Off with their heads! Dem. vid to Military

[FoxtArt]

Typical knee jerk strawman.

Imagine Obama is doing drone strikes off the radar, and there are secret court opinions justifying it. Do you believe those legal opinions should also be classified, and why? We're not talking intelligence here; we're talking about the political and bureaucratic rationale.

I'd love to hear the rationale for why and where Obama, Biden, or the next US Liberal whackjob president can unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict should be classified and never explained outside of a select few.

[Oscar77]

Typical knee jerk strawman.

Imagine Obama is doing drone strikes off the radar, and there are secret court opinions justifying it. Do you believe those legal opinions should also be classified, and why? We're not talking intelligence here; we're talking about the political and bureaucratic rationale.

I'd love to hear the rationale for why and where Obama, Biden, or the next US Liberal whackjob president can unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict should be classified and never explained outside of a select few.

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

[theGinsue]

Does anyone here believe that these boats coming out of Venezuela towards the United States are anything but drug-running boats?
Does anyone here believe that drug-runners/cartels should NOT be classified as terrorists to the United States?
Does anyone here believe that the 21+ strikes against these boats is anything other than taking out terrorists heading to do harm within the United States?

I believe that these are drug-running terrorists heading our way to do harm to our people and should be dealt with prior to reaching the shores of the United States. To that end, I firmly agree with the use of military assets to accomplish that goal, not just here but any other place we know drugs are coming into the United States. President Ronald Reagan publicly declared a "war on drugs" in October of 1982 and yet all efforts have shown dismal results because we've consistently waited to take action until the drugs breach our borders. It's estimated that each year the United States has over 100,000 deaths from illicit drug use. We should have been going after the sources of these drugs over and over again since the beginning.

As to whether or not the OLC or any court documents are classified, I suppose that depends on what those documents say. If they identify further, more extensive plans to go after these narco-terrorists in other places, yeah, they should remain classified. We don't need to reveal to the world what our plans are to protect our borders and the people within them. Doing so would put our troops at risk.

[Oscar77]

Does anyone here believe that these boats coming out of Venezuela towards the United States are anything but drug-running boats?
Does anyone here believe that drug-runners/cartels should NOT be classified as terrorists to the United States?
Does anyone here believe that the 21+ strikes against these boats is anything other than taking out terrorists heading to do harm within the United States?

I believe that these are drug-running terrorists heading our way to do harm to our people and should be dealt with prior to reaching the shores of the United States. To that end, I firmly agree with the use of military assets to accomplish that goal, not just here but any other place we know drugs are coming into the United States. President Ronald Reagan publicly declared a "war on drugs" in October of 1982 and yet all efforts have shown dismal results because we've consistently waited to take action until the drugs breach our borders. It's estimated that each year the United States has over 100,000 deaths from illicit drug use. We should have been going after the sources of these drugs over and over again since the beginning.

As to whether or not the OLC or any court documents are classified, I suppose that depends on what those documents say. If they identify further, more extensive plans to go after these narco-terrorists in other places, yeah, they should remain classified. We don't need to reveal to the world what our plans are to protect our borders and the people within them. Doing so would put our troops at risk.

Well said.
Thank You.

[Aloha_Shooter]

The classified memo probably cites intelligence proving the boats in question are linked to drug running and probably links that to organized plans that are why Trump and company view them as a national security threat rather than simply criminal enterprise. It would need evidence like that in order to deliver a legal opinion that justifies the use of lethal force. IMINT would trace the origin of the boats and perhaps the cargo on them but they'd probably need to have SIGINT and/or HUMINT to link the boats and cargo to an organized national security threat. That intelligence is perishable and revealing it -- if it's HUMINT -- could actually put someone's life in danger.

