this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
162 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26576 readers
885 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
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] shittydwarf@piefed.social 56 points 3 days ago
[–] Inucune@lemmy.world 44 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So he's off to be tried in international court for war crimes, right?

[–] HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 18 points 3 days ago

No it means they're confident there won't be any consequences now.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

Americans don't recognize the ICC when US military are the defandents...

The United States signed the 1999 Rome Statute but it never ratified the treaty, taking the position that the International Criminal Court (ICC) lacks fundamental checks and balances.[1] The American Service-Members' Protection Act of 2002 further limited US involvement with the ICC. The ICC reserves the right of states to prosecute war crimes, and the ICC can only proceed with prosecution of crimes when states do not have willingness or effective and reliable processes to investigate for themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

It's like with Netenyahu, someone has to comply and arrest them and take them to court, even then it's debatable if the court would hold them for trial.

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 19 points 3 days ago

Why are they calling it a drug boat? It was never verified as a drug boat.

Why can they instead say "repeats falsehoods" instead of "lies" because of legal ramifications but can call this vessel a "drug boat" without any confirmation that it had narcotics on it?

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

That's murder. He's a murderer. What do we do with murderers?

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

According to Hakeem Jeffries, absolutely nothing.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

If your part of trumps cabinet, probably given underage girls as a reward

[–] Asmodeus_Krang@infosec.pub 12 points 3 days ago

We've hanged and put people in front of firing squads for this exact crime.

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 8 points 3 days ago

But didn't Hegseth himself say that him authorizing the second strike was "fake news"?

[–] Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 5 points 3 days ago
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

🎶 The wheels on the bus go round and round 🎶

[–] s@piefed.world 4 points 3 days ago

Bad headline. The first paragraph:

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Monday that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the Sept. 2 strikes on an alleged drug trafficking boat in the Caribbean, while saying it was Adm. Frank Bradley who specifically ordered a second strike that killed survivors.

[–] sepi@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

All pete on opsec

[–] DarkDecay@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

There is no room for non criminals in trumps administration. If it weren't so pathetically inept it would be hilarious