Hegseth was never on the front lines like Mark Kelly was. He never commanded more than a platoon (about 30 people) in his time in the National Guard. He doesn’t have personal experience in actually having to be in life and death situations. He is no more qualified to be Secretary of WAR than I am! Being an alcoholic woman abuser doesn't help. Trump picked him only because he liked him on Fox News. Pete Hegseth is an incompetent, immoral, and unfit punk.
Mark is significantly more qualified to be a traditional U.S. President than is Pete to be viewed as a relevant U.S. Secretary of Defense.
I would ABSOLUTELY vote for Mark Kelly for President. He’s got balls ! Not afraid to stand up to the felon tyrant. A lot of politicians on both sides could take a lesson from him.
Never obey in advance. Never comply with an unconstitutional order. Always resist tyranny!
Tee I wear regularly: "We the People will NOT comply with tyranny". This one 👇
I’ve seen a few interviews and campaign spots. She’s got ZING! 🤞🏽🤞🏽🤞🏽.
2. Boat double tap
Immoral
Illegal
Criminal
Do I have the correct order on those?
Slimy slime creatures to claim “don’t know about it, but I believe chummy secdef…. “. Sure. That rings with clarion truth Oh and shove the admiral down the garbage chute. Cute move there! NOT
3. HABBA-dabba -do!
Nah. She doesn’t even get the booby prize. Nothing for her. Well maybe disbarment. She deserves it
I have no idea if Behn will win because I don’t understand how MAGA minds work but she is giving them a run for the money so hoping…trumpy flip flopping on the boat strike is situations normal but I’m really hoping that the GOP is concerned about the possibility of war crimes and/or outright murder. America is quickly becoming a shithole country thanks to trumpy. I’m glad Alina Hanna is out but I fear SCOTUS will interfere again. During Vietnam, I considered going to Canada and these days I’m wishing I did!
To give you an idea, Speaker Mike Johnson was down here yesterday to attend a farce of a GOTV rally, and he was saying Aftyn “hates Christianity and country music.” 🙄🙄 I’d like to think even TN Magas would consider this kind of b.s. an insult to their intelligence, but 🤷🏻♀️
Hating Christianity and country music doesn't make her a bad person. I happen to agree with her. I doubt that Magas know the difference between B/S and the truth!
Patti, my brother-in-law did move to Canada during the Vietnam war. I now have him and his family to visit when I want to. Thought about it earlier in the year, but I'm too old to do it now (81). Besides I'd have to leave my family. I really think Trump et al are going to have their comeuppance real soon. Don't want to miss that!!
As a Jersey native I am thrilled that pouting idiot Habba Habba Hey was tossed out. And I got chills from Kelly's press conference. I know he wouldn't do it, but I'd love to see him start a coup. What a great leader he'd be.
Yes. I feel good about Aftyn Behn winning in TN. Trump flip flopping? Especially with his brain in default more than ever, Hegseth should run for cover. But where would it be? Alina Habba is one more inappropriate choice in Trump’s world. We couldn’t expect anything different.
Do you think Aftyn Behn will win the special election in Tennessee today? I hope so...
What do you think about the Trump regime’s flip-flopping on the boat strike scandal? Business as usual, unfortunately. I hope that the red wall crumbles.
Are you glad to see Trump and Alina Habba lose in court? I'm ALWAYS glad whenever Trump loses.
ARE TRUMP’S BOAT ATTACKS AND MURDERS ON THE HIGH SEAS A PRELUDE TO DARKER DAYS AHEAD?
WHERE IS ALL THIS TAKING US IF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS FAIL TO ACT?
Prior postings have included summaries [with a detailed Appendix on my Substack page] of why Trump’s unilateral missile attacks on boats on the high seas and the murders of all their occupants violate International Law, the Geneva Convention, U.S. laws and judicial decisions, the U.S. Department of Defense Rules and the U.S.Military Codes. Thus far, all 80 occupants on all of the boats he ordered destroyed have been murdered, with not a single survivor to take captive.
Between yesterday and today, the White House, the War Department and the U.S. Navy have been engaged in verbal gymnastics and double-talk to try to explain away how our government on September 2, after an initial missile attack on a boat that killed 8 and left 2 survivors clinging to the boat wreckage in the water, launched a second attack which they knew would kill the survivors. While Admiral Frank Bradley was offered up as the fall guy claiming to have issued the actual order for the second missile strike that killed these survivors, it was well understood by the Navy Seals present at the scene that the message to leave no survivors had originally come down from former Fox News celebrity and now Trump warlord, Pete Hegseth.
