They are teeing up Venezuela for when the Epstein files are released.....gonna need a HUGE distraction.
Military service personnel have been seeking outside legal advice about some of the missions the Trump administration has assigned them. The U.S. strikes against alleged drug trafficking boats and deployments to American cities have sparked a firestorm of debate over their legality, and some service members are turning to nonprofit organizations for help. In grainy footage from above the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, 20 times since September, the Pentagon has shown the same thing, a flash of light and a boat allegedly carrying drugs into the United States incinerated by a U.S. military strike, in all, dozens of people killed on board the vessels. But that is the extent of what the Trump administration has disclosed publicly, no confirmation of any drugs on board or the identities of the people killed. President Trump has justified the lethal strikes and the fog of war that's clouded them. Today, reports that the Trump administration is covering its legal bases. According to The Washington Post, Justice Department lawyers this summer crafted a classified memo arguing that U.S. troops involved in the boat strikes would not be in legal jeopardy. Calls to organizations like The Orders Project, which provides free legal advice to military personnel, are on the rise from staff officers involved in planning the boat strikes, as are calls to a separate hot line from National Guard personnel concerned about domestic deployments to American cities, and even calls expressing concerns of complicity and a possible genocide in Gaza by virtue of U.S. weapons sent to Israel, signaling heightened concern from within the U.S. government that the U.S. military is exposing those who serve to legal harm.
Only 29% of Americans support using the U.S. military to kill suspected drug traffickers without a judge or court being involved, a rebuke of President Donald Trump's strikes in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific Ocean, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. 27% of Republicans in the poll opposed the practice, while 58% supported it, with the rest unsure. Three quarters of Democrats opposed the practice compared to one in 10 who supported it. The Trump administration has ordered at least 20 military strikes in recent months against suspected drug vessels in the Caribbean and off the Pacific coasts of Latin America, killing at least 79 people.
When they call these "drug vessels" I have to chuckle, they look like a long canoe with a motor on it and there so proud to have blown them up.......yet the American people let alone Congress knows exactly what's on those boats, the big bad Americans obliterating these tint little boats are a joke, but I am sure hagsbreath and tramp like to play "military"...................this is about as dumb a campaign as Nancy Reagan telling us, Just say No to drugs
Trump LOVES to use the military when the other side is so over-matched they have no chance of fighting back. Gives him a chance to strut around and put on his tough-guy face. Anybody who can fight back, on the other hand, Trump would bend over backwards to avoid offending. He only picks on people who are so over-matched they have no chance.
Yep. I don’t think he’d even have the guts to truly go after Al Qaeda in their heyday because it wasn’t an easy enough battle. I’m kind of surprised he didn’t invite ISIS to Camp David in his first term to see if they’d invest in some of his hotels in Syria or something. Rolling out the red carpet for MBS is fcking outrageous.
Not just roll out the red carpet but actively claim MBS had no knowledge of Jamal assassination even though his entire CIA determined MBS ordered the hit. Not a single one of his cultists @El_Conquistador @Commodore attacked him for it but rather obsess about Mamdani.
Conquisotor and Commandador are quite fun, since they've never (everyone loves queso and salsa, right?) said anything that means anything.
The senior military lawyer for the combatant command overseeing lethal strikes on alleged drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela disagreed with the Trump administration’s position that the operations are lawful — and his views were sidelined, according to six sources with knowledge of the legal advice. The lawyer, who serves as the senior judge advocate general, or JAG in military parlance, at U.S. Southern Command in Miami, raised his legal concerns in August before the strikes began in September, according to two senior U.S. officials, two senior congressional aides and two former senior U.S. officials. His opinion was ultimately overruled by more senior government officials, including officials at the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the six sources said. Other JAGs and military lawyers at various levels of seniority weighed in on the boat strikes, as well. It’s unclear what each of their opinions were, but some of the military lawyers, including civilians and those in uniform, also expressed concerns to senior officials in their commands and at the Defense Department about the legality of the strikes, the two senior congressional aides and one of the senior former U.S. officials said. The JAG at Southern Command specifically expressed concern that strikes against people on boats in the Caribbean Sea and the eastern Pacific Ocean, whom administration officials call “narco-terrorists,” could amount to extrajudicial killings, the six sources said, and therefore legally expose service members involved in the operations. extrajudicial killings are exactly what they’re doing We’re just supposed to take this lying incompetent regime’s word that these are all drug boats filled with terrorists?
