politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: I Would Not Order Military to Violate Laws, Treaties with Torture
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/national-s ... te-laws-treaties-with-torture/
Published: Mar 4, 2016
Author: Breitbart News
Post Date: 2016-03-04 17:41:12 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 5222
Comments: 33
Donald Trump backs off from his statement on torture and the military from Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate.
From the Wall Street Journal:
Leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday he wouldn’t order the U.S. military to break international laws, addressing criticism from military and legal experts that his policies regarding torture and killing the family members of terrorists would violate the Geneva Convention.
Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
This appears to be a reversal from Thursday night’s GOP debate in Detroit, when Mr. Trump stood by earlier proposals to do things that were a “hell of a lot worse” than waterboarding terrorist suspects and also authorize the military to kill family members of terrorists.
“I’ve always been a leader,” he said Thursday night. “I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”
Read the rest of the story here.(1 image)
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Donald Trump backs off from his statement
That could be turned into a mantra or a tagline. If he doesn't drop out soon he's going to be having to say that a lot.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#2. To: sneakypete (#1)
Donald Trump backs off from his statement
He's demonstrated no real resistance to reversing positions.
On the plus side, he doesn't deny it like any standard politician does. Rather he does openly and unapologetically.
#3. To: cranky (#0)
The military doesn't need to torture anyone. That's why you had places like Libya and Syria. All we need to be is the travel agent who arranges the jihadist an all expense paid trip to someplace that takes a more relaxed approach to human right. RINO's should be all for it, they love outsourcing.
Obama and McCain have been all about removing useful tyrants from power.
Non auro, sed ferro, recuperando est patria
#4. To: cranky (#0)
It comes down to he will not do anything he has said
#5. To: sneakypete (#1)
Do we have any treaties with Moslem terrorists?
#6. To: paraclete (#4)
It comes down to he will not do anything he has said
He might.
He's said an awful lot of things.
To paraphrase George Stephanopoulos, maybe Trump will keep all of the promises he intended to keep.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#7. To: Roscoe (#5)
"Do we have any treaties with Moslem terrorists?"
Why, no.
But they're bound by the Geneva Convention just as we are. Well, aside from the beheadings, mass executions of civilians, suicide bombings, throwing people off high buildings and drowning people in cages.
#8. To: (#0)
In a burst of ebullience and anger, a regular man says things that, on reflection, he realizes go to far.
So shortly thereafter words he says "Yesterday I said this, but I know that goes to far. So with reflection, here's what I really think."
Now, this is what we expect of spouses and friends, of children and teachers. We get pissed off, and rightly, when cops or school administrators or other officials take a strong, wrong position in the heat of the moment, and then refuse to back down.
So, here's Donald Trump being PERFECTLY SENSIBLE, a PERFECTLY NORMAL PERSON - yeah, I went too far, sorry, look, here's what I really think and would do.
And we've got the peanut gallery jumping all over him as a flip-flopper. What is it that you unappeasables want, precisely? That politicians say nothing, ever, unless they are prepared to never back down. The cop pulls you over for speeding. He sees your wife is having a baby. You want him to say "Fuck you, asshole, You were speeding. I pulled you over, and I'm not going to be reasonable" and then pepper spray everybody in the car and beat the hell out of you for good measure?
If you are perfect and never, ever, in your life, had to reverse yourself. never made a mistake - then you are a politician - that's the way they talk. And you're also a goddakned liar because no hiuman being exists who hasn't blown it.
Trump went too far with his torture 'em speech. He was fired up and angry at all of the prevaricating politicians and all of the poitical correctness. He went overboard -and then he thought about it overnight and pulled back.
This is GOOD.
If you think it shows that Trump is bad, weak, a flip-flopper, then you really do deserve to be pepper spratyed by the cop for speeding your wife to the hospital. You want public officials to never admit they're wrong, and never back down? Then you're an idiot, and you're going to get lied to all the time by politicians who never admit they were wrong.
