Rand Paul says Hegseth is either ‘lying’ about boat strike or ‘incompetent’

rand paul joins the dems and other leftist chorus in attacking and trying to take Hegseth out of office...

All in an apparent continuing quest to protect drug runners and keep drugs coming into the U.S....

I think Rand is INCOMPETANT.

Rand has totally jumped the shark.

Where is the Fauci prosecution he said he would push for if GOP took control? What a grandstanding POS.

Rand has gotten tiresome.

Time for Paul to retire or join the Democrat Party.

“Secretary Hegseth said he had no knowledge of this, and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn’t happen.”

That is evidently because Hegseth did not hand around, foreknowing that a second strike would be necessary.

The Washington Post said that Hegseth ordered the second strike to kill two surviors clinging to debris. That is what he was referring to.

Rand Paul has turned into a snake.

I hate it when congress clowns talk past each other to score clicks.

Stole my thunder. /s

Agreed.

Been done with him for quite some time. He should have been purged from gop long ago.

Exactly.

Especially since he’s going to bat for them.

I think Rand is INCOMPETANT.

That's obvious from his posts on FR.

Rand is a pussy. He knows that the entire US Military was poisoned with a deadly illegal vaccine. He won’t bring that up because he is a pussy and wants money power and attention. He also knows about the industrial scale voter fraud that allowed Joe Biden to take office and that allowed Willie Brown’s side chick to win all the states that don’t have voter ID and he says nothing... because he is a pussy.

That’s pretty damning because few people know more about incompence than Rand Paul.

rand fan in one of his pro paul spam threads spilled the beans...

rand paul is already campaining for 2028, and trying to get favorable press and push for things that will make newer, young voters, vote for him...

You know...likely his policy positions that result in:

legalization or easier access to drugs to get them stoned or doped up with hemp or marijuana,

legislation to protect and keep illegal aliens in the U.S....

comments and anything to make Trump look bad, etc...

DOD Law of War Manual
https://media.defense.gov/2023/Jul/31/2003271432/-1/-1/0/DOD-LAW-OF-WAR-MANUAL-JUNE-2015-UPDATED-JULY%202023.PDF

Page 39
1.11 JUS AD BELLUM
The law of war has been categorized into jus ad bellum (law concerning the resort to force) and jus in bello (law concerning conduct during war).179 Although jus ad bellum is an essential part of the law of war to consider in the political process of whether to resort to military force, this manual focuses on jus in bello.180 Although jus in bello rules generally operate independently of whether a side has comported with jus ad bellum in the resort to force, parts of jus ad bellum are relevant to jus in bello.1

This section provides a brief overview of some basic aspects of jus ad bellum. Jus ad bellum issues might raise questions of national policy that, in the Executive Branch, would be decided by the President. In U.S. practice, legal advice provided to national-level principal officials on such issues generally would need to be addressed through interagency discussions coordinated by the legal adviser to the National Security Council, including consultation and coordination among senior counsel of relevant U.S. departments and agencies.

Page 77
3.3.3.2 Assertion of War Powers by a State Engaged in Hostilities Against a NonState Armed Group. Occasionally, a State that has been engaged in hostilities against a nonState armed group has taken actions that have recognized the belligerency of the non-State armed group, at least for certain purposes. For example, President Lincoln’s proclamation of a blockade during the U.S. Civil War was viewed as recognizing the existence of a state of war, at least for the purposes of imposing the blockade on foreign vessels seeking to trade with the Confederacy.34

Page 889
13.1.1 The Law of the Sea During Armed Conflict. The law of the sea is a body of treaty
and customary international law. Its rules have been developed principally with peacetime
situations in mind. Nothing in the law of the sea impairs a State’s inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense, or rights during armed conflict.3

Page 890
For example, the law of the sea provides that the high seas are reserved for peaceful
purposes. However, the use of the high seas for peaceful purposes is understood not to impose restraints upon military operations that would otherwise be consistent with international law, or to impair a State’s inherent right of self-defense. The use of outer space for peaceful purposes also has been interpreted in this way.
…
13.1.2 The United States and the LOS Convention. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) was opened for signature on December 10, 1982.