Yesterday, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that the strikes were conducted in “self defense” in international waters and “in accordance with the law of armed conflict.” She further declared that Admiral Bradley “directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and THE THREAT FROM NARCO TERRORISTS WAS ELIMINATED”.
Not only is Leavitt’s claim that all of these missile strikes on boats on the high seas were committed in “self-defence” patently ludicrous, but their second claim that they were “in accordance with the law of armed conflict” is so absurd that they must think that the American people are morons to buy it. Below is an Appendix setting forth most, if not all, of the laws, conventions, decisions, and rules defining “armed conflicts”, which, in essence, state that there must be two parties engaged in an armed conflict, rather than one party unilaterally attacking another. [That’s why they call it a “conflict”, rather than a unilateral attack like the ones Trump ordered on boats on the high seas].
While all this may appear to be flailings in the night to try to cover-up their outrageous conduct and sophomoric legal claims justifying it, I believe that there is a pattern that is starting to appear and which foretells very dark, serious threats to our democracy ahead. And I believe that all of these unilateral attacks on boats on the high seas are only the beginning of a carefully designed strategy hatched by the ultra-right wing Heritage Foundation, which drafted Project 2025 for Trump to promote once they helped him return to the WhiteHouse.
Where is this all going?
Let’s start with Trump’s Veterans Day campaign event at Stevens High School in Claremont, New Hampshire, on November 11, 2023, where Trump declared:
“…[W]e pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country..... “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream... THE THREAT FROM OUTSIDE FORCES IS FAR LESS SINISTER, DANGEROUS AND GRAVE THAN THE THREAT FROM WITHIN” (emphasis added).
Trump makes no bones about who is behind the threat from within. They are our migrants.
Trump is obsessed with migrants and has repeatedly said that they are “poisoning the blood of our country,” and called them “animals,” “not people,” while repeatedly dehumanizing them.
This is exactly how Hitler denounced the Jews.
So putting this all together, Trump is making it clear that he has the absolute right to decide who to murder and how to murder people attempting come to the United States to sell narcotics, whom he classifies as “narco-terrorists”.
And given his declaration that “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within”, we can expect that he intends to dispense with the same legal restrictions and safeguards domestically as he has done internationally by branding “communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country” as “terrorists”. .... “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream....”
Perhaps he also intends to invoke what he may claim to be his inherent emergency power to suspend the Constitution and invoke marshal law to deal with these and other domestic “terrorists” and call up the National Guard and U.S. military to enforce his orders.
We are already well on the road to an authoritarian government, led by a very unstable, unpredictable but determined huckster, who, like Hitler, forged a bond with his devoted followers, who are beginning to see him for what he really is. Absent the courage of Congress and the Supreme Court to deal with him, there may still be time for the American people to resist these encroachments on our rights and liberties and to make our voices and ballots known next November.
APPENDIX
THE LAW OF “ARMED CONFLICT”
1. Geneva Conventions (1949) – The Baseline Definition
The Geneva Conventions do not supply a single sentence definition, but Article 2 and Article 3 set the functional standard.
A. International Armed Conflict (IAC)
Common Article 2: An international armed conflict exists in any case of declared war or any other armed conflict between two or more States, even if one of them does not recognize the state of war.
Meaning:
Any use of armed force between states triggers an IAC.
No threshold of intensity, duration, or number of casualties is required.
Even a single exchange of fire between state armed forces qualifies.
B. Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)
Common Article 3: A NIAC exists in situations of protracted armed violence between
governmental armed forces and organized armed groups, or
such groups fighting each other.
The Geneva text uses “armed conflict not of an international character,” but modern law (ICRC, tribunals, DoD) interprets this to require:
Protracted (sustained) violence – more than sporadic riots or unrest; and
Organization of the armed group – identifiable command structure, ability to conduct military operations.
2. Additional Protocols of 1977 (reflecting customary international law)
Additional Protocol II (NIAC)
Reiterates that armed conflict requires organized armed groups operating under responsible command and exercising control over territory sufficient to carry out sustained operations.