That's what you want, that's what you get.
Trump is different, and his kind of difference is good. If he was wrong, he changes his mind. He WAS wrong about torture, so he changed his position, quickly. This isn't weakness. What OTHER politician do you ever see changing his mind and admitting he went overboard?
Who? When?
You LIKE politicians to pretend they're superman and never admit when they blow it. You LIKE to be lied to!
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
Trump went too far with his torture 'em speech. He was fired up and angry at all of the prevaricating politicians and all of the poitical correctness. He went overboard -and then he thought about it overnight and pulled back.This is GOOD.
As long as no one acted on his orders until he could revoke them, I guess, there's no harm done.
But for a guy who always felt that he was in the military because of his time at New York Military Academy not to know that illegal or unlawful orders need not be carried out by subordinates is pretty ignorant, imho.
That is BAD.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#10. To: cranky (#9)
It's not bad. It's good.
Trump is going to be a great president. The fearful will wet themselves, but it will be ok.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
In a burst of ebullience and anger, a regular man says things that, on reflection, he realizes go to far.So shortly thereafter words he says "Yesterday I said this, but I know that goes to far. So with reflection, here's what I really think."
Now, this is what we expect of spouses and friends, of children and teachers. We get pissed off, and rightly, when cops or school administrators or other officials take a strong, wrong position in the heat of the moment, and then refuse to back down.
So, here's Donald Trump being PERFECTLY SENSIBLE, a PERFECTLY NORMAL PERSON - yeah, I went too far, sorry, look, here's what I really think and would do.
A President's words mean things here and around the world ;especially when he says them in public . What you are saying is that he in not Presidential.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
Trump is going to be a great president.
That depends on what the meaning of the word great is.
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#13. To: cranky (#12)
In the line of Timberland the great
#14. To: Pinguinite (#2)
Donald Trump backs off from his statementHe's demonstrated no real resistance to reversing positions.
Who says he doesn't have any firm positions?
On the plus side, he doesn't deny it like any standard politician does. Rather he does openly and unapologetically.
That's because he has a strong character,and refuses to admit he was ever wrong about anything.
Any day now I expect him to say he is the re-incarnation of Jesus,and for all his followers to fall to their knees and bow.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#15. To: Roscoe (#5)
Do we have any treaties with Moslem terrorists?
Yes. Saudi Arabia being the most prominent example,but I am sure there are others.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
Saudi Arabia
Ya don't say? How many members of the Saudi army have we waterboarded?
#17. To: Roscoe (#16)
How many members of the Saudi army have we waterboarded?
You think we waterboard members of states we have treaties with?
Are you insane,or just everyday stupid?
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#18. To: sneakypete (#17)
YOU mentioned Saudi Arabia. All those feelings must make it hard for you to think.
#19. To: Roscoe (#18)
#5. To: sneakypete (#1)Do we have any treaties with Moslem terrorists?
Roscoe posted on 2016-03-05 6:52:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
I quoted your original post above,dummy.
YOU mentioned Saudi Arabia.
Of course I did. Most of the funding for terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia,and we not only have a treaty with them,we use US troops to train and fight to protect them.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#20. To: sneakypete (#19)
Are you on your period?
We don't have any treaties with unlawful combatants. The Geneva Convention does not protect unlawful combatants.
#21. To: Roscoe (#20)
Are you on your period?We don't have any treaties with unlawful combatants. The Geneva Convention does not protect unlawful combatants.
No,and I am not in denial about Saudi Arabia,either,numbnuts.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#22. To: sneakypete (#21)
I am not in denial about Saudi Arabia,
You're completely in denial about Saudi Arabia, conflating its military with terrorists outside the protection of treaties and the Geneva Convention.
Trump's a man, so you reacted with pearl-clutching vapors.
#23. To: Roscoe (#22)
Trump's a man
He's a pussy in pants. No wonder you admire him.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#24. To: sneakypete (#23)
He's a pussy in pants.
