this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
166 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26576 readers
2083 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

[T]he Post says Bradley ordered the second strike because the survivors were “legitimate targets,” as they could “theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” But Goldsmith notes that this would not be an adequate rationale in the face of the laws of war, which the Defense Department binds itself to, and Bradley’s highest duty, says Goldsmith, would have been to refuse to kill the two men regardless of what Hegseth ordered.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 4 days ago

Ironically enough, if they wouldn't have insisted on calling it a war, they'd have gotten away with it

America killing innocent civilians has been a thing since before Obama normalized it to the point everyone stopped caring.

We can't settle for a do nothing moderate like Biden again, we have to hold these people accountable the second we can

[–] shittydwarf@piefed.social 19 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Even during war, once men are in the water you retrieve them. Despicable for all involved

[–] Lushed_Lungfish@lemmy.ca 13 points 4 days ago

I'm sorry, I know that this is a serious matter, but "shakier ground"? Would not "dangerous waters" or "rocky shoals" be the more apt phrase?

[–] LemmyBruceLeeMarvin@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago

~~Boat bombing~~

Murder spree

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

It's a real shame there were no survivors...

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Right, survivors = witnesses.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It doesn't matter if there were any or not. The issuing an order for no quarter that was acted upon is in of itself the crime.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 11 points 4 days ago (3 children)

No it matters a lot because a survivor could have said "hey we're not drug movers" which is the point of my previous comment.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Oh. Thanks for making it clearer. My point is that the "no quarter" order is the crime no matter what, even if it weren't acted upon.

[–] the_q@lemmy.zip 3 points 4 days ago

Oh absolutely.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago

Which is, of course, the reason there could be no survivors.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

What would matter even more is if Trump, Hegseth, Miller et al had even the slightest degree of credibility in their claims that the people killed were drug traffickers.

So far, the sum total of their reasons is "because I said so."

a survivor could have said “hey we’re not drug movers”

Yeah, I'm sure that would have made a difference. Pull the other one, it's got bells on.