl/en/news/disinheritance-legitimate-portion

[Bob from Ohio]

"civil law countries"

Nobody here cares about such countries.

[Martinned]

I know you're as myopic as hell, but there's always Louisiana.

https://www.legis.la.gov/Legis/Law.aspx?d=108952

[Bob from Ohio]

Nobody here cares about Louisiana

[Malika la Maize]

You can always count on Bob’s provincialism.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Estate-planning documents can spell out whether biological children who aren’t known to the family will inherit..."

So what's the right thing to do?

[Malika la Maize]

I think it’s a tough one. You?

[TwelveInchPianist]

I lean towards leaving them in. I mean, they're you're kids. I suppose if your spouse has input, there may be pressure to go the other way.

[Malika la Maize]

What if they’ve been raised by another family?

So, X sleeps with Y, they’re married to different people, and Y and hubbie just raises the child as theirs. I’m not sure why child has claim on X’s family.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If X believes that one has a duty to take care of one's kids, the fact that hubbie stepped in and took care of the business X neglected after X fucked his wife doesn't absolve X of anything.

[Malika la Maize]

One’s kids are his biological kids?

[TwelveInchPianist]

In this context, one's kids include one's biological kids, sure.

[Malika la Maize]

Let’s say X fucks Y and Y and her hubbie just take the kid as own.

X later adopts a kid.

Equal claim , these two?

[TwelveInchPianist]

To be clear, the question was about what is the morally correct way to set up your estate, so that depends on how X feels about taking care of what he's neglected in the past. If it were me I don't know if I'd think they had an equal claim or not.

[ducksalad]

A relative of mine went kind of berserk after he did a DNA test and it showed that (a) his son wasn't his, and (b) he had a child he didn't know about.

Got cleared up when it turned out his son had used a fake name for his own DNA test.

[ThePublius]

"Fine People Hoax II: "The Post’s claim of a “second strike” to target “survivors” is pure invention. Drone imagery showed the initial Hellfire engagement incinerating the vessel from bow to stern, with no signs of life amid the inferno. No “two men clinging to wreckage,” no improvised follow-up." - @SecWar"

The Washington Post just made up this story of 'two men clinging to the boat,' and the commander ordering a second strike to kill them.

'According to sources....' As usual.

[Malika la Maize]

How do you know the Post didn’t talk to the sources?

[ThePublius]

They don't name the sources. This makes it impossible to verify, and also possible for the Post to just make stuff up, or take the word of sources who are making stuff up.

[Malika la Maize]

It makes it possible, it doesn’t prove it happened. The last claim isn’t necessarily correct as well, journalists can (and should) do more than take a source that wants anonymity claims at face value, they can check on other verifiable things to rate credibility of the sources.

I don’t care for “anonymous sources,” but claiming a story based on them must be made up is as reckless logic as declaring a story based entirely on them must be accurate.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well this is where a Libel suit comes in -- the Post either produces the source or goes bankrupt.

[David Nieporent]

Not in any way how it works, of course.

[David Nieporent]

also possible for the Post to just make stuff up, or take the word of sources who are making stuff up.

Whereas you're taking the word of a source who is making stuff up.

[hobie]

Deep Throat

[TwelveInchPianist]

"They don't name the sources. This makes it impossible to verify, and also possible for the Post to just make stuff up, or take the word of sources who are making stuff up."

It's certainly true that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but we can certainly discuss implications based assumptions about the reporting.

[Moderation4ever]

If it was the case that survivors were shot that is murder and it needs to be investigated. It certainly more important that investigating Comey, James or any other person President Trump thinks he was wronged by.

[Martinned]

The first attack was also murder, and nobody is going to investigate that either, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[ThePublius]

You don't know enough about what actually happened to make that allegation honestly.

Were they hailed? Ordered to heave to? Did they ignore communications from the Navy or Coast Guard?

They are smugglers, after all, smuggling very dangerous cargo to the United States. Interdiction efforts are perfectly legal.

[Malika la Maize]

Should lethal force be used on drug traffickers?

[Krayt]

If the crime goes to completion, others will die. It's at least conceivable as an action.

I am not defending the action as a choice, however.

[ThePublius]

Yes, if they fail to comply with law enforcement.

[Martinned]

So in the US the police shoots people in the street if they fail to comply with an order? I knew that US law enforcement was pretty bad, but I didn't realise it was that bad.

Of course, none of that is relevant here, given that the US has no jurisdiction to require anyone to comply with anything far outside its territorial waters.

[ThePublius]

Not the same thing, Martinned. We are dealing with crimes on the high seas, not unlike dealing with pirates.

If you're heading for the U.S. in an obvious drug-smuggling boat and you refuse to stop, you get blown up. I support that policy.

I know you don't. What's your suggested alternative? Just let them go?

[Absaroka]

"and you refuse to stop"

How does the drone usually communicate the order to stop?

[ThePublius]

Uh, how about ship to ship communications, like marine VHF radio?

(I can only assume the drone has a VHF relay feature.)

"Yes, several U.S. Navy unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), such as the MQ-4C Triton and the MQ-8B Fire Scout, are specifically designed with a VHF communication relay capability as one of their key operational functions. Other platforms also integrate this feature for enhanced operational flexibility.
This capability is crucial for:
Extending communication range: Drones act as an airborne relay station, expanding the reach of terrestrial and ship-based radios beyond the line of sight and overcoming communication obstacles like terrain or distance.
Improving interoperability: The use of standard VHF frequencies allows Navy drones to communicate with other manned aircraft, surface vessels, and ground forces, ensuring seamless integration into shared airspace and joint operations.
Enhancing situational awareness: By relaying data, including full motion video and sensor information, to distant platforms like the P-8A Poseidon, the drones help build a comprehensive operational picture for various naval assets.
Supporting various missions: Beyond intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), communication relay is a dedicated mission profile for these aircraft, which can fly for extended periods (over 24 hours in the case of the Triton) at high altitudes.
Overall, VHF communication relay is a standard and vital feature for many of the Navy's larger, persistent unmanned systems, ensuring reliable connectivity across the fleet. "

[Absaroka]

Can you flesh out the details for us? For example, in these strikes, how many attempts are made by the drone to contact the smuggler's boats? Is there a particular frequency the smuggler boats are know to monitor? How many of these boats have suitable radios?

That some boats and some drones might have compatible radios is rather short of "in these instances an order to stop was successfully transmitted to the smugglers, who refused to comply".

One of my not-gonna-get-to-it bucket list things is sailing around in small boats. I'd hate to be merrily sailing along in international waters 500 miles from Cuba and have the Cubans decide I was probably trying to smuggle contraband leaflets and blow up my sailboat because I wasn't listening hard enough to the right radio channel. But folks seem to be arguing that random countries can bomb boats they don't like way offshore, and that's just the way things should be.

[not guilty]

"Not the same thing, Martinned. We are dealing with crimes on the high seas, not unlike dealing with pirates."

Interdiction, confiscation of the contraband, arrest and trial and trial is appropriate there. Summary execution is not.

And killing survivors of the initial strike is a war crime, as well as murder on the high seas being punishable by death under 18 U.S.C. § 1111.