He'd lay you out like a cheap rug. Even if you had your Foam Party boy helping you.
#25. To: sneakypete (#23)
Oh Oscar.
#26. To: Roscoe (#24)
He'd lay you out like a cheap rug.
ROFLMAO! You guys with your boy-crushes are hilarious.
He MIGHT sic his bodyguards on me while he hid behind a couple he held back,but that would be it.
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#27. To: sneakypete (#26)
You would weep in terror.
#28. To: Roscoe (#27)
You would weep in terror.
You are projecting your cowardice on me.
I'm guessing Donald impresses you so much because he has bigger hands than you,and thus is your personal alpha dog?
ISLAM MEANS SUBMISSION!
Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
#29. To: sneakypete (#28)
Your yipping gets more frantic with each emotional post.
#30. To: paraclete (#13)
Timberland the great
Tamerlane (aka Timur)?
There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
#31. To: misterwhite, Roscoe, Vicomte13, cranky (#7)
But they're bound by the Geneva Convention just as we are. Well, aside from the beheadings, mass executions of civilians, suicide bombings, throwing people off high buildings and drowning people in cages.
Actually, the Geneva Conventions only apply to international war between two or more high contracting parties to the conventions.
See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld at 67:
The Court of Appeals thought, and the Government asserts, that Common Article 3 does not apply to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda, being "'international in scope'," does not qualify as a "'conflict not of an international character'." 415 F. 3d, at 41. That reasoning is erroneous. The term "conflict not of an international character" is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations. So much is demonstrated by the "fundamental logic [of] the Convention's provisions on its application." Id., at 44 (Williams, J., concurring). Common Article 2 provides that ìthe present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties." 6 U. S. T., at 3318 (Art. 2, ¶1). High Contracting Parties (signatories) also must abide by all terms of the Conventions vis-a-vis one another even if one party to the conflict is a nonsignatory "Power," and must so abide vis-a-vis the nonsignatory if "the latter accepts and applies" those terms. Ibid. (Art. 2, ¶3). Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory "Power" who are involved in a conflict "in the territory of" a signatory. The latter kind of conflict is distinguishable from the conflict described in Common Article 2 chiefly because it does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). In context, then, the phrase "not of an international character" bears its literal meaning.
Violations of customary International Humanitarian Law may be the subject of lawful reprisal in kind, for the purpose of coercing the transgressor to comply with customary IHL. It is not accurate that terrorists may chop off heads and drown people in cages, and that they remain entitled to all protections under international law.
https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145
Customary International Humanitarian Law
Rule 145. ReprisalsRule 145. Where not prohibited by international law, belligerent reprisals are subject to stringent conditions.
[...]
Conditions
Five conditions must be met in order for belligerent reprisals against permitted categories of persons and objects not to be unlawful. Most of these conditions are laid down in military manuals and are supported by official statements. These conditions are:
(i) Purpose of reprisals. Reprisals may only be taken in reaction to a prior serious violation of international humanitarian law, and only for the purpose of inducing the adversary to comply with the law. This condition is set forth in numerous military manuals, as well as in the legislation of some States.[12] It is also confirmed in national case-law.[13]
Because reprisals are a reaction to a prior serious violation of international humanitarian law, “anticipatory” reprisals or “counter-reprisals” are not permissible, nor can belligerent reprisals be a reaction to a violation of another type of law. In addition, as reprisals are aimed at inducing the adversary to comply with the law, they may not be carried out for the purpose of revenge or punishment.
