Stay updated with breaking news from Pentagon lawyers. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Nations to sign up, but the brits, french, germans and us can do it, and they need to start doing it now. and is that a conversation that s happening? because i know when you talk, general mccaffrey, people listen. well, you know, i ve been in several administrations in washington, and our government actually works better than any other one i ve encountered on the globe. however, we get wrapped around the council, you know? conference table and with lawyers debating the white house lawyers, doj lawyers, state lawyers, pentagon lawyers, defensive versus offensive, you know, i ve seen a lot of people killed in combat, and it was not apparent whether it was a defensive kill or an offensive kill. so, they ve been worried about nuclear warfare. they should be. the president s going to be held accountable. they re worried about world war iii. not much of a worry in my mind. russia has most of their ground ....
The military is pushing wack on reports the 5800 troops president trump sent to the border should be home by christmas. the army commander overseeing the troops told that to politico. the u.s. army responded with an official statement indicating it may shift some forces to other areas of the border and today new talk on timing. our national security correspondent jennifer reporting live from the pentagon. a day after a federal judge halted trump administration from giving asylum, senior official confirms the president is preparing to sign off on additional powers for the 5900 or so u.s. troops sent to the u.s. mexico border in the last month. soon u.s. troops will be allowed to protect custom and border protection personnel according to officials involved in the planning. until now, pentagon lawyers barred troops from using weapons for anything other than self-defense at the border. ....
On the latter issue i think the general s comments are being somewhat overblown. the military has a long-standing policy of questioning, and ultimately not implementing, any illegal orders. so my sense is the general re was restating the policy op on whether president trump would order an illegal strike, in my experience working for two presidents, lawyers are part of the entire policy development process. so in this case, you d have pentagon lawyers, white house lawyers involved in developing nuclear strike options and presenting them to the president. so president trump would know, before he took any decision, whether something was legal or not. and i can t imagine he would order something that was illegal knowing that the military will not implement an illegal option. that would just be a waste of time. it is an interesting conversation to have because obviously when the president ....
Weapons. that was striking to me. but when he tried to institute it in the army, pentagon lawyers told him it was a no-go. our freedom is under attack like never before. the nra, they said, would block him, and that s exactly what the gun advocacy group tried to do. the nra got congress to include a provision that barred military commanders from even collecting information about a troop s personal weapon. was that frustrating? it is frustrating when you working with an at-risk population. the reason why it is so frustrating is that this science is so inexact. we need to have the ability to recommend to that individual that they separate themselves from that personal weapon. and that s what s frustrating about it. frustrating also to a dozen senior retired generals and admirals who joined chiarelli in lobbying congress to amend the law. they argued it was directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives. ....
Lowered their suicide rate to zero for a three-year period, solely by recommending to people who were in crisis to separate themselves from their privately-owned weapons p. that was striking to me. but when he tried to institute it in the army, pentagon lawyers told him it was a no-go. our freedom is under attack like never before. the nra, they said, would block him. and that s exactly what gun advocacy group tried to do. the nra got congress to include a provision that barred military commanders from even collecting information about a troop s personal weapon. was that frustrating in. it is frustrating when you work with at-risk population. the reason why it is so frustrating is that this science is so in exact. we need to have the ability to recommend to that individual that they separate themselves from that personal weapon. that s what s frustrating about it. frustrating also to a dozen senior retired generals and add ....