The United States is not a Party to the LOS Convention. The United States did not sign the LOS Convention when it opened for signature because of several major problems in the Convention’s deep seabed mining provisions. However, in 1983, the United States announced that it was prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests reflected in the LOS Convention relating to traditional uses of the oceans – such as navigation and overflight – and that the United States would exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and 13.1.2 The United States and the LOS Convention. The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) was opened for signature on December 10, 1982. The United States is not a Party to the LOS Convention. The United States did not sign the LOS Convention when it opened for signature because of several major problems in the Convention’s deep seabed mining provisions.10 However, in 1983, the United States announced that it was prepared to accept and act in accordance with the balance of interests reflected in the LOS Convention relating to traditional uses of the oceans – such as navigation and overflight – and that the United States would exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and

Page 893
…
13.2.2.2 Territorial Seas. The sovereignty of a State extends, beyond its land territory and its internal waters, to a belt of sea adjacent to its coast, described as the territorial sea.29

The United States has claimed a 12-nautical mile territorial sea and recognizes territorial sea claims of other nations up to a maximum breadth of 12 nautical miles. Previously, the United States claimed a three-nautical mile territorial sea. This claim was made in the context of asserting the rights of the United States as a neutral State.

Coastal States often make specific maritime claims, but the United States does not recognize those maritime claims that are not in conformity with customary international law, as reflected in the LOS Convention.

Page 900
13.3.3.1 Entitlement of Vessels to Conduct Attacks During Non-International Armed Conflict. The United States is not a Party to any treaties that would prohibit the use of warships and auxiliaries in non-international armed conflict, nor has the United States recognized such a prohibition in customary international law. Accordingly, State vessels other than warships may be used to conduct attacks against non-State armed groups during noninternational armed conflict. For example, international law does not prohibit auxiliaries from conducting attacks in a non-international armed conflict. Similarly, a State may use its law enforcement authorities to address insurgent groups, and there would be no objection to using a law enforcement vessel as part of operations against insurgents.

In some cases, the acts of hostility by insurgents on the high seas may be regarded as Piracy.

13.3.4 Shipwrecked Persons. Shipwrecked persons are hors de combat, and may not be made the object of attack. Shipwrecked persons include personnel involved in forced landings at sea by or from aircraft, but do not include, for example, combatant personnel engaged in Attacks.

As far as military exigencies permit, after each naval engagement, all possible measures should be taken without delay to search for and collect the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, and to recover the dead.

Page 901
13.3.5 Surrender by Enemy Vessels. The general rules on the protection of persons hors de combat, including the rule prohibiting the attack of persons who have surrendered, also apply to enemy vessels. In particular, it is forbidden to make an enemy vessel the object of attack if it has genuinely, clearly, and unconditionally surrendered, in circumstances in which it is feasible to accept such surrender.

Once an enemy vessel has clearly indicated a readiness to surrender, the attack must be
discontinued.73 Indicia of surrender by vessels may include:
• hauling down her flag;
• hoisting a white flag;74
• surfacing (in the case of submarines);75
• stopping engines and responding to the attacker’s signals;76 or
• taking to lifeboats.

Page 1088
18.3.2.1 Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations. The
requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to
perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal.
For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.27 Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would
also be clearly illegal.28 On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly
illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate
whether the rule has been violated.

Subordinates are not required to screen the orders of superiors for questionable points of legality, and may, absent specific knowledge to the contrary, presume that orders have been lawfully issued.

Page 1092
18.5 ROLE OF JUDGE ADVOCATES AND LEGAL ADVISERS

18.5.1 Legal Advisers. The United States has provided for legal advisers to advise military commanders on the law of war.43 For example, DoD policy has required that each head of a DoD component make qualified legal advisers available at all levels of command to provide advice about law of war compliance during planning and execution of exercises and operations.

18.5.1.1 Review of Plans, Policies, Directives, and Rules of Engagement by Legal Advisers. DoD policy has required that commanders of the combatant commands ensure that all plans, policies, directives, and rules of engagement, and those of subordinate commands and components, are reviewed by legal advisers to ensure their consistency with the law of war and DoD policy on the law of war.

Find a new gig, Rand. You have gotten nutty and obsessed.

The Bismark was repeatedly attacked until it sank.

Especially now that the Autopen pardons have been overturned.....

It’s curious how this Senator seems so on-track with the interest of the cartels in opposing Trump’s policies…eh. And of the CCP regarding tariffs.

Now Hegseth is the target.
Almost seems…coordinated

Paul could not get elected dog catcher if he laid out HIS real agenda and ran on it.

Something YUGE is about to happen.

And Deep State is desperate to stop it.

Betcha.