There is limited practice allowing reprisals against allies of the violating State but it dates back to the arbitration in the Cysne case in 1930 and to the Second World War.[14] Practice since then appears to indicate that resort to such reprisals is no longer valid. According to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, countermeasures are legitimate only “against a State which is responsible for an internationally wrongful act”.[15] This element of responsibility is also reflected in some military manuals.[16] However, whereas most military manuals remain silent on the question of reprisals against allies of the violating State, Italy’s IHL Manual expressly states that a reprisal can, “as a general rule, only be directed against the belligerent that violated the laws of war”.[17] Other military manuals explain that reprisals are used against another State in order to induce that State to stop the violation of international law.[18]
Some military manuals specify that in the light of their specific purpose, reprisals must be announced as such and publicized so that the adversary is aware of its obligation to comply with the law.[19]
(ii) Measure of last resort. Reprisals may only be carried out as a measure of last resort, when no other lawful measures are available to induce the adversary to respect the law. This condition is set forth in many military manuals.[20] It is confirmed by national case-law.[21] It is also repeated in the statements and proposals made by States at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols, before the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Weapons case and on other occasions, when it was sometimes mentioned that prior warning must be given and/or that other measures must have failed before resorting to reprisals.[22] In its reservation concerning reprisals made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom reserved the right to take reprisal action “only after formal warning to the adverse party requiring cessation of the violations has been disregarded”.[23]
According to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, before taking countermeasures an injured State must call on the responsible State to fulfil its obligations, notify the responsible State of any decision to take countermeasures and offer to negotiate with that State.[24] In its judgment in the Kupreškic case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia confirmed what had already been stated by the Special Arbitral Tribunal in the Naulilaa case in 1928, namely that reprisals may only be carried out after a warning to the adverse party requiring cessation of the violations has remained unheeded.[25] (iii) Proportionality. Reprisal action must be proportionate to the violation it aims to stop. This condition was already laid down in 1880 in the Oxford Manual and was recently reaffirmed in the Draft Articles on State Responsibility.[26] It is also contained in many military manuals.[27] Furthermore, there is case-law concerning violations committed in the Second World War in which the accused’s claims that their acts had been committed as lawful reprisals were rejected because, inter alia, they were found to be disproportionate to the original violation.[28]
The requirement that reprisal measures be proportionate to the original wrong is repeated in various statements and proposals made by States at the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of the Additional Protocols, before the International Court of Justice in the Nuclear Weapons case and on other occasions.[29] In its reservation concerning reprisals made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated that “any measures thus taken by the United Kingdom will not be disproportionate to the violations giving rise thereto”.[30] The International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996 and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in its judgment in the Kupreškic case in 2000 confirmed what the Special Arbitral Tribunal had already stated in the Naulilaa case in 1928, namely that belligerent reprisals are subject to the principle of proportionality.[31]
Most of the practice collected requires that acts taken in reprisal be proportionate to the original violation. Only a few pieces of practice specify that proportionality must be observed with regard to the damage suffered.[32]
(iv) Decision at the highest level of government. The decision to resort to reprisals must be taken at the highest level of government. Whereas the Oxford Manual states that only a commander in chief is entitled to authorize reprisals,[33] more recent practice indicates that such a decision must be taken at the highest political level.[34] State practice confirming this condition is found in military manuals, as well as in some national legislation and official statements.[35] In its reservation concerning reprisals made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated that reprisals would be taken “only after a decision taken at the highest level of government”.[36]
In its judgment in the Kupreškic case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia held that the decision to resort to a reprisal must be taken at the highest political or military level and may not be decided by local commanders.[37]
(v) Termination. Reprisal action must cease as soon as the adversary complies with the law. This condition, formulated as a formal prohibition in the event that the original wrong had been repaired, was already laid down in 1880 in the Oxford Manual and was recently restated in the Draft Articles on State Responsibility.[38] It is also contained in several military manuals, official statements and reported practice.[39] In its reservation concerning reprisals made upon ratification of Additional Protocol I, the United Kingdom stated that reprisals would not be continued “after the violations have ceased”.[40]
In its judgment in the Kupreškic case in 2000, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia confirmed that reprisal action must stop as soon as the unlawful act has been discontinued.[41]
#32. To: cranky (#30)
Blasted auto correct
#33. To: nolu chan (#31)
Than you for your response. But I thought my sarcasm was obvious.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]