Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?Yep, you want your military lawyers bowing to the political tides and ideology of whoever happens to be in power at the time ...!
Thanks, but I can't take credit for those facts. lol
You gotta credit Congressional Acts, like IRTPA'04 and USAPA'01...
Thanks! I think Trump DoD probably used this one:The term “international terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;
Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?
Thanks! I think Trump DoD probably used this one:
...involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life (Schedule 1 drugs?) that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State...
.
I think you have me mistaken, good friend. I dont get to pick nor choose a thing.All three condtions A, B & C must be met. You (and Trump) don't get to pick and chose.
The last 30 years of the 20th century.Sir can you please list a Presidential Administration, after the day of 14jun1775, where military lawyers did NOT bow to the political tides and ideology of whoever happened to be in power at that time?
I think you have me mistaken, good friend. I dont get to pick nor choose a thing.
LOL
remember now, I was referencing the time period 14jun1775 - 09dec2025.
I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.Agreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?
Is it to:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?
So has it often been with organized crime.I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.
If you mean 1969 - 1999, can you give some examples?? I can't seem to find any military counsels' refusals to bow down when I consider thing's like... Vietnam, Libya 1986, Desert Storm, etc...The last 30 years of the 20th century.
You must not have been on the inside.If you mean 1969 - 1999, can you give some examples?? I can't seem to find any military counsels' refusals to bow down when I consider thing's like... Vietnam, Libya 1986, Desert Storm, etc...
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population called migrants entering our southern borders via kidnappings, abuses, extortion, charging illegal passage fees, etcAgreed. But tell me, what is the intent of drug cartels?
Is it to:
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;
....or, perhaps, make a profit on an illegal substance?
Of course they do. Indeed, they exercise what amounts to national sovereignty over large territories. The trouble is, that if we are waging an actual war against them on that basis, killing those two men in their wrecked boat would still be illegal.I do think the major Mexican and South American cartels do all four.
I've been saying that all along.The trouble is, that if we are waging an actual war against them on that basis, killing those two men in their wrecked boat would still be illegal.
What are these migrants supposed to do when they get in? Shoot government officials? Blow things up?(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population called migrants entering our southern borders via kidnappings, abuses, extortion, charging illegal passage fees, etc
Why should we let them do that?(ii) to influence the policy of a government/our Liberal-Democrat, DNC party members by coercion --or intimidation at least
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by using BIGGER EVILS THAN mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping such as ...by corrupting officials, destabilizing regions, funding extremist activities, causing massive nat security & military spending, diverting resources, and fleecing the rule of law. Leading to increased violence, erosion of social capacity via disturbingly-high drug use. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT ALL FUNDS insurgencies or terrorirism cells.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?