“Kill Them All”: That was the order Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave during the first US strike on a boat in the Caribbean, two sources with direct knowledge of the operation told the Washington Post. To comply with that order, the Special Operations commander ordered a second strike to kill the two survivors.
The White House is Trying to Save Hegseth’s Skin. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Hegseth authorized Admiral Mitch Bradley to carry out the strikes, but did not give an order to “kill everybody.” When a journalist asked Leavitt to explain why the strike wasn’t a war crime, she said it was “conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict,” which is not an explanation. The Trump Administration has provided no evidence that backs up the allegations behind these two killings, or the 81 other killings in the Caribbean and Pacific.
While killing these people and threatening war over Nicolás Maduro’s fake cocaine empire in Venezuela, President Donald Trump pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was serving a 45-year sentence for weapons charges and literally distributing cocaine. He was “at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world,” said the Department of Justice in a statement after his conviction last year.
War … and Peace? US envoys are meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin this morning to discuss a plan to end the country’s war on Ukraine. Steve Witkoff, the Trump diplomat dealing with Putin, has already visited Russia six times since January. You can check for updates here and here.
Clankers: If you need another excuse to go Sarah Connor mode, starting January 1, Washington will be one of six states participating in a new federal AI-assisted Medicaid program called “Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction.” Until now, our state’s Medicaid recipients didn’t need prior authorization (permission) for most services. But the magic of Artificial Intelligence will help determine whether or not they qualify for services like pain management, cervical fusion, arthroscopic knee surgery, and impotence treatment. Here’s the full list of procedures.
To top it off: The evil feds have set up a twisted profit incentive. These AI companies will be “compensated based on a share of averted expenditures.” In other words, they’ll get a cut. The more claims the companies deny, the more money they get.
Fixes: Light Rail stations from Capitol Hill to Northgate will close early for late night work this week. If you’re planning to catch a ride there past 11 p.m. Tuesday to Thursday, you’ll be catching a bus instead, and adding 45 minutes to your travel time. Sound Transit’s new plan for scheduled maintenance a few nights a month should reduce unexpected shutdowns.
Charity: Somebody pledged an anonymous $50 million donation to University of Washington’s Medical Laboratory Science Program, enough to completely cover seniors’ in-state tuition for decades, and expand the program from 70 to 100 students by 2035. These seniors need the financial help. The time spent on clinical rotations and studying for their national board exam makes a part-time job nearly impossible.
Weather: It’ll be cloudy with a high of 46. Tonight, expect patchy fog into Wednesday morning.
Worse Weather: In the last week, the Midwest has seen three snowy winter storms (on Saturday, Chicago saw its snowiest ever November day at 8.4 inches). This morning, a storm that could go bomb cyclone mode will shimmy its way up the coast of New England. Boston, New York and Philadelphia are expected to dodge heavy snowfall.
Finding Out: Starbucks is paying out a $38.9 million settlement after breaking New York City labor law half a million times since 2021. More than 15,000 workers will receive restitution payments for their unpredictable schedules and randomly cut hours.
It was World AIDS Day yesterday. For the first time since its creation in 1988, the US didn’t participate. The administration says it’s “modernizing” its approach to infectious disease. “Is this a symbolic act? Yes, it is and it symbolizes something that is actually devastating and chaotic,” Mitchell Warren, the executive director of AVAC, a global HIV prevention organization based in the U.S, told NPR. As part of his “America First” agenda, Trump has slashed global health funding, disrupting HIV/AIDS care for people in countries like Zambia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia and Kenya.
Dear Whamageddon participants, I don’t respect you.
Charlie Brown Christmas enjoyers, I do respect you. Here you go.
I looked over the list of procedures and can’t believe you wouldn’t need prior auth for some of these. I’ve always had private insurance (including ObamaCare) and you always need to jump through a bunch of hoops to get authorization. Why any different for Medicaid?
‘The
more
claims the
companies deny,
the more money they get.’
let’s Hope and Pray this
doesn’t set off a Wave
of Luigi Mangione
Copycatters tho
how on Earth
doth one
‘off’ an
A.I.?
&,
no,
Not
‘asking for
a friend,’ Friendo.
That’s you, projecting.
