Pete Hegseth: The Josh Allen of Department of WAR Secretaries.

[sherpa]

8 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

No, we act civilized and follow international laws. That is what sets us apart from said dealers. 

 

We defend our people.

There is no "international law" violation, as yet proven.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 hours ago, sherpa said:

They are not "combatants" is any historically accepted sense.

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.

Edited 31 minutes ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

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.

 

Absolute nonsense.

There is no "convention" that the US is signatory to that extends combatant rights to people from no discernable country or military force that are engaged in criminal activity.

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 minute ago, sherpa said:

 

Absolute nonsense.

There is no "convention" that the US is signatory to that extends combatant rights to people from no discernable country or military force that are engaged in criminal activity.

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.