The uniquely vulnerable West Antarctic Ice Sheet holds enough water to raise global sea levels by 5 meters. But when that will happen—and how fast—is anything but settled.

Actions that once seemed untoward or shocking are no longer politically disqualifying. The instinct for embattled candidates now is to fight and not surrender. It's certainly worked for Trump.

Over at NRO, Andrew McCarthy largely agrees with Jack Goldsmith's conclusion that the the reported attack on survivors of a drug boat strike was unlawful. According to McCarthy, "If this happened as described in the Post report, it was, at best, a war crime under federal law." He writes further:

even if we stipulate arguendo that the administration has a colorable claim that our forces are in an armed conflict with non-state actors (i.e., suspected members of drug cartels that the administration has dubiously designated as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)), the laws of war do not permit the killing of combatants who have been rendered hors de combat (out of the fighting) — including by shipwreck.

To reiterate, I don't accept that the ship operators are enemy combatants — even if one overlooks that the administration has not proven that they are drug traffickers or members of designated FTOs. There is no armed conflict. They may be criminals (if it is proven that they are importing illegal narcotics), but they are not combatants.

My point, nevertheless, is that even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight. It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.

A key point here is that McCarty is not relying upon UN-affiliated entites nor unincorporated international law for his conclusion. Rather, he is resting his contentions on federal law (including those portions of the laws of war or international law that have been formally ratified by the Senate).

The laws of war, as they are incorporated into federal law, make lethal force unlawful if it is used under certain circumstances. Hence, it cannot be a defense to say, as Hegseth does, that one has killed because one's objective was "lethal, kinetic strikes."

And, it is worth noting, that federal law imposes the most severe penalties on war crimes.

McCarthy also highlights the fundamental irrationality of the Administration's policy, particularly given the constraints of federal law

. . . if an arguable combatant has been rendered hors de combat, targeting him with lethal force cannot be rationalized, as Bradley is said to have done, by theorizing that it was possible, at some future point, that the combatant could get help and be able to contribute once again to enemy operations. . . .

if the Post report is accurate — Hegseth and his commanders changed the protocols after the September 2 attack, "to emphasize rescuing suspected smugglers if they survived strikes." This is why two survivors in a subsequent strike (on October 16) were captured and then repatriated to their native countries (Colombia and Ecuador).

This was a ludicrous outcome: under prior policy, the boat would have been interdicted, the drugs seized, and the operators transferred to federal court for prosecution and hefty sentences. Under the Trump administration's policy, if the operators survive our missiles, they get to go back home and rejoin the drug trade. But put that aside. The point is that, if the administration's intent to apply lethal force were a defense to killing shipwrecked suspected drug traffickers, the policy wouldn't have been changed. It was changed because Hegseth knows he can't justify killing boat operators who survive attacks; and he sends them home rather than detaining them as enemy combatants because, similarly, there is no actual armed conflict, so there is no basis to detain them as enemy combatants.

The post McCarthy: "'We Intended the Strike to Be Lethal' Is Not a Defense" appeared first on Reason.com.

Mike Winters: writing for CNBC about a woman who has "mini-retired" at 37 years old:

In April 2024, Florence Poirel left her $390,000-a-year job at Google for what she calls a “mini retirement.”

I know these posts are easy rage bait, but I still find it fun to find the catch that enabled this person to have amazing financial independence. Usually it's a rich parent, but this time it's that you and your partner make a combined $1 million or so per year in salary (they don't specify her partner's salary in the article, but considering he also worked at Google and was 17 years older than her, I'm putting my money on it being at least as much as her).

So yeah, if you too can get yourself a job that pays in the top 3% of Americans (and top 1% in Switzerland, where they live) and a partner who does the same, bringing you into the top 0.4% of household incomes, then you are likely going to be in a good spot. "This one simple trick!" 🫠

I guess it is worth saying that someone who is bad with money when they make $50,000 will likely be decently bad with money if they suddenly earn $500,000, so there are some things most people can do to be smarter with money. I presume this is what this article is trying to do, but my god, they really should profile people who are remotely normal as their success stories in these things. "Here's how someone in the top 1% is able to live comfortably" just doesn't hit, you know? Wow, think you!

The Chinese auto giant is serious about extending its fast-charging lead all over the world, and Europe could experience it soon.

Jiffy corn muffins are an iconic, low-cost pantry staple introduced during the Depression. Thanksgiving is peak season for the company, which has been run by the same family for five generations.