Some Get Pardoned, Some Get Killed

[UT alum]

11 hours ago, Reagan said:

 

In case you needed more clarity!  The Washington Post has just been caught red-handed SLANDERING Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley by claiming they ordered survivors be killed after a narco-strike. The NYT has 100% DEBUNKED the WaPo report now.

Two pillars of “mainstream media” and fake news? They’re either reliable or not. Why do you quote or believe either one?

[baddog]

16 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Yes, it matters. As for your un-American charge against me, gth.

What does GTH mean? 

[OlDawg]

Without getting into specific details, I’ll just remind folks that SpecOps operate under different ROE’s than conventional military units.

Yes. They still operate under international laws and rules of combat while in uniform, or under the flag of the U.S. But, rules are vastly more flexible.

Typically, a USN vessel assisting in deterring criminal activity will replace their fleet flags with a Coast Guard flag, and thus—technically—be under CG control with the legal protections offered. It can be debated if designating a group a terrorist organization makes them a military or criminal target.

I don’t have details on the attack in September. If true SpecOps, much of what you’re hearing from the chattering class is inaccurate/incomplete due to their lack of knowledge of the incident, and in the different ROE’s.

Rest assured, when uniformed DOD personnel are involved, JAG is also involved at every level in the chain. They are the experts in military law. Not civilian lawyers, pundits, or politicians.

If Congress wants to change something, they need to pass a resolution of some sort defining when/how POTUS can use force. History has shown—all the way back to Jefferson and the Barbary pirates—that POTUS has the authority to defend the U.S. and it’s interests with military force. ‘Defending the U.S.’ is the gray area in this case just as it was with many previous Presidents, including Obama and Libya, and Biden and the Houthis.

Finally, I’d be especially concerned how leaks from military operations were still occurring.

 

[bullets13]

16 hours ago, UT alum said:

1 1/2 pounds is low level. 400 tons is cartel level. Think what you want. Trump’s really bad.

anything above selling a little bud is not low level. 

[Reagan]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

Two pillars of “mainstream media” and fake news? They’re either reliable or not. Why do you quote or believe either one?

"The NYT has 100% DEBUNKED the WaPo"!  It quoted your Bible for the news the New York Times debunking your other Bible for news the Washington Post's lie!  So -- which one is fake news?  

[Big girl]

On 12/2/2025 at 9:09 AM, thetragichippy said:

Perhaps you should research the "why" behind it and not just read headlines......

I don't recall you upset or posting about Bidens 2500 drug related pardons, or his 4245 acts of clemency.....the most of ANY President, and he only served one term......he also pardon 6 folks who was convicted of Murder......

When you look at comparisons, your outrage makes ZERO sense.....

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Minor drug offenses. I dont recall him pardoning drug lords.

[Big girl]

2 hours ago, OlDawg said:

Without getting into specific details, I’ll just remind folks that SpecOps operate under different ROE’s than conventional military units.

Yes. They still operate under international laws and rules of combat while in uniform, or under the flag of the U.S. But, rules are vastly more flexible.

Typically, a USN vessel assisting in deterring criminal activity will replace their fleet flags with a Coast Guard flag, and thus—technically—be under CG control with the legal protections offered. It can be debated if designating a group a terrorist organization makes them a military or criminal target.

I don’t have details on the attack in September. If true SpecOps, much of what you’re hearing from the chattering class is inaccurate/incomplete due to their lack of knowledge of the incident, and in the different ROE’s.

Rest assured, when uniformed DOD personnel are involved, JAG is also involved at every level in the chain. They are the experts in military law. Not civilian lawyers, pundits, or politicians.

If Congress wants to change something, they need to pass a resolution of some sort defining when/how POTUS can use force. History has shown—all the way back to Jefferson and the Barbary pirates—that POTUS has the authority to defend the U.S. and it’s interests with military force. ‘Defending the U.S.’ is the gray area in this case just as it was with many previous Presidents, including Obama and Libya, and Biden and the Houthis.

Finally, I’d be especially concerned how leaks from military operations were still occurring.

 

I heard a JAG lawyer say that the strikes were illegal

 

[OlDawg]

8 minutes ago, Big girl said:

I heard a JAG lawyer say that the strikes were illegal

 

lol 

An active JAG wouldn’t make that comment, which means they are no more than someone else with an agenda.

You really do get suckered in, don’t you?

[bullets13]

44 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Minor drug offenses. I dont recall him pardoning drug lords.

if someone shoots you in the leg tomorrow will that be considered a "minor shooting"?

[LumRaiderFan]

48 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Minor drug offenses. I dont recall him pardoning drug lords.

Probably because you weren’t interested since it was a democrat.

[thetragichippy]

9 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

if someone shoots you in the leg tomorrow will that be considered a "minor shooting"?

Best comment in months!!