By John Q. Hosedrinker 
SLSCO, a significant Republican donor, faced accusations in court of allegedly smuggling Mexican nationals into the United States for labor and employing them as armed guards. Two former security contractors for the company filed a lawsuit detailing these allegations, claiming they discovered undocumented workers and armed Mexican nationals at border wall construction sites in southern California. The lawsuit further alleged that these armed guards engaged in a firefight with other migrants and that the contractors were subsequently fired in retaliation for reporting the illegal activities. While the contractors voluntarily dismissed their case, SLSCO has not publicly addressed these claims.
Read the original article here
The recent pronouncements from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth regarding an investigation into a strike that tragically impacted an Iranian girls’ school have sparked considerable discussion, with many interpreting his statement as a quiet admission of U.S. responsibility. The announcement that CENTCOM would be leading this inquiry, rather than simply deflecting blame, is seen by some as a tacit acknowledgment that mounting evidence points towards American involvement. This shift in tone is particularly noteworthy when contrasted with earlier, more definitive statements that sought to place responsibility elsewhere.
There’s a palpable sense of shock and disappointment that the United States might have been directly responsible for such a devastating event. The mention of specific weaponry, like Tomahawk cruise missiles, which are primarily operated by a limited number of U.S. allies, further fuels the belief that American forces were the ones to carry out the strike. The idea of a “double tap” also raises concerns about the precision and intention behind the attack, suggesting a potential series of actions rather than a single, isolated incident.
The differing narratives surrounding the strike have been stark. While some administrations have attempted to suggest alternative scenarios, such as the missiles being “stolen” or misdirected by Iran, Hegseth’s latest statement appears to move away from these explanations. This has led to a grim realization for many: that the U.S. may have been directly responsible for the deaths of children, a scenario that is being equated by some to a post-term abortion, highlighting the perceived barbarity of the act.
The echoes of past tragedies, like the British bombing of a school in Copenhagen during World War II, are being drawn. While that incident, despite its horrific outcome, was met with shame and apologies years later, the hope is that the current administration can find the humility to acknowledge the mistake, express remorse, and offer a genuine apology for the pain caused. The emotional weight of such an event, and the potential for it to haunt those involved, is a sentiment that resonates deeply.
Questions are also being raised about the accountability of individuals within the administration. The fact that Hegseth, despite the gravity of the situation, remains in his position, is a point of contention for many. Comparisons are being made to earlier instances where former leaders were perceived to have lied or deflected responsibility, suggesting a pattern of behavior that erodes public trust. The perceived lack of swift action, such as arrests or firings, further compounds this feeling of impunity.
Hegseth’s earlier assertion that there is “only one entity” in the conflict that “never targets civilians” is now being re-examined in light of the current investigation. This statement, intended to highlight U.S. restraint, is now seen by some as a particularly ironic or even disingenuous remark, given the current circumstances. The possibility that Iran, a country with limited access to such advanced weaponry, somehow acquired and independently fired a Tomahawk missile at a school simultaneously with U.S. strikes is viewed as highly improbable.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that the U.S. has become a nation that operates with a disregard for international law and the lives of civilians. This perception is amplified by ongoing concerns about American involvement in other conflicts, where the toll on civilian populations, particularly children, is described as catastrophic. The disconnect between the perceived compassion shown for certain animals and the alleged indifference to human suffering in conflict zones is a source of deep frustration.
The notion that such an event could be attributed to AI targeting, with insufficient human vetting, is also being discussed as a plausible, albeit disturbing, explanation. The reliance on potentially flawed or outdated intelligence, coupled with a drive for operational efficiency, could lead to devastating errors. The “trickle-truth” approach, where information is revealed incrementally, is also seen as a way to manage public perception rather than offer immediate transparency.
Ultimately, the underlying sentiment is one of profound sadness and a desperate yearning for accountability. The idea that “might” is being used to soften the impact of a potential admission of guilt is not lost on observers. Many feel that a war crime has been committed, and that those responsible, including Hegseth, should be held accountable. The question of whether this will be considered a war crime and if any consequences will follow remains a critical point of concern for those deeply troubled by the unfolding events. The possibility of the incident being brushed aside as mere “collateral damage” in the pursuit of larger geopolitical interests is a bleak prospect that many find unacceptable.