What Kelly and the others said would potentially violate Article 88 if they were active duty commissioned officers but Kelly retired about 14 years ago. IANAL but while you can recall a separated or retired commissioned officer to active duty for prosecution of something they did while on active duty, I don't think you can recall them to prosecute them for something they did after leaving service. What Slotkin, Kelly, et al said on that video was encouraging seditious conduct and they rightly should be condemned for doing so in editorials and public opinion but proving criminal conduct will be very difficult in a court of law, even more so if attempting to prosecute Kelly under the UCMJ.

[BushMasterBoy]

The drug boats are heading to Florida undoubtedly. If you interfere in any way with Trump, Musk, Space Force etc. and their operations, they can and will excercise deadly force. This is the Manhattan Project on steroids.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/1...ing-with-whom/

[brutal]

Let's also not forget that Mark Kelly, and every one of those other "vets" are rabid anti-2nd Amendment and want to take away your rights to own "weapons of war."

They also voted not to pay the Military.

Their actions are sowing the seeds of sedition, no doubt.

[FoxtArt]

You are referring to me? I'm the "strawman?"
Regardless, we dont have to imagine other Presidents doing that.
President Clinton: 1993 and 1998.
President Obama: 2009 and 2011.
And did the Republicans at the time, warn the Military against following "Illegal orders?"
No.

TBH I really dont mind bantering back/forth with you. It's- to me- done with respect. But dont lose your perspective here: These weren't secret actions- they announced them, there isn't a "secret court" opinion about it- It was a DOJ opinion that they are after, and Yes, part of this does involve Intelligence collection- so yes there maybe there is sensitive data on how we targeted those particular boats.
Finally its not classified nor "explained outside a select few"................... we and the press are beating this dead horse openly, arent we?

PS: Just so you know, this Selective Outrage from you (respectfully you are on "that side") and the left is old, really old.
Please stop, it was old when the Clintons did it, got irritating when Pres Obama did it and just non-stop under Pres Biden.
And now, well it's TDS.
(Same thing with the "victim" attitude or "We are the party of the working person" etc etc)

And dont ramble on when Political groups "unilaterally kill people outside of any conflict."
Mr Kirk was murdered unilaterally and the Left shrugged and outright said, "He deserved it."

Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Things like "TDS" or "Charlie Kirk was murdered" are great examples of Strawmen. Also "that side".

You know what's funny? I'm a conservative/federalist. But my positions don't mold like playdough around whatever sociopath is in power.

I believe in the reduction of the federal government, balanced budget, and respect for the constitution, all of it, including the 10th, 11th, etc.

Remember the constitution? "MAGA" is no better than a commie when they act like the means justifies the end in its violations. E.g. "They are drug boats, who cares".

MAGA doing that today becomes progressive whack jobs tomorrow, that now have a foundation in violation. "They are domestic terrorists, who cares".

Trump is very far from a conservative/federalist. He believes in the massive expansion and centralizing federal power and the executive, the expansion of the budget, and direct payments to citizens to appease dissent.

He's nearly the antithesis of the party's core principles, but he's great at cosplay and headline generation, and also plays a martyr ridiculously well, which is wildly successful, everyone loves an underdog accosted by mutual enemies.

Is TDS feeling obligated to blindly justify every action a politician makes, never calling them out on anything?

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'll ETA: The classification points are good arguments... still, can't sensitive information be redacted as is the norm for public release of sensitive/CUI/TC/TSC information? We're talking less about the intelligence here, and more about the legal justification for an executive ordering death. Shouldn't that legal justification be public?

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

[FoxtArt]

I would like the legal justification to be public but since the justification is likely based on sensitive intelligence and would need to cite that intelligence extensively in order follow the legal reasoning, what we'd get after redaction to make it publicly releasable would probably be unsatisfying to most people. I expect it would be something along the lines of, "The boats in question were located at XXXXXXX by means of XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX which constitutes a threat to national security. XXXXXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. The US is therefore justified in the use of deadly force." Probably several paragraphs (or pages) of XXXXXXXXXXX.

You certainly could be right, we've seen it before on other releases.