Although the U.S. is not a party, the Department of Defense recognizes that many AP II rules reflect customary international law, especially the distinction between mere internal disturbances and NIACs.
3. U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual
The DoD Law of War Manual (2015, updated) gives a clear modern operational definition.
DoD Definition of Armed Conflict
“Armed conflict exists when there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups.” (Paraphrasing DoD Manual §§3.4–3.5)
Key DoD Elements:
IAC: any use of armed force between states. No intensity threshold.
NIAC: requires (1) intensity and (2) organization.
Internal disturbances (riots, isolated violence, criminality) do not rise to NIAC.
DoD adds:
The U.S. may be in an NIAC with non-state armed groups even if hostilities occur outside a single theater(e.g., operations against al-Qaeda or ISIS).
Recognition of “armed conflict” does not require both sides to acknowledge hostilities.
4. U.S. Military Law (UCMJ) & Federal Statutory Framework
The UCMJ does not define “armed conflict” directly, but uses the term in relation to:
war crimes jurisdiction (10 U.S.C. § 950t and following);
application of the Law of War; and
offenses “in the context of and associated with hostilities.”
U.S. federal courts (e.g., in Guantánamo cases) and military commissions rely on the international law definitionabove:
U.S. Acceptance:
An armed conflict exists when hostilities reach the threshold recognized under Common Article 2(between states) or Common Article 3 (non-international).
5. International Criminal Tribunals’ Clarifying Definitions (Customary Law)
Tribunals such as the ICTY provided influential, widely adopted definitions:
“Tadić Test” (ICTY 1995) – Widely Used by DoD and U.S. Courts
An armed conflict exists when:
Intensity of violence rises above internal disturbance; and
Organization of the parties allows sustained military operations.
This test is incorporated into U.S. practice via the DoD Manual and U.S. court opinions.
Unified, Legally Accurate Working Definition
Putting all authorities together, the accepted legal definition is:
An “armed conflict” exists when— (1) there is armed force between two or more States (IAC), OR (2) there is sustained, protracted armed violence between governmental forces and one or more organized armed groups, or between such groups (NIAC).
Riots, internal tensions, sporadic violence, or criminal acts do not constitute armed conflict.
6. Why the Definition Matters
Recognizing an armed conflict triggers:
applicability of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol rules,
the Law of War (LOAC) obligations,
war crimes jurisdiction,
POW status determinations in IAC,
protections for civilians and detainees, and
limitations on targeting, detention, and use of force under DoD directives.
L.D. Michaels-- thanks for your detailed and well-reasoned post. As an Army veteran, well acquainted with the UCMJ, I was immediately proud of Sen. Kelly, et al, for their principled statements. You've added some meat to the bones.
I hope Ms. Behn wins today in a blue wave. I donated and am not in TN. I hope TN rejects Republican money spent like WI did.
Trump and Hegseth flip flopping is what they do. Scramble to find a statement to place the blame elsewhere. But their lies are just that and they are incompetent and guilty fools. Both.
Glad Habbas didn't get confirmed. She shouldn't and too bad any of Trump's clown cabinet did.
Today we are focused on these six actions:
Tell them to call for Hegseth's resignation: https://tinyurl.com/5b65awxk
Demand answers about Trump’s visibly deteriorating health: https://tinyurl.com/sk9xm38v
Stand with Ukraine over Russia: https://tinyurl.com/2khn59cr
Support discharge petition to force vote on ACA tax credits: https://tinyurl.com/w23tnvxm
Help us push for an investigation into the Epstein scandal HERE: https://tinyurl.com/4pfh2p4f
Pass bill on unmasking ICE and displaying clear ID here: https://tinyurl.com/bp8cau82
Lock them up. Hegseth is a war criminal. Kelly is a war hero - here is a poem paying tribute to his bravery: https://democracydefender2025.substack.com/p/senator-mark-kelly-poem
Someone tell Trump: Quiet! Quiet Piggy!🐽
Hegseth was never on the front lines like Mark Kelly was. He never commanded more than a platoon (about 30 people) in his time in the National Guard. He doesn’t have personal experience in actually having to be in life and death situations. He is no more qualified to be Secretary of WAR than I am! Being an alcoholic woman abuser doesn't help. Trump picked him only because he liked him on Fox News. Pete Hegseth is an incompetent, immoral, and unfit punk.