I’m sorry Viv, but this AM slog was not posted at 9:05 am this morning.
thee richest
country in the
known fucking Universe
(who gives Israel — who HAS
the dreaded ‘SOCIALISM!’ BILLION$
not to mention Tens
of Billions in WMDs)
but WE
‘CANNOT
Afford M4A’!?
what
Are we,
fucking Stupid?
@1 private insurance doing something is a terrible justification for applying it to public healthcare, and that’s before we talk about a Language Learning Model (so called AI) making those calls rather than doctors, or anyone other than doctors to be honest.
“The Trump Administration has provided no evidence that backs up the allegations behind these two killings, or the 81 other killings in the Caribbean and Pacific.”
After alleging a war crime, The Stranger, which bemoans (correctly) Trump’s egregious violations of rule of law and due process, demands that the Trump Administration assume the burden of proving their innocence.
Rule of law demands that the those making allegations prove all the elements of a war crime, with evidence, and with due process. So where is The Stranger’s support for rule of law now?
@6:
You’re assuming that this administration, which literally embraces lying to our faces as its Standard Operating Procedure, would be forthcoming with evidence in any discovery phase, not to mention that we haven’t recognized the authority of the International Court of Justice since the Reagan era, and which in turn leaves a huge question mark as to who would even prosecute such a charge, given that Congressional committees have been all but defanged by the sycophatic lapdogs in the GOP.
@1 Medicare, not Medicaid. The Stranger also got this wrong. The two programs are routinely confused and they do interact in substantial ways, but they operate by different rules.
@6 That’s how the rule of law works for individuals, not necessarily for the government. It’s a moot question anyway, because drug trafficking is not equivalent to war. No one should be getting summarily blown up on the high seas, drugs or no drugs. The correct procedure, which the Coast Guard followed for decades, is to board the suspect boat, search it, and arrest the occupants if warranted. I expect that ultimately the courts will agree.
@7, It’s not even that deep. Journalists can ask any questions they want the answers to regardless of what burden of proof would be required in a court of law because proving guilt is not their job.
@8: Yikes. Glad you caught that. Viv should fix that. It’s MEDICARE not MEDICAID. Also on that list is incontinence control devices – how cruel!
@6 Once again, you fall victim to the Schroedinger’s Crime Paradox. In this paradox, no crime can be alleged until it is proven in court. The obvious failure of this paradox is that in order to reach court, someone must be accused of a crime and put on trial. If there was no crime until proven in court, there would be no crime at all since nobody could be brought to court without an accusation.
I was kinda wondering how long you’d take to bring your war crimes apologia tour to Hegseth’s defense. Not very long, as it turns out.
And yes, it is a war crime to kill shipwreck survivors. That is literally the object case that the DoD’s justice manual uses to justify disobeying an illegal order. And yes, the people in the water are still shipwreck survivors even if the military caused the shipwreck. Whether Hegseth or someone under his command was the source of the illegal order may be up for debate in court.
Like others pointed out, Medicare not Medicaid
The more disturbing aspect of the Medicare change is it effectively puts everyone on Medicare Advantage, which is horrible, no good, avoid at all costs. I guess Republicans only like death panels when they are run by the private sector.
And speaking of republicans, I really wish progressives would stop using one of their old tropes – that foreign aid is a significant part of the federal budget, FYI, it is not. Medicare costs roughly $1 trillion a year – Bernie’s Medicare for all would run about $3 trillion a year. We’re not paying for that by cutting all foreign aid (which was less than a $100 billion based on most recent data available).
So, anyone want to predict whether we see an explicitly racist approval Al or a HIPPA violating one first?
@12: Well, if you’re well off enough to avoid Medicare Advantage “at all costs”, you’re obviously still buying private insurance which is far more expensive.
@12 — point taken.
pointing out our aiding
and abetting a Genocide
when we have Millions here ~
Tens of Millions HERE with Inadequate
Health Insurance – or None at All — well yeah
there’s Always the Emergency Room — unless your
Cancer has gone from Stage One to Unfucking Treatable
in thee Richest fucking Country
in the History of Fucking
EVER don’t make
any Fucking
Sense to
Me.
I hardly
Doubt I
am Alone.