[Malika la Maize]

Why does the high seas make it different? If an opioid dealer is at the local playground and cops tell him to halt but he runs it’s ok to shoot him in the back?

[Mr. Bumble]

Used to be.

[not guilty]

"Why does the high seas make it different?"

An essential element of murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1111(b) is the occurrence of the offense "[w]ithin the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States." Per 18 U.S.C. § 7(1), that includes the high seas.

It may or may not make a difference compared to other homicides, but it satisfies the subject matter jurisdiction of a federal court.

[David Nieporent]

Used to be.

Used to be legal to own black people, too.

[Martinned]

What's your suggested alternative? Just let them go?

Call me crazy, but have you considered the option of arresting them if/when they are within the jurisdiction of the United States?

[David Nieporent]

They are smugglers, after all, smuggling very dangerous cargo to the United States. Interdiction efforts are perfectly legal.

They. Were. Not. Smuggling. Anything. To. The. United. States. Not. Even. If. They. Are. Smugglers. They were more than a thousand miles away from the United States.

Now, it is true that drug interdiction efforts are legal. Some drug interdiction efforts. Murder is not one of those.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"more than a thousand miles away from the United States"

How far were they from the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico?

Anyway, one helpful summary which might not be totally up to date:

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/12/nx-s1-5604895/trump-venezuela-drug-boat-strikes

[loki13]

I mean, one of the issues with "Puerto Rico" (closer than the USVI) is this ....

Venezuela is a transhipment point for Columbian cocaine that is going ... to Europe. Not the US. Does that mean that no Columbian cocaine goes from Venezuela to (eventually) the US? No. A vanishingly small amount goes via boat to Mexico, where it then gets sent overland to the US.

But the "established routes" from Venezuela are to the ports of former EUROPEAN colonies (such as T&T), where it then gets shipped to Europe. Because that actually makes sense. It's ... really well known. It's also why the idea that this is about counter-narcotics is laughable; our actions have made our allies with significant counter-narcotics presence in the area stop sharing information with us because they don't want us to use it to unilaterally kill people, which they consider a war crime.

Which is why all of this has been BS. I'm not saying it's never happened- there is still active narcotics trafficking in the Caribbean. But it's not a Venezuela/US route. And it's not Venezuela/Puerto Rico. And it's not fentanyl.

It's all lies.

(Again, this is about the Venezuela pretext. The Pacific is a whole 'nother matter.)

[David Nieporent]

Were they hailed? Ordered to heave to? Did they ignore communications from the Navy or Coast Guard?

No. No. And No. They were killed by a drone strike without warning. Hegseth has bragged about this.

[DDHarriman]

There are your neighbors who, right now, are being arrested for making public statements about the illegals who raped them.

Yet you are here. Don't you love your neighbors? Why aren't you trying to make your community better? Only Leftists care what a Euro thinks.

[Martinned]

Are you off your medication somehow? You've descended from trolling to writing complete incoherent gibbrish.

[not guilty]

"There are your neighbors who, right now, are being arrested for making public statements about the illegals who raped them."

Supporting facts?

[DDHarriman]

If it was the case that survivors were shot If it was the case that survivors were shot

Yes, the entire world should take serious this SKY IS FALLING. It really is falling this time!!!

[Martinned]

That should make it all the easier for you to agree that murdering people is bad.

[ThePublius]

It's not murder.

You would seemingly argue that if a soldier shoots an enemy combatant twice, that the second shot is murder. I know you can make that argument.

[not guilty]

Is the hypothetical enemy combatant attempting to surrender after taking the first, non-lethal shot?

[ducksalad]

"taking" --> "receiving"

[David Nieporent]

If a soldier shoots an enemy civilian — which is what we're talking about — who isn't attacking him (or someone else) — which is what we're talking about — the first shot is murder.

[Estragon]

I once again am confused by this assertion. For one, that Bezos-owned WaPo would make up this story out of whole cloth doesn’t exactly to ring true to me, but I am not really interested in arguing about that with you.

I can see why Hegseth might be moved to deny saying “kill em all.” But why the MAGA insistence that this is a “hoax”? What difference does it make TO YOU if there was a second strike or if there were orders to leave no survivors? Aren’t you people broadly in favor of the murderboat policy? This seems like an inconsequential detail from the MAGA POV— a view proudly expressed by some of the local denizens on other threads relating to this subject. Hegseth repeatedly voiced his disdain for laws of war in his confirmation hearing. He championed the pardon of Eddie Gallagher. Of course he ordered the Code Red. Who cares?

[DDHarriman]

In order to GET TRUMP, you people are now smearing active Admirals and troops. Everyone on that boat had to be onboard with murdering survivors.

You can't just create this NEXT SHINY CONTROVERSY and pin it on a Trumper alone, you also have to make some collateral damage.

It's shameful, vile, and right on brand for the Left.

In one breath, the Seditious Six and their allies are recruiting traitors who are active duty and in the next you're smearing the ones who won't be in on your color revolution.

The Left continues to break norms. Dangerously so.

[Estragon]

“smearing active Admirals and troops. Everyone on that boat had to be onboard with murdering survivors.”

What is the “smear”? If this is a “hoax” all these boaters are dead in the first strike anyways— much to the delight of you people. The second strike makes it a “murder” and “smear”? Why? Several commentators here have accepted the story at face value and stridently defended what happened!

To me, what this comment illustrates is the intended audience for the “hoax” comments— GOP voters and politicians who are uncomfortable about being the actual baddies. This is the reason we see this linked to Mark Kelly and others; it is a familiar tactic used by the Trump people to avoid accountability: to make it into a partisan issue, in order to enforce partisan loyalty. One can vividly see the cost of going against the Trump orthodoxy, so once the issue becomes coded as partisan, the price of seeking accountability becomes extremely high for Republicans. But it only takes a few.

[DDHarriman]

>What is the “smear”?

The accusations being made. Wtf is going on? The accusations you people are making are the smear.

>To me, what this comment illustrates is the intended audience for the “hoax” comments— GOP voters and politicians who are uncomfortable about being the actual baddies.

Our unsupported accusations are true, as proven by your challenging of them! If you were innocent, you wouldn't bother proclaiming your innocence!!

No offense, dude, and I know you're probably an adult, but that's grade school reasoning. Whatever mental spot you're in, it's not a good one. It's regressing to an a more juvenile state.

[Estragon]

“Accusation” implies that the “hoax”— if true— would constitute bad, (unlawful?) conduct. Conduct for which— again, if true— would call for some accountability? Do you believe that to be the case?

If not— I don’t see why the truth or falsity of these “accusations” would matter— TO YOU— or to any of the various other commentators here who have stridently defended this with, for example, intricate Al-Qaeda hypotheticals for days. Which leads me to surmise it’s about other people— the squishes on your side.

[Estragon]

And if that’s the case, buckle up. The lead story on my Fox local newscast today prominently featured the words “Hegseth” and “war crimes”. Sinclair affiliate, btw.