Mark is significantly more qualified to be a traditional U.S. President than is Pete to be viewed as a relevant U.S. Secretary of Defense.
I would ABSOLUTELY vote for Mark Kelly for President. He’s got balls ! Not afraid to stand up to the felon tyrant. A lot of politicians on both sides could take a lesson from him.
Never obey in advance. Never comply with an unconstitutional order. Always resist tyranny!
Tee I wear regularly: "We the People will NOT comply with tyranny". This one 👇
https://libtees.dashery.com/products/78688428-we-the-people-will-not-comply-with-tyranny-t-shirt
Those eyes say it all. Keep it up, Senator Kelly!
We’re now playing duck duck goose. Who ever is left standing is the one who’s responsible.
1. Aftyn
I’ve seen a few interviews and campaign spots. She’s got ZING! 🤞🏽🤞🏽🤞🏽.
2. Boat double tap
Immoral
Illegal
Criminal
Do I have the correct order on those?
Slimy slime creatures to claim “don’t know about it, but I believe chummy secdef…. “. Sure. That rings with clarion truth Oh and shove the admiral down the garbage chute. Cute move there! NOT
3. HABBA-dabba -do!
Nah. She doesn’t even get the booby prize. Nothing for her. Well maybe disbarment. She deserves it
Jabba can always go back to fearlessly defending parking garages if she’s not disbarred.
YES! What Nancy said!!
I have no idea if Behn will win because I don’t understand how MAGA minds work but she is giving them a run for the money so hoping…trumpy flip flopping on the boat strike is situations normal but I’m really hoping that the GOP is concerned about the possibility of war crimes and/or outright murder. America is quickly becoming a shithole country thanks to trumpy. I’m glad Alina Hanna is out but I fear SCOTUS will interfere again. During Vietnam, I considered going to Canada and these days I’m wishing I did!
Oh and Senator Kelly is the best. I hope he has extra security or is that just for the gop?
To give you an idea, Speaker Mike Johnson was down here yesterday to attend a farce of a GOTV rally, and he was saying Aftyn “hates Christianity and country music.” 🙄🙄 I’d like to think even TN Magas would consider this kind of b.s. an insult to their intelligence, but 🤷🏻♀️
Hating Christianity and country music doesn't make her a bad person. I happen to agree with her. I doubt that Magas know the difference between B/S and the truth!
Patti, my brother-in-law did move to Canada during the Vietnam war. I now have him and his family to visit when I want to. Thought about it earlier in the year, but I'm too old to do it now (81). Besides I'd have to leave my family. I really think Trump et al are going to have their comeuppance real soon. Don't want to miss that!!
As a Jersey native I am thrilled that pouting idiot Habba Habba Hey was tossed out. And I got chills from Kelly's press conference. I know he wouldn't do it, but I'd love to see him start a coup. What a great leader he'd be.
I doubt you meant a coup but he is definitely gaining nationwide respect.
Yes. I feel good about Aftyn Behn winning in TN. Trump flip flopping? Especially with his brain in default more than ever, Hegseth should run for cover. But where would it be? Alina Habba is one more inappropriate choice in Trump’s world. We couldn’t expect anything different.
I think if Behn wins today, (in a ruby red state) it’s almost game over for Trump but even if it’s just close, it’s good enough to make them sweat.
It’s neck-and-neck, and yes R’s are sweating this race majorly.
I sure hope so,
Do you think Aftyn Behn will win the special election in Tennessee today? I hope so...
What do you think about the Trump regime’s flip-flopping on the boat strike scandal? Business as usual, unfortunately. I hope that the red wall crumbles.
Are you glad to see Trump and Alina Habba lose in court? I'm ALWAYS glad whenever Trump loses.
Fingers crossed for Aftyn!
1. I pray Aftyn Beyn wins. She is wonderful!
2. Trump flip flops like a caught fish. Liar in Chief.
We shall see that Hegseth ordered the hits.
3. I am ecstatic Habba is on her way out!
ARE TRUMP’S BOAT ATTACKS AND MURDERS ON THE HIGH SEAS A PRELUDE TO DARKER DAYS AHEAD?
WHERE IS ALL THIS TAKING US IF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS FAIL TO ACT?