@13: To be the devil’s advocate, if an AI tool is evaluating claims without human racist dispositions – it could balance out overtly bigoted human claims reviewers.
as
the
Estimable
Senator Sanders
often Says, Billionaires
should NOT fucking Exist
not while there’s a
Single person
Dying for
lack of a
Fucking
Doctor.
and these
Pseudo republican
“Christians” are our Biggest obstacles.
@17: Todays billionaires are yesterday’s millionaires. Should millionaires exist? If not, Bernie does not exist. See where this is going?
@18
How’s
Your healthcare
KkKoolie? satisfied?
@11 Not quite right. Shipwrecked status doesn’t apply here – if the boat is just disabled, vs destroyed, there is a possibility they can radio for reinforcements, for someone to pick up the cargo, etc, and they are still permissible targets. You are also not “shipwrecked” if you are on a military objective. There just isn’t a war crime here, and this story will fade away.
Phoebes @16…
Careful, you are treading on Bi-pedo/Knife’s bailiwick of being the “Devil’s” spokesman, and he’s probably thinking you are trying to take over his job. He’s foolish that way.
@20 The survivors were reportedly clinging to wreckage. The boat was destroyed. And, of course, you’re wrong on the premise too. From the DoD’s Law of War Manual:
“Persons who have been rendered unconscious or otherwise incapacitated by
wounds, sickness, or shipwreck, such that they are no longer capable of fighting, are hors de
combat.”
“For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
https://ogc.osd.mil/Portals/99/department_of_defense_law_of_war_manual.pdf
But never mind facts, our Triple SecDef has to make himself feel manly. War crimes schmor crimes. Kill ’em all! Of course, if anyone else took that approach with our military, we’d be howling with righteous indignation.
@22 You’re wrong on a couple points – the facts as reported indicate it wasn’t “destroyed” in the initial attack but was, rather, disabled. If the boat were destroyed, there would be nothing serviceable left of it. But if it’s disabled – that is, if the decision-maker believed it could still be used to call other narcotraffickers to retrieve their cargo – the boat still qualifies as a military objective. And military objectives can be intentionally attacked.
Even if we assumed narcotraffickers in this scenario could qualify as hors de combat, and it is debatable if civilians participating in hostilities qualify, their watercraft is still targetable, even if they themselves are completely incapacitated due to wounds from the first attack (unlikely since the commander believed they were capable of calling for reinforcements). If the expected incidental damage of injuring/killing them in a second strike would need is assessed along with the concrete & direct military advantage gained from (actually) completely destroying the boat, the attack is lawful pursuant to the LOAC proportionality rule.
What evidence do you have that the commander thought that they were capable of calling for reinforcements? What evidence do you have that the boat was disabled and not destroyed? What evidence do you have that the attack was aimed at the boat and not the crew? “Kill them all” was Hegseth’s reported order.
The war crimes apologia is strong with this one. Even the Republicans in Congress don’t believe your line of bullshit. You have to be a special kind of terrible to be worse than them.
This is Witkoff’s sixth trip to Moscow, and he’s made exactly zero visits to Ukraine. Maybe if he spent a few days in Kyiv, he’d understand why the Ukrainians don’t see building luxury high-rises (the target that acts as its own aiming stake) is the pathway to peace.
@24 As the WaPo story reported, the admiral directed the follow-up attack because “they could theoretically call other traffickers to retrieve them and their cargo.” If the admiral believed it could still be used to call other narcotraffickers to retrieve their cargo, this indicates the boat is only disabled rather than fully destroyed. As far as “Hegseth’s reported order”, the pertinent quote from the article is: ”The order was to kill everybody,’ one of them said.” Even assuming this anonymous double hearsay is an accurate and verbatim recollection of the Secretary’s order, not paraphrasing or presenting an inaccurate description – if a commander, for example, orders subordinates to “kill everybody” before they assault an enemy objective, it is obviously not a war crime or intended or received as “and kill prisoners too!”. There’s kind of a high standard for war crimes, and it isn’t met here. Sorry.
And you’ll have to forgive me for not sharing your respect and admiration for the truth-telling capabilities of Congressional Republicans.