[DDHarriman]

Whaoao (sp?) that thounds thuper therious. "Hegseth" and "war crimes" appeared somewhere near each other ON A LOCAL FOX AFFILIATE!!?!?!?!

WHAT?!?!? NO WAY!!! Was it Sinclair? If so, that's how we know this is Serious Bizzness.

It's MEULLER TIME!!!! FINALLY!!!!!

[Estragon]

This is exactly the attitude I would expect people like you to take! And honestly— with good reason! It is pretty much unthinkable that anyone like Hegseth would face accountability. Which is why, again, it’s a little puzzling that you guys are leaning so hard into: it’s a hoax and an unforgivable smear… unless it’s gaining traction with the less-online squishes who watch the noon news

[DDHarriman]

Which is why, again, it’s a little puzzling that you guys are leaning so hard into: it’s a hoax and an unforgivable smear… unless it’s gaining traction with the less-online squishes who watch the noon news

Yes!!! We are so worried that this narrative is finally going to sink Bulletproof Trump! THIS IS THE END!!!!

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the parade of easily debunked Leftwing hoaxes that were just as THUPER THERIOUS!

[DDHarriman]

“Accusation” implies that the “hoax”— if true— would constitute bad, (unlawful?) conduct.

Now you're reading into my use of the word 'accusation'.

Keeping rolling them chicken bones, they're telling you everything you want to hear!!!

[Estragon]

[David Nieporent]

To reiterate, that quote itself appears to be a fabrication. Not by ThePublius — it appears online elsewhere — but not in any actual source at all.

But of course between the WaPo and an administration official, an intelligent person believes the WaPo every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Estragon]

“The Washington Post just made up this story of 'two men clinging to the boat,' and the commander ordering a second strike to kill them.”

The second strike portion of this hot take has already aged well.

[Michael P]

The headline at https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-mri-physical-white-house-0c66f2f9fca865d842ee94329a210a42 is typical of MSM lies: "Trump says he’ll release MRI results; he doesn’t know what part of his body was scanned"

The only fact offered in support of the second half of the headline is a quote:

“It was just an MRI,” he said. “What part of the body? It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.”

An honest headline would say "he doesn't specify which part of his body was scanned", but such tricky words might be too hard for today's Associated Press.

[Malika la Maize]

That hardly rates a lie. A mischaracterization maybe. A problem with the internet is anything that’s not completely accurate and in context becomes a “lie.”

[Michael P]

The only way it's not a lie is if Trump really doesn't know what body part got scanned.

No surprise that Malicia is a strong defender of media lies.

[Malika la Maize]

Claims can be wrong without being a lie, but I get you don’t get to get your rage on as much talking that way.

[Michael P]

The headline isn't in the nature of an innocently wrong claim. It's a defamatory statement without a remotely reasonable basis in the text, apologia and attempted distraction from you notwithstanding.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s an unsupportable inference (he didn’t say what it was for so he must not have known). Again, not everything is a lie.

[Michael P]

"Lie" is a more parsimonious explanation than your implied alternative hypothesis of an ignorant (that people generally know what part of their body gets an MRI), incompetent (by writing a headline containing "an unsupportable inference") and hostile (to the general public, apparently) headline writer who the AP still allows to caption stories about world leaders.

[ducksalad]

You two are both on the wrong track. The most obvious explanation is that:

- His brain was exactly what was scanned,
- Trump knows it was his brain that was scanned, and therefore
- the MSM also lied when it said he didn't know. Although "snarked" would be a better verb than "lied".

[Estragon]

“the MSM also lied when it said he didn't know”

No. Just watch the video. He clearly states he doesn’t know. Whether you choose to believe that is up to you.

[ducksalad]

But if the MSM knew (or had reason to suspect) that Trump was lying, then the MSM was also lying when they said he "doesn't know".

The minimally correct headline would have been "Trump claims he doesn't know...".

A more accurate headline would be "Trump tried to claim he doesn't know..." but I acknowledge there are space constraints in a headline.

[Estragon]

And your first point was obviously correct. They are monitoring the progression of dementia, which is why they keep giving him these “cognitive” tests he is bragging about acing. Those tests are for monitoring deterioration. Same with the MRIs.

He said “I don’t know” because he realizes there’s no other plausible body part to claim.

[Kazinski]

They do a cognitive assessment on everyone over 65 routinely as part of an annual physical.

So certainly b they would do it at his age, but totally routine.

[Estragon]

“Annual”

Heh

[bernard11]

They do a cognitive assessment on everyone over 65 routinely as part of an annual physical.

Bullshit, Kazinski. I'm well past 65 and have never had a cognitive assessment done, as part of an annual physical or any other time.

Neither have friends and relatives over 65.

Don't lie.

[Malika la Maize]

Parsimonious? I agree it’s uncharitable, that’s kind of my point.

“an ignorant (that people generally know what part of their body gets an MRI)”

Can you translate this gibberish?

[Krayt]

Claims can be wrong without being a lie, but I get you don’t get to get your rage on as much talking that way.

Now do banks charging outrageous fees for overdrafts, but because they're your friend, they won't report it to the credit agencies, and credit card companies claiming they jack up your rates when you get into financial trouble because you're a risk, and not to trap you forever.

[Estragon]

Why would you accept this guys assertion at face value at this point? He does this all the time. See below.

[Frank Drackman]

I remember when they did an MRI on Sleepy Joe's Brain, they didn't find anything.

[Estragon]

Well, no, the article says this:

“Trump added Sunday that he has “no idea” on what part of his body he got the MRI.” That’s part of the quote too, obviously:

Q: can you tell us what they were looking at?

A: For what, releasing?

Q: No, what part of your body was the MRI looking at?

A: I have no idea. It was just an MRI. What part of the body? It wasn’t the brain because I took a cognitive test and I aced it— I got a perfect mark.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sRqHZmo9TnM

So headline seems accurate after all. This feels like another one of those instances when you were hoping people didn’t actually click the link.

[Malika la Maize]

Q: can you tell us what they were looking at?

A: For what, releasing?

Q: No, what part of your body was the MRI looking at?

A: I have no idea

Ouch. Was Mikie Q lying?

[hobie]

MAGA is mad because no one will allow that Trump's hand stains are actually stigmata.

[Estragon]

Heh. Here’s a guess:

https://www.alz.org/alzheimers-dementia/treatments/lecanemab-leqembi

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, if it was a whole body MRI, he wouldn't know; They could have done it, and then looked at anything.

[Estragon]

Ok, so he doesn’t know. Seems like you agree Michael P is full of it.

As for your level of credulity, let’s just say— I find it to be situational.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, I've HAD a whole body MRI once. Once we were done determining that my lymphoma was gone without any sign, my doctor asked if I felt like looking at any other part of my body.

So I know that you don't have to decide in advance what to look at.

For a President, of course, they probably went over the scan with a fine tooth comb from scalp to toenails.

[Michael P]

Your attempted dunk aged like a fine fish head, Estrogen.

[David Nieporent]

1) The quote you provide in fact supports the second half of the headline. If it was his knee, he'd have said, "It was my knee," not "It wasn't the brain."