Prior postings have included summaries [with a detailed Appendix on my Substack page] of why Trump’s unilateral missile attacks on boats on the high seas and the murders of all their occupants violate International Law, the Geneva Convention, U.S. laws and judicial decisions, the U.S. Department of Defense Rules and the U.S.Military Codes. Thus far, all 80 occupants on all of the boats he ordered destroyed have been murdered, with not a single survivor to take captive.
Between yesterday and today, the White House, the War Department and the U.S. Navy have been engaged in verbal gymnastics and double-talk to try to explain away how our government on September 2, after an initial missile attack on a boat that killed 8 and left 2 survivors clinging to the boat wreckage in the water, launched a second attack which they knew would kill the survivors. While Admiral Frank Bradley was offered up as the fall guy claiming to have issued the actual order for the second missile strike that killed these survivors, it was well understood by the Navy Seals present at the scene that the message to leave no survivors had originally come down from former Fox News celebrity and now Trump warlord, Pete Hegseth.
Yesterday, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed that the strikes were conducted in “self defense” in international waters and “in accordance with the law of armed conflict.” She further declared that Admiral Bradley “directed the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and THE THREAT FROM NARCO TERRORISTS WAS ELIMINATED”.
Not only is Leavitt’s claim that all of these missile strikes on boats on the high seas were committed in “self-defence” patently ludicrous, but their second claim that they were “in accordance with the law of armed conflict” is so absurd that they must think that the American people are morons to buy it. Below is an Appendix setting forth most, if not all, of the laws, conventions, decisions, and rules defining “armed conflicts”, which, in essence, state that there must be two parties engaged in an armed conflict, rather than one party unilaterally attacking another. [That’s why they call it a “conflict”, rather than a unilateral attack like the ones Trump ordered on boats on the high seas].
While all this may appear to be flailings in the night to try to cover-up their outrageous conduct and sophomoric legal claims justifying it, I believe that there is a pattern that is starting to appear and which foretells very dark, serious threats to our democracy ahead. And I believe that all of these unilateral attacks on boats on the high seas are only the beginning of a carefully designed strategy hatched by the ultra-right wing Heritage Foundation, which drafted Project 2025 for Trump to promote once they helped him return to the WhiteHouse.
Where is this all going?
Let’s start with Trump’s Veterans Day campaign event at Stevens High School in Claremont, New Hampshire, on November 11, 2023, where Trump declared:
“…[W]e pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country..... “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream... THE THREAT FROM OUTSIDE FORCES IS FAR LESS SINISTER, DANGEROUS AND GRAVE THAN THE THREAT FROM WITHIN” (emphasis added).
Trump makes no bones about who is behind the threat from within. They are our migrants.
Trump is obsessed with migrants and has repeatedly said that they are “poisoning the blood of our country,” and called them “animals,” “not people,” while repeatedly dehumanizing them.
This is exactly how Hitler denounced the Jews.
So putting this all together, Trump is making it clear that he has the absolute right to decide who to murder and how to murder people attempting come to the United States to sell narcotics, whom he classifies as “narco-terrorists”.
And given his declaration that “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within”, we can expect that he intends to dispense with the same legal restrictions and safeguards domestically as he has done internationally by branding “communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country” as “terrorists”. .... “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American Dream....”
Perhaps he also intends to invoke what he may claim to be his inherent emergency power to suspend the Constitution and invoke marshal law to deal with these and other domestic “terrorists” and call up the National Guard and U.S. military to enforce his orders.
We are already well on the road to an authoritarian government, led by a very unstable, unpredictable but determined huckster, who, like Hitler, forged a bond with his devoted followers, who are beginning to see him for what he really is. Absent the courage of Congress and the Supreme Court to deal with him, there may still be time for the American people to resist these encroachments on our rights and liberties and to make our voices and ballots known next November.
APPENDIX
THE LAW OF “ARMED CONFLICT”
1. Geneva Conventions (1949) – The Baseline Definition
The Geneva Conventions do not supply a single sentence definition, but Article 2 and Article 3 set the functional standard.
A. International Armed Conflict (IAC)
Common Article 2: An international armed conflict exists in any case of declared war or any other armed conflict between two or more States, even if one of them does not recognize the state of war.
Meaning:
Any use of armed force between states triggers an IAC.
No threshold of intensity, duration, or number of casualties is required.