@21 – Rent Free, lol
@26 Wow. One unarmed boat could call in … another unarmed boat. Or maybe both boats (one real and wrecked, one theoretical) might have a few AK-47s. That’s really gonna put the Navy in danger! Especially when the boat is being circled by armed drones. Humans probably weren’t within line of sight. Also, the survivors were described as clinging to wreckage. As in “shipwrecked,” see above. Finally, note that the Navy was perfectly capable of picking up survivors on another strike without worries about them calling in reinforcements.
It was murder or war crimes, whichever you prefer.
Vivian McCall is The Stranger’s news editor and she fakes the post time and doesn’t fix an important mistake called out by multiple readers. She’s not too busy, she just doesn’t care. It’s depressing when journalists don’t have a passion for their work.
@29 I’m glad you’ve conceded on my points above and have descended into silly sarcasm & more of your own misunderstandings. The watercraft does not need to be armed or put the Navy in immediate danger to qualify as a lawful military objective. The NYT further reports that the U.S. military intercepted radio communications from one of the survivors to other traffickers, further indicating the boat was disabled rather than fully destroyed. And while it’s nice if the Navy can pick up survivors, it’s still the case that, as your own linked manual notes, “Combatants who are wounded, sick, or shipwrecked on the battlefield are deemed to have accepted the risk of death or further injury due to their proximity to military operations” and “the presence of the wounded, sick, or shipwrecked on the battlefield does not serve to exempt military objectives from attack due to the risk that such personnel would be incidentally harmed”.
It’s rare I get the chance to so thoroughly dismantle poor argumentation, so thank you for that, but I still think in the future I’d be happier if you just didn’t fall for sensationalized news stories and require education from me.
@30 I’m willing to chalk the post time up to some sort of technical error given the other busted systems on this site like avatar upload. Let it never be said Nekrasova is not magnanimous….
I’m an advocate for universal healthcare (as so many have accurately pointed out – see the rest of the democratic world), but we need to understand it’s a giant undertaking that will take a gigantic federal investment (and perfectly fine going after billionaires but guessing we’ll all pay something – but most of us are already paying something to the parasitic insurance companies).
I hope someday Americans will figure out that insurance tied to your job is insane (especially when said insurance companies skim $100 billion plus a year in profit for the honor of paying our healthcare providers)
@31 I wasn’t accepting your premise, I was simply showing that it was ridiculous. The US Navy had wrecked the boat. The survivors were shipwrecked and were by definition hors de combat and no longer a legitimate military target. And wreck survivors are permitted to send distress calls aka communications.
As for them being on a battlefield, that ended when their boat was wrecked. If another boat had shown up, then it might be a legitimate target, but wreckage with survivors is not. As the manual says, they are off limits unless they’re continuing to fight. You might even have a case if they were trying to flee. But they weren’t–their boat was dead in the water and they were clinging to wreckage.
Even if we accept your hair splitting between disabled and wrecked, there’s an instructive parallel: you aren’t allowed to fire on parachutes descending from a disabled aircraft. Even if the primary military objective is only disabled, you can’t fire on the crew trying to survive.
And yes, I am sarcastic because you’re defending war crimes while pretending to have the moral high ground. Like I said, you’re a very special brand of terrible person. Every outside military expert interviewed has said that this was almost certainly a war crime. You’re lined up on the wrong side.
@11, Alleging a crime is fine. It’s the begging of the process. The problem with the quote from The Stranger is the demand that the Administration (or individual) they are accusing provide evidence that they are innocent. The burden is not on Trump (or anyone else) to prove their innocence, but the accuser to prove guilt in a court.
@7, Spot on. That makes it even more inappropriate for The Stranger to put the burden on those they are accusing to provide proof of evidence rather than calling on themselves and others to provide proof of guilt.
@8, Rule of law applies to any individual or government accused of a crime. War crimes are defined by international treaty, and those international treaties put the burden on the accuser, not matter whether its an individual or government that is accused.
@8, With regard to what is an Act of War and what is a mere crime in the international context is something I am agnostic about.
Al Qaeda, a non-state actor, hijacks airplanes and weaponizes them to kill nearly 2,000. Nobody disputed that was an Act of War.