2) Moreover, it's weird how you ignored the sentence previous to that one in the linked article: "Trump added Sunday that he has 'no idea' on what part of his body he got the MRI."

And in case you're going to play dumb because the quoted words weren't given context, here's the whole sentence:

Pressed by a reporter on which part of his body the MRI examined, Trump said, “I have no idea. It was just an MRI — what part of the body? It wasn’t the brain, because I took a cognitive test and I aced it.”

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/politics/mri-results-trump

[Malika la Maize]

Two tales of artistic treasure found:

A copy of the first Superman issue, unearthed by three brothers cleaning out their late mother's attic, netted $9.12 million this month at a Texas auction house which says it is the most expensive comic book ever sold.

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/25/g-s1-99204/superman-comic-book-fetches-9-million

For more than four centuries, people believed it had vanished.

But after being discovered in a Paris townhouse, a painting from the 17th century Baroque master Peter Paul Rubens sold Sunday at the Osenat auction house in Versailles for 2.3 million euros ($2.7 million).

The painting, titled Christ on the Cross, was completed in 1613 but soon vanished from public view. For centuries, its existence was known only through engravings, printed reproductions made by other artists. Its whereabouts remained a mystery until the auctioneer Jean-Pierre Osenat uncovered it in September 2024 during a routine inspection of a Paris home he was preparing to sell.

[Malika la Maize]

Cite for latter story:

https://www.npr.org/2025/11/30/nx-s1-5626173/rubens-painting-sells-for-2-7-million-at-auction

[David Nieporent]

I'm glad you provided the second link, because for a moment I thought that the Superman comic had been missing for four centuries.

[Malika la Maize]

That would be an amazing DC multiverse story!

[Magister]

So if Rubens had made the first painting of Superman, it would have been worth at least $11.82 million, right?

[SRG2]

I am often amazed by the price difference for "popular" art and artists, and worthier art and artists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_paintings

[Ska]

Having gone to the Peggy Guggenheim and the Uffizi in the same week, and as much as I like Max Ernst's style of paintings, a Botticelli is always going to be more impressive to me.

Art dealing is its own weird, cooked up market. I'm happy to have seen a lot and didn't have to pay much for it. I'll live with that takeaway.

[SRG2]

much as I like Max Ernst's style of paintings, a Botticelli is always going to be more impressive to me.

Yes - there are plenty of 20thC painters I really like - Malevich, Mondrian, Modigliani, Magritte, etc. but against say Holbein, Ingres, Caravaggio, etc. they fall slightly short. And I find it astonishing that De Kooning and Rothko sell for far more than most old masters could possibly fetch.

FWIW there's a wonderful SF short story, I forget by whom - it might have been by Robert Sheckley - following a global economic collapse, with major food shortages and barter economies, someone pays for a case of Campbell's soup with...a Warhol Campbell's Soup painting. (I went to a Warhol exhibition in Malaga in 2019 and I found him to be a much better "draftsman" as an artist than I would have given him credit for, and his pop stuff was delightful in the flesh, though not worth the $$$.)

[Michael P]

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/anger-simmers-over-hong-kong-deadly-blaze-beijing-warns-against-disruption-2025-11-30/

Residents of Wang Fuk Court were told by authorities last year they faced "relatively low fire risks" after complaining about fire hazards posed by the renovations, the city's Labour Department said.
The residents raised concerns in September 2024, including about the potential flammability of the mesh contractors used to cover the scaffolding, a department spokesperson said.

Low fire risks ... relative to what?

[Frank Drackman]

You know you posted that only so you could type
"Wang Fuk"

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

Just running through the 12 teams who should make the College Foo-Bawl Playoff,
Lets see, out of the Big 17 (is it 17? I lost track when Nebraska joined) you've got Ohio State, Indiana, Oregon, SEC there's Alabama (dammit) Georgia (double dammit) Ole Miss (Nelson "Ha Ha" laugh), and Texas A&M, Big 12 (16 teams, don't tell them) Texas Tech and BYU (#11 in the AP, do they stay in with a loss, I say they do) Notre Dame (HT Rudy), and then 2 more Conference Champions, you know, one of those Powerhouses like Virginia, Duke, John Madison, Tulane,
Lets see, is that 12?? Is somebody missing??
Oklahoma?? Oklahoma?? has anyone seen Oklahoma??
Oh you beat Alabama?? Did you do that "Receiver pretends he's leaving the playing field then catches TD Pass Play"???? Karma Bee-otch
Miami?? oh you beat Notre Dame?? C'mon Man! August games don't count!

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

A good question is should the 12 “best” teams in the sense of what an informed committee thinks are theoretically the best teams right now be chosen or should the season’s accomplishments determine? I like the latter because it’s more objective. So if, say, Virginia wins the ACC Championship game I think they should edge Miami even though if they played right now I’d bet on Miami.

[Frank Drackman]

What if Duke wins?? (could happen)
and can we stop pretending James Madison, Tulane, or Notre Dame has a chance of winning a Natty??

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

I think the five losses > the conference championship in that case.

[not guilty]

No love for Vanderbilt, Frank? They finished the season 10-2 with losses only to Alabama and Texas.

[Frank Drackman]

Which puts them behind Oklahoma who beat Alabama, once Diego goes to the NFL Vandy goes back to their Tackling Dummy status.

[apedad]

Airman indicted in scheme to overthrow Haitian island, take sex slaves

A U.S. Air Force service member was charged on Nov. 20 after reportedly hatching a plan to seize control of a Haitian island and enslave its population in a violent coup, according to a Justice Department release.

Tanner Christopher Thomas, 20, an airman stationed in Texas, and Gavin Rivers Weisenburg, 21, were named in a two-count indictment and charged with conspiracy to murder, maim or kidnap in a foreign country and production of child pornography. They were both residents of the Eastern District of Texas, where the indictment was filed.

The FBI, U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations and Celina Police Department are investigating the case, which will be prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Locker.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2025/11/25/airman-indicted-in-scheme-to-overthrow-haitian-island-take-sex-slaves/

Guys, the USAF motto is "Aim High!" not "Aim for something that's completely whacked."

An indictment is merely an allegation. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course the idea of any USAF member doing anything remotely Military that doesn't involve an Airplane or Drone is patently ridiculous.

[Martinned]

I guess that's one of those things that are only legal when the bosses do it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/01/trump-maduro-ultimatum-relinquish-power-venezuela

[Frank Drackman]

Ask your Kingie-Wingie

[Bwaaah]

From the indictment: "Weisenburg and Thomas planned to purchase a sailboat, firearms, and ammunition, then recruit members of the District of Columbia-area homeless population to serve as a mercenary force as they invaded Gonave Island and staged a coup d'etat. Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves."

[Frank Drackman]

Typical Air Farce, contract the dirty work out.

[Brett Bellmore]

Wow, that sounds like a pretty stupid plan even setting aside the immorality of it.

[David Nieporent]

Wow, that sounds like a pretty stupid plan even setting aside the immorality of it.

Wait, are you describing Trump vis-à-vis Greenland?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I said that two weeks ago....

[Poxigah146]

Haiti would be better off under the control of white mercenaries than their homegrown black gang bangers who have taken control of the island.