Even a single exchange of fire between state armed forces qualifies.
B. Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC)
Common Article 3: A NIAC exists in situations of protracted armed violence between
governmental armed forces and organized armed groups, or
such groups fighting each other.
The Geneva text uses “armed conflict not of an international character,” but modern law (ICRC, tribunals, DoD) interprets this to require:
Protracted (sustained) violence – more than sporadic riots or unrest; and
Organization of the armed group – identifiable command structure, ability to conduct military operations.
2. Additional Protocols of 1977 (reflecting customary international law)
Additional Protocol II (NIAC)
Reiterates that armed conflict requires organized armed groups operating under responsible command and exercising control over territory sufficient to carry out sustained operations.
Although the U.S. is not a party, the Department of Defense recognizes that many AP II rules reflect customary international law, especially the distinction between mere internal disturbances and NIACs.
3. U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual
The DoD Law of War Manual (2015, updated) gives a clear modern operational definition.
DoD Definition of Armed Conflict
“Armed conflict exists when there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups.” (Paraphrasing DoD Manual §§3.4–3.5)
Key DoD Elements:
IAC: any use of armed force between states. No intensity threshold.
NIAC: requires (1) intensity and (2) organization.
Internal disturbances (riots, isolated violence, criminality) do not rise to NIAC.
DoD adds:
The U.S. may be in an NIAC with non-state armed groups even if hostilities occur outside a single theater(e.g., operations against al-Qaeda or ISIS).
Recognition of “armed conflict” does not require both sides to acknowledge hostilities.
4. U.S. Military Law (UCMJ) & Federal Statutory Framework
The UCMJ does not define “armed conflict” directly, but uses the term in relation to:
war crimes jurisdiction (10 U.S.C. § 950t and following);
application of the Law of War; and
offenses “in the context of and associated with hostilities.”
U.S. federal courts (e.g., in Guantánamo cases) and military commissions rely on the international law definitionabove:
U.S. Acceptance:
An armed conflict exists when hostilities reach the threshold recognized under Common Article 2(between states) or Common Article 3 (non-international).
5. International Criminal Tribunals’ Clarifying Definitions (Customary Law)
Tribunals such as the ICTY provided influential, widely adopted definitions:
“Tadić Test” (ICTY 1995) – Widely Used by DoD and U.S. Courts
An armed conflict exists when:
Intensity of violence rises above internal disturbance; and
Organization of the parties allows sustained military operations.
This test is incorporated into U.S. practice via the DoD Manual and U.S. court opinions.
Unified, Legally Accurate Working Definition
Putting all authorities together, the accepted legal definition is:
An “armed conflict” exists when— (1) there is armed force between two or more States (IAC), OR (2) there is sustained, protracted armed violence between governmental forces and one or more organized armed groups, or between such groups (NIAC).
Riots, internal tensions, sporadic violence, or criminal acts do not constitute armed conflict.
6. Why the Definition Matters
Recognizing an armed conflict triggers:
applicability of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol rules,
the Law of War (LOAC) obligations,
war crimes jurisdiction,
POW status determinations in IAC,
protections for civilians and detainees, and
limitations on targeting, detention, and use of force under DoD directives.
L.D. Michaels-- thanks for your detailed and well-reasoned post. As an Army veteran, well acquainted with the UCMJ, I was immediately proud of Sen. Kelly, et al, for their principled statements. You've added some meat to the bones.
I hope Ms. Behn wins today in a blue wave. I donated and am not in TN. I hope TN rejects Republican money spent like WI did.
Trump and Hegseth flip flopping is what they do. Scramble to find a statement to place the blame elsewhere. But their lies are just that and they are incompetent and guilty fools. Both.
Glad Habbas didn't get confirmed. She shouldn't and too bad any of Trump's clown cabinet did.
Yes, I think Aftyn Behn will win in Tennessee today.
I think Hegseth, et al. have no idea how to cover their butts over such an obvious bad act.
Yes, I'm glad Habba and Trump lost - they both are so stupid and unqualified. (They aren't the only ones...)
But Scott KKKaroline says we are doing nothing illegal.
https://thistleandmoss.com/p/the-ministry-of-truth-runs-a-clown-show-when-war-crimes-get-rebranded-as-self-defense
Bagdad Bob seems to have been reincarnated in Leavitt.