this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2024
89 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19098 readers
4081 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

The Trump transition team is reportedly considering investigating U.S. military leaders involved in the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal, with potential charges ranging from mismanagement to treason.

The effort aims to review decision-making, assess accountability for the chaotic exit, and possibly recall commanders to active duty for legal action.

Critics, including Trump and his allies, have condemned the withdrawal as a failure, citing deadly incidents like the Abbey Gate bombing and missteps in leadership.

Some insiders question the legality of such actions, while others frame the move as politically motivated.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.world 14 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

This is 100% a political stunt that will go nowhere. If this gets to a trial the jury is active duty military of the same rank or higher than the accused. That’s means the men’s and women that took over when these people retired will be the jury. These individuals served their careers together.

Even with a court martial not needing a unanimous jury, they won’t be able to field enough Trump supporters to convict that high up the chain.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

I kind of figured that's how this process worked, and I'm glad you mentioned it. Now I really hope that you're right and that there's no way around it.