this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
110 points (99.1% liked)

politics

29198 readers
3047 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
110
Dems React to Classified Briefing on Iran (www.rollingstone.com)
submitted 4 weeks ago by AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Today, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) shared his reaction with reporters following the briefing: “I’m more convinced now that this is going to be open-ended and forever.”

He added, “This feels like a multitrillion-dollar open-ended conflict with a very confusing and constantly shifting set of goals. They clearly seem fine with hard-line elements being in control of the country, because they plan to permanently run air operations in order to chase [Iran’s] missile-making capability, drone-making capability, and nuclear capabilities.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AcidiclyBasicGlitch@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/are-us-attacks-iran-legal-2026-03-04/

Presidents of both parties have conducted military strikes without congressional approval when it was in the national interest but less intense in ⁠duration and scope than what would be considered a war -- a limit that Trump may be testing.

He's already admitted and at this point Congress seems fully aware, this is going to last beyond any scope that would be considered a strike vs war.

Also, why TF did he hit a fucking elementary school? I hate to use the term double tap because it's fucking stupid and this is not a video game, but that is the term they used to describe it. Just like they did to those fishermen they killed in Venezuela.

They're escalating, just like any serial killer.

WHAT DOES INTERNATIONAL LAW SAY?

Legal experts said many countries will consider the attacks unjustified under the United Nations Charter, which states that member states must refrain from using force or the threat of force against other states. There are exceptions when force is authorized by the U.N. Security Council or used in self-defense in response to armed attack, neither of which applies. There is also the concept of pre-emptive self-defense, which would arguably allow the United States to attack Iran if it had proof of an imminent, overwhelming attack. The United ⁠States has a veto at the U.N. Security Council, shielding Washington. Legal experts said violating international law still carries a cost and both the United Kingdom and Spain have limited the use of their bases in the attacks, citing the lack of justification for the conflict.

It seems pretty clear what would happen if they (Trump, Netenyahu, MsB, and all the sycophants below them and handlers above them) ever faced a trial for their crimes. Which is why they're hoping starting WWIII will keep that from happening.