pull down to refresh

Officials acknowledged they don’t know the identities of the people they’re killing and can’t meet the evidentiary burden to prosecute survivors.
That's the norm for war, right?
If people are figuring out that's a problem, I'm not complaining.
reply
It's okay when Obama does it
reply
2 wrongs make a "who cares?"
reply
Did I say that?
reply
no but some people do imply that
reply
What isn't?
reply
There is no evidentiary burden to meet or fulfill
reply
How so? They're accused of criminal activity. That's supposed to be followed by presentation of evidence.
reply
It’s a military strike against enemy combatants
reply
Uh huh...I feel like I missed the Congressional declaration of war against a particular enemy.
Why in the world would you take their word for something like that? All they do is lie about this stuff.
How do you know they were enemy combatants without any evidence to support that?
In what sense are they enemy combatants if they're not attacking America?
reply
Consider the source, the intercept which is no longer credible post Glenn Greenwald
reply
I don't disagree with you there, but the alternative is giving the US government the benefit of the doubt.
What experience from this century suggests they deserve that?
reply
mRNA?
anyway, the article mentions Venezuela zero times but Venezuela is in the URL
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @redban 5 Nov
moron
reply
you're the braindead zombie
reply
35 sats \ 0 replies \ @Angie 5 Nov
Hay un refrán que dice " no tires piedras al techo ajeno si el tuyo es de cristal" , que ha hecho el con la delincuencia y el tráfico de drogas prostitución infantil en su país. O es como los comunistas que ocultan bajo el telón sus errores culpando a otros?
reply