Joe Ferguson forever

no. prosecute the murderers of civilians.

The guy is just not that important. Macho, loyal, ex military drunks and philanderers are not hard to find

What are the odds that trump will fire him? I'd take even money or better.

this like saying the Bills beat the texans.

And neither was moral or legal. Your point?

It was correct policy. It protected Americans. Oh, and she's a crook.

It's an opinion. She's running for congress, so there's that. And there's this: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/12/indiana-inspector-general-accuses-jennifer-ruth-green-ghost-employment-mike-braun-cabinet/86074837007/ Only the best people are MAGA.

It won't matter because you don't respect authority (that won't end well for you if an authoritarian gov't prevails) but I'll play a bit more ... https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/10/un-commission-finds-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-israeli-attacks

because Israel committed massive war crimes in Gaza and trump's admin didn't intervene. But it's also about principle, something you lack or even find undesirable.

uh oh. https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/01/politics/congress-boat-strike-demand-answers-briefing Even little lindsey is skeptical Sen. Lindsey Graham, a defense hawk who is close to Trump, said he has not spoken about the matter with Hegseth but that he is seeking out “the facts.” “It’s a long-held rule that survivors of the ship attack are no longer combatants, and an air crew member in a parachute is no longer a combatant. You’re out of the fight,” the South Carolina Republican said. “I don’t know what the facts are, but that’s general law. We’ll see what the facts are.”

Sure. Nothing to do with killing helpless survivors floating on wreckage...

They're trying their best. MAGA's here will buy it. Implicit warning to high ranking pentagon military officials. "We will sacrifice you".

New England looks very good. I don't know if we can beat them head to head.

Someone did something awful to her to make her this bitter.

Bus, meet Bradley https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5629010-defense-secretary-backs-bradley/

Yes.

pretty big claim. What supports it?

I also know of several. The only time I remember publicly crying in a hospital was after a 17yo I was caring for died in the ICU. Agree on penalties.

It happened. Hegseth ordered it. WH confirms. https://thehill.com/homenews/5628447-defense-secretary-authorizes-drug-boat-strike/

Silly? post your legal resume against this one (you'll rarely see maga's vet their ":sources" https://www.brookings.edu/people/scott-r-anderson/

I can answer it. I would think 10 percent would be a reasonable number, if the actions are legal. I don't think it will be achieved. The history of trump's framing of this action is interesting and important: https://www.npr.org/2025/11/02/nx-s1-5593069/why-is-president-trump-calling-suspected-smugglers-unlawful-combatants SCOTT ANDERSON: So the term unlawful enemy combatant first came into common usage after the 9/11 attacks as part of arguments the U.S. government advanced as to why members of al-Qaida and the Taliban and related terrorist groups didn't have to be provided with the full bundle of rights and protections that are usually provided to prisoners of war under international law pursuant to the Geneva Conventions and the related treaties in areas of international law. ANDERSON: Arguably, yes, potentially. I mean, Congress has installed a lot of protections since that time, and the Supreme Court has pushed back on some of these interpretations. The reality is the Trump administration would have a very hard time doing that because we have more than two decades of intervening Supreme Court decisions and legislation that would make it very difficult and that set up pretty clear limits on substantial aspects of what the Bush administration did. But it may suggest that they want to push more in that direction than U.S. policy has drifted in the intervening years. PFEIFFER: Is there a majority legal view on whether the term is justified in these boat strikes? ANDERSON: It is, I think, almost the consensus view among outside legal experts that it is not. More than that, and this gets to the use of this term as a way to kind of obfuscate the legal barrier here, most lawyers looking at this say this should not even be viewed through the lens of the law of armed conflict at all because this is not a war. This is the use of military violence against people who would traditionally be viewed as civilians. And in trying to use these sometimes-controversial terms associated with the war on terrorism, the administration is trying to make this all look like just something like the war on terrorism. And the reality is it's something extremely different. You would view this as very close to state-sanctioned murder or targeted killings.

What is the goal of the bombing? What is a measurable endpoint? What percent decrease would you feel would justify the killing and expense?

Do you believe the WH will walk the statement back? I don't. We'll see. If either the senate or the house committees find the actions illegal,, they'll likely send it to the military courts. As we've illustrated, there are many military legal experts that disagree with you. It's not as cut and dried as you make it appear. At the very least, it's a complex issue.

any estimate in the decrease in OD deaths after a year bombing? I predict it will be tiny. Addicts don't give up easily either. They'll find other highs such as prescription drug abuse. Many OD's are due to these.

the white house disagrees https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/law-allows-no-survivors-fox-201059022.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD8q5yuu1XD9Tt4AI8jOV5gYujsa0d0hzfA8_V_0qocLhNHUU79MmMXNRZiQgc3gupOg6hMcGU_9QtrXQN4o6zdDL_WttGZmb1TvkADLS4TFR5UtIfuHRKRc0-7zW9HhRC8snvXAdGHAAdK_e5wsymU03eFaPM3TUXQyNo2WaU_W “The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans and vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict,” Leavitt replied. Therefore, this is an armed conflict between enemy combatants. Like Penn State, I also posted multiple references from experts in military law who felt this action was illegal. The fact that you're a veteran doesn't make your opinion conclusive.