[OpinionsVary]

"Weisenburg and Thomas intended to murder all of the men on the island so that they could then turn all of the women and children into their sex slaves."

[Swede425]

I don't believe it.
WAY too ambitious for somebody in the Air Force.
Do they even have air conditioning in Haiti?

[Malika la Maize]

Lot of bitterness from Swedish Meatball’s poor ASVAB performance….

[apedad]

ASVAB!

Our Frank D. is having flashbacks on his test, especially the Word Knowledge (WK) and Verbal Paragraph Comprehension (PC) sections.

[Frank Drackman]

I scored 99.99th Percentile but they took me anyway.

[hobie]

If they had been smart, they would have declared that they were almost 70% certain there's drugs on the island then drop some bombs. Simples

[Jerry B.]

I do like the New York Post's description of the accused.

https://nypost.com/2025/11/21/us-news/texas-creeps-indicted-in-murderous-plot-to-invade-tiny-island-and-make-women-and-kids-their-sex-slaves-feds/

[Poxigah146]

Lazy cops who respond to a complaint of a crime with "It's a civil matter" should be prosecuted for conspiracy against rights.

[apedad]

Only if there's an actual "conspiracy against rights" which is a criminal matter which can be prosecuted by the state.

OTOH

"A civil matter is a private dispute between two or more parties, which can be individuals or organizations. These disagreements revolve around the rights and responsibilities that these parties owe to one another, often involving financial compensation or a specific action. Unlike criminal cases brought by the government, civil cases are initiated by a private party, the plaintiff, against another party, the defendant. The outcome of a civil case does not result in jail time but rather a legal remedy, such as a monetary judgment."

https://legalclarity.org/do-police-investigate-civil-matters/

[Frank Drackman]

How long until we hear about the Environmental Holocaust of killing Narcotics Traffickers?? I mean you've got the boat itself, loaded with fuel, lead batteries, the drugs, polluting the water, the very water Fishies and Dolphins drink!!!!!
Oh, and the nicer boats have bathrooms, the Traffickers have to piss/shit somewhere.
OK, maybe the Sharks snacking on the Traffickers Corpses saves a Seal or two.

Frank

[Estragon]

Very clever, but someone already beat you to this yesterday. I wonder where you two picked it up? Are you two cribbing Gutfield material or something? Might explain a lot…

[DDHarriman]

"The WEF sold the “Great Reset” as “build back better” — climate action, ESG, inclusion, and PPP.

In practice, it shifted power away from voters to NGOs, corporate elites, and unelected technocrats.

Policy was relabeled “science” to silence debate.

Markets were warped by ESG scores, carbon taxes, and paper-pushing regulation.

Corporations were turned into enforcers of ideology."

Powerful. The low level Lefties around here have been nothing but useful idiots.

The Great Reset failed. Freedom and Liberty prevailed. Humanity won.

[apedad]

Rogue Minogue? Republican gubernatorial candidate distances himself from GOP identity

(Massachusetts) Republican gubernatorial candidate Mike Minogue is catching flak from his two primary challengers following a recent interview where he distanced himself from identifying with the GOP.

In an interview with WBUR, Minogue said he does not identify with a political party, despite running as a Republican candidate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rogue-minogue-republican-gubernatorial-candidate-distances-himself-from-gop-identity/ar-AA1RtOwN?ocid=BingNewsSerp

I thought it was the Democrats who were supposed to have "identity" issues.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The mASSgop stopped being Republican in 1990.

[Joe_dallas]

How many leftist voted for Harris - Walz Ticket - Walz being the champion of fraudsters.

The X account for Minnesota Department of Human Service Employees posted a remarkable statement squarely blaming Gov. Tim Walz for “massive fraud” in the state’s welfare system and accusing his administration of retaliating against whistleblowers instead of stopping the theft.

https://x.com/Minnesota_DHS/status/1994993895428461006

[Malika la Maize]

lol, this is clearly some disgruntled rogue group.

https://x.com/Minnesota_DHS

“We are over 480 current staff of the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) “

Over 480, lol.

The MN DHS has about 7,000 employees.

jd duped again!

[David Nieporent]

That doesn't mean it's not legitimate. Indeed, that would be a significant percentage. (If it's true; we have no way to know. For all we know the twitter account involves 0 state employees and is actuallys run by Voltage! guy from his mother's basement where he lives.¹) But I'm betting the people who accept this tweet at face value are the same people who rant at the Washington Post's reporting for being based on anonymous sources.
​
​
¹For example, there's a twitter account called "US Tech Workers" which rants about H1Bs, but is actually run by a single individual who isn't a tech worker.

[DDHarriman]

Voltage probably lives in your mother's basement. He surely makes sensual, but gentle love to her frequently. She's one of his faves - surely- when he's feeling lazy and just wants release. Even with her doughy softness.

[David Nieporent]

Confessing to necrophilia certainly doesn't make you sound less troll-y.

[DDHarriman]

Doesn't make HIM less troll-y... 😉

[Estragon]

lol this is hilarious because the first version of this comment said “I live in your mother’s basement” before you edited it! Maybe we can get Life of Brian on the case here?

[Life of Brian]

I mean, the first version of your comment said "I know I'm an opportunistic, too-cute knucklehead, but..." so who's keeping score?

[Estragon]

“too-cute”

This is pretty rich coming from you. I think we’re done here.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, we were done before your first comment. I'm glad you now recognize how silly it was.

[DDHarriman]

I am heavily into cuckolding

Woah Estragon. I know this is Open Thread but come'on man, some of us have high social status and can't be seen around you LGBTQP freaks.

[Estragon]

I’m hesitant to give you any advice to make this little project of yours more effective, but, in the US we typically spell it “whoa.” When you write “woah” under multiple handles it kind of hurts the charade. I have more advice for you if you like…

[DDHarriman]

https://www.dictionary.com/e/whoa-or-woah/

It's plenty common informally.

That's the good thing about your serial ignorance. There is no doubt when a comment is authored by you.

It's not a secret that I rotate my handle. If you knew anything about cybersecurity, online privacy, OSINT, or what's happening with Big Data & AI, you'd do the same too.

[Estragon]

“Plenty common”

Well, that is not my experience but my point was more about the serial appearance of this idiosyncratic spelling in this particular space rather than its larger real-world prevalence.

“It's not a secret that I rotate my handle“

Thank you for being so forthcoming. Would you be willing to provide a list of your former handles? Merely for Brian’s edification.

[DDHarriman]

I don't really feel like undoing my protocols and safety just so you can continue to embarrass yourself and look the fool. You are doing a good job without an assist by me.

Think about how fucking stupid your request even is?

[Life of Brian]

When you write “woah” under multiple handles it kind of hurts the charade.

Now this is the sort of brilliant gumshoeing I can totally get behind. Who knew Nieporent, Loki, and shawn_dude were all Voltage alts?

[Estragon]

“It's not a secret that I rotate my handle“

[Life of Brian]

I know, right? Who knew that all this time the Nieporent handle was just fake-arguing with the others? That's some dedication.