So now say that Al Qaeda decides to weaponize poppy seeds into heroin to disable the American economy by creating as many addicts as possible. They even put agents into the U.S. to spike as many office workers drinks with opioids as they can. They want to kill as many American infidels as they can with overdose deaths. The act is the same, just the means have changed. How it any less an act of war?
I would like to see more efforts in international treaty and case law to define the differences between an Act of War and a mere international crime.
You can convince me with arguments for one or the other. At this point I don’t have a clear sense of where the bright line is, or if adequate attempts have been made to draw such a line, or recognize one.
@22, The DOD Manual is the equivalent of a police policy manual. It governs DOD personnel until DOD decides to modify or suspend it, which Hegseth, as the head of DOD, de facto did with such a statement. It is not international or domestic law. @20 Makes a valid point. If these folks are viewed as non-state actors engaged in acts or war that disable the American economy or kill Americans with drugs (instead of missiles or hijacked airplanes, they are combatants, not shipwreck survivors. As I stated above, I am agnostic on the dividing line between combatants and mere criminals.
@22, “What evidence do you have that the commander thought that they were capable of calling for reinforcements?” The burden of proof is not on the commander, or his military to provide evidences of innocence, but on the accuser, in the appropriate legal venue, to prove guilt. Even if just regular debate, the burden is not on everyone else to prove someone asserting something is wrong, but on the one making the assertion to prove they are correct. The only evidence we have is that force was used to destroy boats and those crewing them. The assertion has been made that the equipment and personnel were not engaging in acts of war when shipping lethal and disabling substances to the United States against its people. Where is the evidence that this can not legally be construed as an act of war under international law. There are many other elements of the alleged crime that those asserting the crime have yet to provide any evidence to support. I am open to all of that.
What is unreasonable is to demand those being accused provide evidence of innocence. That is ass-backwards under U.S. and International Law.
@34 The watercraft is what was targeted, with the traffickers as permitted incidental casualties. If the watercraft can continue the mission by radioing for someone to pick up the cargo, it is still a legal objective. You are trying to make your own definition of what a legal military objective is based on what feels fair to you, and you are incorrect. Your analogy is also bad, and I almost have to assume a little deliberate deception here because I can’t believe you’d miss the obvious trick you did here – the correct analogy would be if they continued to target and fire on the disabled aircraft, even in the presence of descending parachutes. You’re incorrect about “every” outside military expert being in unanimity on this incident, as anyone probably could have guessed, being par the course for your research on this subject.
At the end of the day, I’m sure you could find many military lawyers aren’t immune to sensationalized news either and have probably fallen for a lot of the same things you did, but I think I already anticipated and dismantled the points they make. And as this story goes nowhere and fades away, you’re going to be left with exactly what Donald Trump wants – his enemies on the record with a vociferous defense of narcotraffickers.
The legal problems started before our Navy fired upon a civilian vessel:
“The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152) signed into law on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes that limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic law by the federal government or by other government entities such as county sheriffs and justices of the peace. Congress passed the Act as an amendment to an army appropriations bill following the end of Reconstruction and updated it in 1956, 1981 and 2021.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
The only entity exempted from the Posse Comitatus Act is the Coast Guard, and as @8 helpfully noted, the Coast Guard takes an approach far more like civilian law enforcement.
Anyone who still believes in the legality of this action simply doesn’t understand how American law works.
nekrasova @20 @23 @26 @27 @31 @32 @36 @37, I must say not only am I quite envious of the ample free time you apparently have but I’m also quite impressed by the mental gymnastics you’ve gone through to justify our SecDef’s–excuse me, Secretary of War’s—latest Hegsethery. Frankly, I don’t quite have the intellectual capacity to follow all of it.
But even with my limited intellect, I am sharp enough to realize one thing. You don’t believe a word you’re saying.
@35 “Rule of law applies to any individual or government accused of a crime.” Perhaps in a court of law, but even there the laws of discovery also apply. Trump and Hegseth have given us nothing despite repeated requests for details on exactly who was targeted, what they were specifically accused of doing and how it was determined that they were guilty of … whatever they were guilty of that merited their being blown to smithereens rather than boarded and searched. Until we the public get at least that much info, Trump has no “due process” leg to stand on, and neither do you.