Reports that a deal may get worked out where American companies get to take control of some Venezuelan oil reserves to avoid war. The peace candidate.
ahhhhh.......there it is, be the bully, threaten war and then accept a deal where his friends get rich and tramp gets his "fee"..................and all it cost was 40-50 village fishermen to die in the process
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday ruled out allowing U.S. strikes against cartels on Mexican soil, a day after President Trump said he was willing to do whatever it takes to stop drugs entering the U.S. Meanwhile, Mexican and American diplomats were trying to sort out what may have been an actual U.S. incursion. On Monday, men arrived in a boat at a beach in northeast Mexico and installed some signs signaling land that the U.S. Department of Defense considered restricted. Mexico's Foreign Affairs Ministry said late Monday that the country's navy had removed the signs, which appeared to be on Mexican territory. "The origin of the signs and their placement on national territory were unclear," the ministry said in a statement. On Tuesday, Sheinbaum said the International Boundary and Water Commission, a binational agency that determines the border between the two countries, was getting involved. The signs, driven into the sand near where the Rio Grande empties into the Gulf of Mexico, caused a stir when witnesses said men in a boat arrived at the local beach known as Playa Bagdad and erected them. The signs read in English and Spanish, "Warning: Restricted Area," and went on to explain that it was Department of Defense property and had been declared restricted by "the commander." It said there could be no unauthorized access, photography or drawings of the area. Meanwhile, Sheinbaum on Tuesday again rejected Mr. Trump's offer of military intervention against cartels. "It's not going to happen," Sheinbaum said. "He (Trump) has suggested it on various occasions or he has said, 'we offer you a United States military intervention in Mexico, whatever you need to fight the criminal groups,'" she said. "But I have told him on every occasion that we can collaborate, that they can help us with information they have, but that we operate in our territory, that we do not accept any intervention by a foreign government." Sheinbaum said she had said this to Mr. Trump and to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on previous occasions and that they have understood. "Would I want strikes in Mexico to stop drugs? OK with me, whatever we have to do to stop drugs," Mr. Trump said Monday, adding that he's "not happy with Mexico."
Jonathan Larsen/Blue Amp: They Secretly Gave Powell "The Kraken." They're Secretly Giving Trump War With Venezuela As the lies of the right-wing Iraqi "Curveball," let Bush take us into Iraq, Trump is using his own intel feed to do the same in Venezuela The court filing shows that it was a right-wing Venezuelan expatriate with powerful friends in Washington who first got Trump lawyer Sidney Powell’s star witness out of Venezuela. The expatriate’s partner, a former CIA operative, then took that witness to Trump’s legal team in 2020. Those same two men have spent the past year feeding info to Trump and his team that’s been refuted by Trump’s own intelligence agencies but still drove the U.S. toward war with Venezuela. The claims of their 2020 witness were also refuted almost immediately but still helped seed the ground for Jan. 6 and election denialism that persists to this day. The two men are former CIA Senior Operations Officer Gary Berntsen and Martin Rodil, who moved from Venezuela to the U.S. more than a quarter century ago and built a network in U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, and politics. They’re the ones who told Trump that Tren de Aragua is a paramilitary force sent by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to destabilize the United States. They also claim that Maduro heads a global drug cartel and leads an international conspiracy that’s stolen elections in 72 countries. For years, their work on Venezuela has been secretly bankrolled by another election denier, the former CEO of Overstock.com. It gets crazier.
There is absolutely no reason to go to war with Venezuela It is PURE GREED and IMPERIALISM People are ok with their kids Dying and Murdering for the profit of people that would not even care if they lived or died. Rocket River