[DDHarriman]

> "Last night our Bull broke our bed. I love cuckolding, it's like a box of chocolates! You never know what you're gonna get! (Except my missus , she always gets the BBC 😉 )"

Whoa, Estragon! Dude. Enough. We get it. It's not Pride Month anymore.

(there, happy now?)

[DDHarriman]

I can't believe I missed the obvious joke...

His wife always get THE CHOCOLATE... that would've been better, right Frank?

[Dr. Ed 2]

10% would be 700, 5% would be 350.

So 480 is significant in this context.

[David Nieporent]

I like how he couldn't just say "480 is about 7%," but had to include the other figures.

[A Japanese Student]

Yomiuri Newspaper published an article. A pediatric clinic doctor gave 5-star to his own business, and 1-star to competitor's, on Google Maps. No comments. But the competitor clinic complains... in a court of law. It lost because posting a 1-star itself is not tortious.

But here's the thing I'm more curious about: the article notes that the poster was identified using "U.S. legal procedures". So I did what normal people do, and searched RECAP, and there it is: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68478876/meiyoukai-medical-corporation/

(This also exposes the identity of the plaintiff, which is a big no-no in Japanese legal reporting.)

But should this discovery have been allowed? I'm not familiar with the standards for pleading interference with business activities or if these kinds of postings are actionable under antitrust laws, but the bulk of the claim is that a corporation is being defamed by a pure expression of opinion. Does the First Amendment apply to these discoveries?

[Brett Bellmore]

It could, after all, be a fraudulent review, if you didn't actually interact with the business. That wouldn't be protected.

[apedad]

Seems like the pediatric doctor also posted a fraudulent review on his clinic too.

"Engaging in the creation of fake online business reviews is not a harmless promotional tactic; it is an activity with legal consequences. A fake review is any testimonial that does not reflect a genuine consumer’s experience. This includes a business owner writing positive reviews for their own company . . . . "

https://legalclarity.org/is-writing-fake-business-reviews-illegal/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The Commanders had a gutsy game down to a failed two-point conversion in OT after coming back when Denver scored a TD.

Symbolic of giving it your all, even if you lose in the end, including multiple 4th Down escapes with their back-up QB.

The Saints had their own excitement. They gave up a rare defensive two-point play. Then, they manage the about as rare successful onside kick. And lose anyway, helped by that two-point play requiring them to score a TD instead of a FG.

[Malika la Maize]

The NFL is really a “any given Sunday” thing this year. The Jets pulled one out from the Falcons. It’s interesting how Tyrod Taylor has made a meaningful but quiet career being the game manager teams turn to when the number one doesn’t work out.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Nice win by the Jets, but the Falcons have four wins. It wasn't THAT amazing. It's an example of how a good game manager with some help (the Falcons gifted the Jets with a TD) can win some games.

[David Nieporent]

The Potatoes (as my daughter calls them — anything is better than the lame "Commanders") were robbed on several bad calls. But they made the right call on going for the two-point conversion. What's the point of a 3-8 team playing for a tie?

[Malika la Maize]

What's the point of a 3-8 team playing for a tie?

Truth.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Karma went their way with the calls, including surviving two back-to-back questionable calls that led to a 2nd and 25, which they survived. And, yes, besides Denver probably would have drove for a win if they did play for a tie.

[Estragon]

Especially since they already covered!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In Clayman v. Bessant, (SD FL, Nov. 24, 2025), a Florida federal district court rejected plaintiff's RFRA, Free Exercise, Establishment Clause, Takings Clause and other challenges to the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency. Plaintiff alleged that unlike prior cases which have rejected similar claims, he raises "unique Jewish religious objections" and cites "Jewish Hasmonean and Maccabean religious traditions and obligations, which strongly oppose the casual or superfluous use of G-d’s sacred Name in secular contexts."

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/11/in-god-we-trust-on-currency-does-not.html

The opinion partially references a "108-page First Amended Complaint."

A creative argument all around. As a matter of principle, we shouldn't have a sectarian religious message on our currency.

Various methods are used to allow it, including references to "ceremonial deism," and it isn't keeping me up at night, but it still is a bad policy.

[loki13]

Oh, I know how much the people here hate actual information and enjoy "just think of the suffering we inflict" arguments, but here's a really good legal rundown of the issues with the report of Hegseth's order:

https://www.justsecurity.org/125948/illegal-orders-shipwrecked-boat-strike-survivors/

I recommend reading it before making more stupid comments. It tracks what I've already heard from several people who know what they are talking about.

...which is probably why they don't comment here. Or, for that matter, post here as a contributor. I miss Prof. Kerr, but I respect his decision to back away. Gotta let Blackman freestyle, amirite?

[Malika la Maize]

Kerr represents everything right with the contributors here, like Balko did the main site.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, loki13.

I note that the article does not discuss federal criminal law. In that context the September 10 Just Security article by Professor Marty Lederman, who served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel from 2021-2023 and 2009-2010, and as an Attorney Advisor at the Office of Legal Counsel from 1994-2002, remains useful. https://www.justsecurity.org/120296/many-ways-caribbean-strike-unlawful/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email This article was published before the second strike on the hapless survivors of the initial strike came to public attention, but the criminal statutes cited in the article apply with even greater force to that second strike.

Secretary Hegseth deserves to be impeached, and he and Admiral Bradley belong in prison.

[loki13]

You're welcome, although I don't think that knowledge of the actual legal framework will change the minds of the True Believers(tm).

To me, this is a simple moral issue before you even get to the inarguable legal framework. This is .... I mean, this is what the bad people do. I thought we were all taught that. Nazis and evil people would machine gun survivors of sea battles; but the good guys (what we used to be?) .... we didn't do that.

I feel like the next step is for Hegseth to unironically ask Hugo Boss to design more "manly" uniforms for his Department of War; maybe have some skulls on 'em.

[Absaroka]

"we didn't do that"

Unfortunately, we did: see the Buyo Maru incident, or the Bismarck Sea strafing.

Those were wrong. In fairness, unlike the present, there was a full scale war on, in which Japan's forces behaved horribly across the board. That doesn't make those instances right. And those mitigating factors don't exist at present.

[DDHarriman]

This entire premise of yours rests on "two people familiar with the matter".

Talk about True Believers(tm). This really is fodder for the 'Tards. They have to keep stringing you along from one moral outrage to the next. They want to bathe your bodies and minds in cortisol and get you rabid so you'll start acting out violently like we're starting to see.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prof. Adler, with whom I disagree in various respects, primarily linked to two legal commentators with some expertise in the matter when flagging this issue.

Which he finds particularly notable. He is not here regularly posting stuff against Trump. He, in fact, posted one or more criticisms of judges he thinks went too far against Trump.

He disagrees with Trump on some issues but it is not something he spends much time on. Underlines the red flag.

Just Security and Lawfare, as seen by your link, provide helpful explainers and coverage of these issues.

Besides a bunch of "just asking questions," a common "whatabout" is a reference to drone strikes under past administrations, especially under Obama. As I noted in the past, as have others, past usage of drones is quite different in various ways, including drone strikes pursuant to congressional authorization of force.