@32: Na, time machine traveled posts times have been going on for years. There are occasional series of fluff pieces that appear at 4:30 am long after 4:30 am. Also, back in the Dan Savage and Eli Sanders years, Slog AM was always at 8:30 am – not that I’m advocating that time but it shows you how different things were back then.
Hegseth has spent pretty much his entire career arguing American soldiers should simply kill with impunity:
“Hegseth’s views were shaped by his own experience in the Army. He was deployed to Iraq in 2005, in the northern city of Samarra, which was a counterinsurgency hotbed. The regiment’s Charlie Company, which included Hegseth, employed such aggressive tactics that it was referred to by some soldiers as the Kill Company. Four of its soldiers were later court-martialed on charges of killing unarmed Iraqis. Three of them were convicted; one case was thrown out on appeal.”
(https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pete-hegseth-military-commentary-career-56727e2e?mod=hp_lead_pos1)
As always, I relish the irony of progressives here bemoaning yet another entirely predictable result of progressives’ having worked to “punish” Harris and to “defeat” her.
@8 CKathes: Thank you for the Medicare / Medicaid clarification and catching that. It sickens me to think how many millions of innocent U.S. citizens whose lives are going to be negatively impacted by Felon Mu$k’s neofascist KKKrime syndicate. And we’re only into the eleventh month of this dystopian nightmare.
@15 kristofarian: I share your frustration.
@40 CKathes: I’m amazed every member of Felon Mu$k’s Mein Trumpf neo-Nazi regime–including Taco Donaldo itself–hasn’t already faced a firing squad, if not Judgment at Nuremberg.
@7 COMTE: BINGO.
@18: What are you going to do when Felon Mu$k’s Mein Trumpf yanks away your KKKool-Aid and hydroxychloroquine coverage, Calvin? Besides cry to your mom?
I know you can’t see where this is going because it’s obvious your head is still stuck up your ass.
@30
It’s 9:05am somewhere!
And sorry to the Trump ass-kissers, but killing civilians in international waters is a crime. How is this any different in criminality than Putin’s defenestrations?
@46
publish Putin’s misdeeds
and you’re Gone. We
are not Quite
There yet.
@45: Keep warm and cozy up in Bellingham this winter, we know how WINDY WINDY WINDY WINDY WINDY WINDY it can get!
@18 The difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is astronomical.
@49: Three orders of magnitude is hardly “astronomical”.
@39 Unfortunately like most of us, I could use a lot more ample free time. Maybe I lucked out a little in that I do get chances to glance down at my devices throughout the day, but I don’t think I eclipse the rest of humanity in intellect. I think you do have the intellectual capacity to understand what I’m saying. What you could stand to work on a little maybe is “theory of mind”. According to you sometimes I’m a secret Republican, but now I don’t even believe in my own assessment of war crimes. Is it really so difficult to believe someone doesn’t share the same opinions as you?
@48: Thanks for the sentiment, but you can spare your all caps hot air, KKKoolie. Be prepared for atmospheric flooding right now—especially if you live in a basement.
@47 kristofarian: I wish Vladimir Putin and its sock puppet, Felon Mu$k’s Mein Trumpf, ad nauseum were all gone.
Thank you and bless your heart, Vivian, for sharing my all-time Number 1 holiday CD, A Charlie Brown Christmas, by the Vince Guaraldi Trio (1965)! I have two copies of this CD as well as DVDs of the Charlie Brown holiday series. I grew up watching this holiday special every yuletide season, and it always has symbolized happy times growing up.
Fun PNW fact: Tracy Stratford Shaw, child actress who voiced the first Lucy Van Pelt in A Charlie Brown Christmas, is a high school librarian in Bellingham. Those lucky kids!
“Pete Hegseth Kills Them All…” Jeezus WEPT! Pete Hegseth is the Secretary of War Crimes, and
should be ousted like Felon Mu$k’s Mein Trumpf and the rest of its KKKrooked KKKabinet.
I feel really sorry for everyone currently serving active duty in the U.S. military.
They’re being forcibly reprogrammed to be Terminator T-1000s and Star Wars Storm Troopers
with no ability to think freely, just shoot to kill on sight. When is this dystopian nightmare going to end?
I’m amazed the rest of the world hasn’t just said “fuck it” and is pointing all guns at US.