Yes, indeed! I voted for this!

“By the authority vested in me as President @realDonaldTrump by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Sec 1. Background. In just 8 months, my Administration has dramatically reduced the size of the Federal workforce, improving the efficient delivery of Government services while prioritizing hiring in national security, immigration enforcement, public safety, and other roles that further my Administration’s priorities and benefit American taxpayers. The results of this approach have surpassed the ratio of four departures for each new hire set forth in Executive Order 14210 of February 11, 2025 (Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative). To protect and expand upon these historic improvements, and to ensure that the Federal Government is optimally staffed to meet critical mission needs and implement the agenda that the American people elected me to pursue, Federal hiring shall be subject to the following policies and procedures going forward.

Sec. 2. Policies and Procedures to Govern Federal Hiring. No Federal civilian position that is vacant may be filled, and no new position may be created, except as provided for in this order or required by applicable law. Except as set forth in section 3 of this order, this policy applies to all executive departments and agencies (agencies) regardless of their sources of operational or programmatic funding…”







www.whitehouse.gov

Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Background.
www.whitehouse.gov www.whitehouse.gov
 
T. A. Gardner said:
What was going through their minds? Well, the last thing that probably went through their minds was the Harpoon missile blowing that boat out of the water...
Click to expand...


According to some lefties online, they were just trying to find a spot where the fish were biting - in order to feed their hungry children , or something.
 
Diogenes said:
According to some lefties online, they were just trying to find a spot where the fish were biting - in order to feed their hungry children , or something.
Click to expand...
Yea, they were doing that in a boat going 50 knots + leaving a wake a mile long behind them. The Lefties would have had a better excuse that they were just a water ski boat out doing practice...
 
Diogenes said:
But, muh due process!
Click to expand...
Not in international waters!

plaque-captains-word-is-law-RWB446-FP10-7833__15713.1543323229.jpg
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It'll be interesting to see which Democrats vote against that...
Click to expand...


All of 'em, I expect; if it even makes it to a vote.

Democrats in the Maine legislature just voted down a bill to make AI child porn illegal, if that helps you understand the Democrat mindset.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Not in international waters!
Click to expand...

Sorta.

U.S. law enforcement or military actions are guided by international law and U.S. policy, not constitutional due process.

However, if a U.S. citizen is detained by U.S. authorities in international waters, certain due process principles might apply indirectly, depending on the context (e.g., extradition to U.S. soil).

Courts have ruled that constitutional protections may extend to citizens abroad in specific circumstances, but this is limited and case-specific.

Non-citizens in international waters generally have no claim to U.S. due process unless brought under U.S. jurisdiction.

Legal standards in such cases often depend on international treaties or customary law.

The killing of suspected drug smugglers by the U.S. military in international waters could potentially violate international law, depending on the circumstances, as it involves complex legal principles under international maritime law, human rights law, and the law of the sea.

If the U.S. military kills suspected smugglers without evidence of an imminent threat, without attempting non-lethal measures, or without proper identification of the vessel’s status (e.g., flag state or statelessness), it could be deemed an unlawful use of force. This might violate UNCLOS, human rights law, or customary international law.

In the above case, the U.S. has framed this as a "non-international armed conflict" under Article 51 of the UN Charter, allowing military engagement with cartels treated as unlawful combatants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top