[Life of Brian]

Man that is some world-class, scorched-earth question begging. Just imagine what you can prove if you assume a spherical cow!

[TwelveInchPianist]

The reporting is just incredibly sloppy, and it's still not clear what Hegseth ordered.

Most people would understand an order to "Kill everybody" or "Sink the boat" or whatever to be implicitly constrained by the LOAC. Don't sink the boat if the crew surrenders, etc.

I think an order to "ensure the strike kill[s] everyone on board" is less likely to be interpreted that way.

[Bob from Ohio]

" it's still not clear what Hegseth ordered"

Or when. The article excerpt implied it was between the first missile and the second on this specific day.

[Malika la Maize]

As a long time Reason reader (I used to get an actual print subscription back in the day), I’m very curious about this. A big tenet of the libertarian party used to be some level of drug legalization. How can the government use force to tell you what you can put in your body?

And yet here we are decades later and the current “right” commenters are almost uniformly cheering on the military’s summary killing of people for…bringing drugs into the country that only willing purchasers will buy.

As said on SNL, What’s Up With That?

[loki13]

Well, that's a good point, but ... only a part of it.

It's bad enough that these people have decided that run-of-the-mill (alleged) crime is now worthy of summary execution.

It's worse that the crime is something that we were moving toward decriminalization.

But what really gets me is that they uncritically accept the repeated lies that they have been told about all of this?

1. They are "narco-terrorists." WTF? They aren't terrorists of any kind, no proof has been given, and even assuming they were drug smugglers, they weren't terrorists.

2. They were drug smugglers. Well, most likely in some cases (the submarine), and probably in many. But in a few ... it's been contested, and we have refused to provided any proof.

3. We identified who they were before striking! Yeah, that didn't last. Now it's "They were within three degrees of a drug trafficker, and in a drug lane (which is the entire Caribbean and/or Pacific).

4. They are smuggling fentanyl. That became "precursor to fentanyl," and then "associated with fentanyl" when everyone pointed out that no fentanyl comes from Venzuela.

5. They were smuggling it to the United States! INVASION! Again, that was BS, and anyone with a passing knowledge of, um, how boats work knew that. Those boats could not have reached the United States. They were going to another island, or maybe Mexico, or maybe fishing. But they certainly weren't coming here (Caribbean only- that actually isn't true of the Pacific strikes; unlike the administration, I try not to lie).

Of course, we all know what the truth is. Right? It's not about drug smuggling. Blowing up a few drug boats and/or fishing boats in the Caribbean that aren't going to the US carrying cocaine and/or fish doesn't do a thing about drug use in the US. Nada. It doesn't even drop the price of cocaine or fish. Let alone fentanyl.

But it does give us a reason to station all sorts of assets off the coast of Venezuela, which happens to have a lot of oil that Trump wants. Almost like there is a financial motive. I know, weird! It's almost as weird as our country pushing a Russian-authored peace plan because Witkoff and Kushner have financial incentives to do so.

But that would mean Trump saw the Presidency as something like one of his charities- to serve his financial interests (and those of his cronies), not to benefit the American people. That couldn't possibly be the case, amirite?

[Moderation4ever]

The Trump administration has embarked on a foolish plan to address drug abuse and drug deaths at the supply side. The failure to address drugs at the demand side will only lead to higher prices which addicts must pay. Higher prices mean more profits which just incentives smugglers. What you are likely to see is improvements in the smuggling techniques.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent"

Many people who comment here are not big fans of the "often libertarian" part, at least, regarding immigration and other issues.

I think it is a bit much to say "bringing drugs into the country that only willing purchasers will buy." Does that include the minors who will use some of the illegal drugs?

Anyway, the drugs are not being imported as part of legal commerce. So, how do we address that until the policy changes?

It's quite true that a libertarian could also be thinking about addressing the ultimate issue. Speaking about libertarian thought:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5799482

[loki13]

Well, let's think this through. Imagine, for a second, that we were serious about controlling the supply side of drugs. And that this wasn't just an "image and optics" way of moving a lot of forces into proximity of Venezuela.

Next, imagine that we had truly legalized the idea of "unilaterally blowing shit up in the water if it might be part of the narco-train that will eventually lead to drugs in the United States, and we are justified in doing so because of the Fentanyl OD epidemic."

So, what would be the most efficacious way to do so?

Well, in terms of the water, the best way to do that would be blow up ships from China going to Mexico containing all the precursor chemicals. Wouldn't be hard to figure it out. That would massively impact the ability to manufacture fentanyl in Mexico, which ... um, that's where it's coming from. That would be the best actual use of "water based kill 'em all strikes." But we aren't doing that.

Next, the actual main issue is the overland smuggling routes from Mexico into the United States. So let's talk about land-based solutions.

Now, one way to interdict this would be to start blowing up traffic going from Mexico to the US. That would work. We could also have military strikes within northern Mexico to blow up their end of various traffic routes.

...that would have an actual and measurable impact. Well, on the drug trade and a lot of other things, but it would have an actual impact. But we aren't.

Of course, we could also target the real facilitators of the drug trade- we could target the financial firms and workers in various narco-enclaves (like the Caymans, Panama, etc.) that enable the drug trade through money laundering and banking. If we are blowing up fisherman that does almost nothing, why not start hitting bank branches? HSBC, for one, has a long and storied history ... with drug traffickers. Blow up a few HSBC branches with kinetic strikes ("Kill em all! Three steps from drug traffickers!") and I think you'll see that incentives change quickly.

But we don't do that, do we? Once you start to ask why we don't, the real issues with this "plan" become quickly apparent.

[Sarcastr0]

What with the shifting justifications and the smug gloating it all reads as rationalization people that find validation in this regime being able to murder people.

I didn't want this object lesson in people fervently supporting authoritarianism finding some kind of flex in no consequence murdering, but here we are.

[David Nieporent]

I am still a print subscriber. Have been for probably 30 years.

Anyway, virtually none of the commenters or bloggers at the VC are libertarian, so there's no real contradiction.

[ReaderY]

In Bracy v. Gramley, the Supreme court took up the case of someone convicted by Thomas J. Maloney, an Illinois judge who had taken bribes to fix murder cases. Bracy argued that Judge Maloney came down hard on non-payers for two reasons. For the general public, it enhanced Judge Maloney’s reputation as a law-and-order tough-on-crime stalwart and helped deflect suspicion. For prospective customers, it underscored what happens to people who don’t pay.

Given that Trump has just pardoned a drug kingpin, one wonders if the strikes off Venezualian waters serve a similar dual purpose.

[loki13]

For those curious, the first appellate decision on the various unlawful Trump appointments to USA positions was released earlier.

In a 3-0 opinion, the 3d Cir. affirmed the district court and found that Alina Habba was not the United States Attorney.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26313458-habbaopn120125/

This means that, to date, every district court and appellate court has found against Trump and Bondi on this issue. I would note that there are slightly different fact patterns in the cases, but still.

There is some interesting language in the 3d Circuit's opinion on pp. 31-32 re: exclusivity that might be worth remembering when it comes to Bondi's other tricks (ratification and "special attorneys") to try and get around this issue, see, e.g., Halligan.

[loki13]

Heh. I just noticed a whole thread on this on the main page.

[DDHarriman]

In recent memory, has there ever been a time where there wasn't some Lefty Crisis that everyone is supposed to be panicked about and cede power/control to the Globalist/Lefty elites to solve with some revolutionary changes to governance, quality of life, or economy?

[David Nieporent]

You mean like immigration? Or drugs? Or crime?

[DDHarriman]

No. I meant what I asked.

Come on David. Just once act like us humans.

[John 4]

You forgot: Murphy Brown, the Dixie Chicks, Obama's birth certificate (tan suit, Dijon mustard, etc.), Freedom Fries, transgendered people, Budweiser, a Puerto Rican at the Super Bowl halftime show, people posting Charlie Kirk's own words, Jimmy Kimmel, legislative representatives reminding troops that they don't have to follow illegal orders, Hunter Biden's laptop, Hillary's emails, litterboxes in the classroom, immigrants eating cats and dogs, the appearance of CGI M&M's in commercials, Colin Kaepernick kneeling, NASCAR banning the Confederate flag, Keurig for not supporting Roy Moore, saying anything other than "Merry CHRISTmas" during the holiday season, Gillette, Greta Thunberg.

Edit: those are just the ones I could think up off the top of my head. I estimate it to account for approximately 0.1% of the crises the right has so acutely identified over the last few decades.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...people posting Charlie Kirk's own words..."

I think you mean people lying about what Charlie Kirk said.

[John 4]

No, I mean exactly what I wrote.

[apedad]

I understand that the southern US states - pre-1860 - were lots of fun.

Not so much since then though.

[DDHarriman]

Can you think of any time where there wasn't some ideological moral panic, getting you emotionally aroused, and motivating or infuencing your decision-making?

Do you think emotional arousal can be used as some form of control? Do you believe there's any research supporting using emotions to control and manipulate people?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

This is better phrased as a neutral tendency over history than the "Lefty Crisis" bit you started with.

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/CynicalPublius/status/1995513587272671497

Interesting deep dive on the Leftwing Billionaire puppeteering the Seditious Six.

With receipts. Of course it's a Lefty Billionaire.

[David Nieporent]

There are no receipts and nothing of any interest there.

TL;DR: A guy has donated a small amount of money to Kelly's campaigns over the years. This guy seems to care about Trump's illegal use of the National Guard. Therefore, Kelly must be taking this position because of that guy.

This explains why these people get so upset at the Washington Post breaking a story about Trumpian war crimes: they literally don't understand what journalism is.

[DDHarriman]

TL;DR: A guy has donated a small amount of money to Kelly's campaigns over the years. This guy seems to care about Trump's illegal use of the National Guard. Therefore, Kelly must be taking this position because of that guy.

lmao, that's not a TL;DR. For example, you left of common ownership interest in that $0 value fund that manages to produce $50,000 a month in income for Kelly before he even ran for any office... Weird how you left that off...

This explains why these people get so upset at the Washington Post breaking a story about Trumpian war crimes: they literally don't understand what journalism is.

Said two people familiar with Trump's thinking...

[ducksalad]

Trump on second strikes:

Trump told reporters Sunday evening that he personally would not have wanted a second strike and seemed to cast doubt on the idea Hegseth had ordered it.

“No. 1, I don’t know that that happened, and Pete said he did not want them — he didn’t even know what people were talking about,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One. “So, we’ll look into it, but no, I wouldn’t have wanted that, not a second strike.”

Apparently the current narrative is:

It didn't happen, we didn't order it, it didn't happen, but it was perfectly legal and a smashing big success at protecting Americans. We are proud that we did, or didn't, do it. Also, anyone who disagrees with any part of the above is either a seditious traitor, wants Americans to die, or both.

[Estragon]

Ms. Leavitt created some problems for our denizens here today. I suspect one direction they might try is “ok maybe there were 2 strikes but the first one killed everyone.”

Hegseth should have just gone with “you’re damn right I ordered the code red” to begin with.

[Estragon]

It would be interesting to map huckleberry posts to the timing of this press conference. Voltage, for one, made a very abrupt shift earlier from saying this was a hoax and an unconscionable smear against our brave men and women in uniform to… oh, you’ll never “get” Trump…

[DDHarriman]

lol you're retarded looking for signals and signs in everything.

It is hoax.
It is smear.
You won't get Trump.

None of these are contradictory or suggest a shift in any beliefs. I do not believe a single shred of any accusation that comes out of any TDS'ers mouth.

I need the same level of proof that you ask for when discussing The Big Steal. I've provided video evidence of Ruby Freeman (Medal of Freedom won for stealing GA 2020) confessing her crimes on a POLICE BODY CAMERA, and that didn't sway you. You need to provide a live video stream of Pete personally calling the Admiral on a split screen saying "MURDER THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS" before you'll ever gain any traction with anyone outside of your retarded bubble.

If you want people to believe THE CURRENT THING, stop having new ones every two weeks or so.

[Estragon]

“Pete personally calling the Admiral on a split screen saying "MURDER THE INNOCENT CIVILIANS" before you'll ever gain any traction”

I must emphasize this again. Gain any traction… WITH WHOM?

[DDHarriman]

"before you'll ever gain any traction with anyone outside of your retarded bubble."

It's right there in my comment.

It's with anyone outside of your retarded bubble.

In other words, normal people who are not Lefty dipshits and retards.

AKA Normals

In short, people not in your bubble of retards.

Paraphrasing, functioning adults who aren't morons

It could be said as "everyone who isn't a Democrat"

HTH

[Estragon]

Right. Which is what I said at the beginning: this is about GOP squishes. Because you, my guy, do not seem like the sort of person who’d be troubled by blowing up a few ostensible narco-terrorists clinging to some wreckage. Talk about a retarded bubble!

There’s something funny about your concern what the normies might think that I am struggling to put my finger on. Very Ricky Vaughn vibes. Hey— where’s HIS pardon, btw?

[John 4]

This is part of their ritual humiliation. I'm sure by this time tomorrow, a tranny drone operator will have been identified as the culprit. Frank will say something about accidentally hitting the "Fire" button with a Tra-Knee Pea-Ness or some other absolute insane nonsense. It's a good time.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Okay. People ignoring the top crisis of the moment:

Ocean Spray said it is investigating viral videos that purportedly show cans of its cranberry sauce filled with water.

“We’re aware of a few reports about cans containing water instead of cranberry sauce, and we’re looking into how this may have happened,” Ocean Spray said in a statement.

“Millions of families enjoyed their cranberry sauce this holiday season, but even one can of sauce not meeting expectations matters to us,” Ocean Spray said. “We’ve reached out to the folks who shared these videos to learn more and make it right.”

I appreciate that Ocean Spray is addressing this national calamity.

[h/t NY Daily News, the national news leader]

[ducksalad]

We had Ocean Spray. Thank God we were spared.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Man sues hospital for correctly listing his "gender", "sex", "birth sex", and "sex assigned at birth".