March 6, 2016

Trump's idea of law: "I want to stay within the law... but we have to increase the law..."

Perhaps George W. Bush and Barack Obama thought about law the same way, but they didn't say it like this:



As expressed in that clip: Law is respected only in the sense that you acknowledge that when the law is in your way, you'll "increase" the law. Most people would say "change the law," so I'm struck by the locution "increase the law." It's sort of like the way Bush would say things like "Make the pie higher"... but less sunny... and far more sinister.

Here's the "Face the Nation" website, where I expect to find the full interview and transcript soon.

When I get the transcript, I will demonstrate something I figured out as I listened to him speaking about torture and going beyond waterboarding. He does not view these practices as enhanced interrogation techniques, focused on dragging needed information out of captives. He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism.

126 comments:

rhhardin said...

He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism.

Terrorism doesn't frighten the enemy. It's a political play to the media.

Frightening the enemy frightens the enemy.

Paul said...

" He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism."

Sure. In the same way an armed citizen shooting an armed intruder intent on killing him embraces murder.

Gahrie said...

He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism.

So...is threatening to send criminals to jail terrorism?

Are you supposed to frighten enemies and criminals?

Jack Wayne said...

He used the word "expand" to clarify what he meant by increase.

rhhardin said...

A rising pie lifts all boats.

Ann Althouse said...

"Terrorism doesn't frighten the enemy. It's a political play to the media."

Observe that I did not say that terrorism frightens the enemy.

I said that Trump sees terrorism as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy and that he advocates torture (or close to torture techniques) for a purpose that those who supported enhanced interrogation NEVER openly embraced and ALWAYS denied.

That is, he is talking about something completely different from what Bush haters hate that Bush did.

Whether the technique is effective in pursuit of the stated purpose is irrelevant to my point, which is that Trump is embracing a purpose that I've never heard from a serious American political figure during the war on terror period.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Lots of hand-wringing over hurting and killing non-combatants, bombing civilians, and terrorizing the enemies populace. In the last war that Americans decisively acted and won, there were lots of citizens killed, bombed and terrorized. Wreaking utter destruction on our enemies was the only way the war was ended. Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, shit they even blew up an Italian monastery. Furthermore, the leftists have long decried that American citizens are too removed from war to feel its effects and thus appreciate the harm and chaos created, yet the same folks advocate just that kind of war-making on our enemies, shielding their populace from feeling the effects and repercussions of waging war against our nation. If Americans should have learned anything from the Obama Kinetic Military Activities, it is that limited war-making and tiny, unbelievably small pin-pricks of aggression do nothing to end war or dissuade our enemies from taking up arms against us.

Gahrie said...

Wasn't the whole point of carpet bombing and the atomic bombs to terrorize the enemy into surrendering?

rhhardin said...

I said that Trump sees terrorism as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy

It's not terrorism. The two terms, terrorism and frightening, don't go together.

Terrorism is called terrorism as cover for the media biz. It should be called headlineism.

pm317 said...

This is not a new revelation. He has been consistent in that he has said that the barbarians who perpetrate asymmetrical wars require a different strategy. He says it in a common sense way that resonates with his supporters. Bush and his Patriot Act and Obama and his use of drone are all some examples in the same vain, are they not?

pm317 said...

I think what he wants to do is put in place laws and tactics that would act as deterrent. But how does he have to go to make that happen?

amielalune said...


Oh, noes! He embraces terrorism against the terrorists! That's just not fair to the terrorists, is it?

Michael K said...

"In the same way an armed citizen shooting an armed intruder intent on killing him embraces murder."

No, it deters other potential intruders who worry about another armed homeowner.

This is why crime in Britain has skyrocketed.

pm317 said...

I left the word "far" out in my previous comment -- How far does he have to go to make that happen?

Roger Sweeny said...

He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism.

I had thought that "terrorism" was distinguished from other acts of killing and mayhem by its being directed at non-combatants with an intent of making no one feel safe. So if random people were taken off the street and waterboarded, that would be terrorism, but if a soldier of an enemy army were waterboarded, that might be torture (and a violation of the rules of war) but it wouldn't be terrorism.

Hagar said...

Indeed. Flamethrowers are not particularly civilized or "lawful" weapons.
LeMay said that "if the war had gone the other way, Lauris and I would have been hanged as war criminals."

But I think Trump is also saying - and signalling - that if he is elected president, there will be consequences for those - say House of Saud princelings - who support jihadism with their money and giving sanctuaries, etc,, even tough they do not overtly fight themselves.

Unknown said...

Nagasaki, Hiroshima. War is hell.

pm317 said...

Both Bush and Obama refused to recognize the savagery (to use Trump's word) of the barbarians causing havoc in leaderless countries and some of it finding its way into the cities of other countries. But Trump is approaching it head on and is that what you mean by "he embraces terrorism", Althouse?

Ann Althouse said...

"It's not terrorism. The two terms, terrorism and frightening, don't go together."

I didn't equate the 2 words. I equated terrorism and the use of violence (and the threat of violence) for the purpose of frightening the enemy. Terrorism is a technique of achieving a military or political goal. Frightening is the causation of fear (the further end, beyond fear, isn't included in the meaning of the word).

Paul said...

" Terrorism is a technique of achieving a military or political goal."

Roger Sweeney's definition is more accurate and presents a most important distinction you overlooked.

Amanda said...

He said yesterday that he wants to "strengthen" the torture laws. Does he even know what he said? If the laws were strengthened he would be even more at risk for being prosecuted for the kind of torture he's advocating for. Such a dumbass has no business being President of the most powerful country on earth.

Hagar said...

"The most powerful country on earth" is not the most powerful country on earth if the less powerful countries believe it does not have the stomach to use all that power.

Sayyid said...

And this is one reason why the Ron Paul brigade jumped ship from Trump to Cruz yesterday, fueling his completely unexpected victory in Maine. The "cooky libertarianish" wing of the party realized Trump is not the change they were hoping for.

mccullough said...

"Increase the law" = abortion and gay marriage a constitutional right by reinterpretation instead of making them legal by changing the law.

Plenty of precedent for "increasing the law"

sunsong said...

Trump leads the chauvinistic charge. Bullying, intimidating, name-calling wins...'out bully the bully'...'out terrorize the terrorists'...to quote bin Laden "be the strong man" He couldn't be more wrong!

Beldar said...

Yes, he embraces terrorism, which is why he refused Bret Baier's repeated opportunities on the debate stage to abandon his previous statement that we should kill terrorists' families as a terror tactic.

The military won't commit these war crimes, so we have to ask: Who will go murder these children for Donald J. Trump?

I'm sure he knows a guy who knows a guy, but even the Mafia generally treats family members as "civilians," and a made man's family is safe from other family members in all circumstances save one, that being if the made man rats out other made men. Even then, some restraint would be shown, however, and fortunately the Mafia doesn't yet, to my knowledge, have drone strike capabilities throughout most of the world.

YoungHegelian said...

Well, if Trump thinks that the gaggle of cases that ending up giving captured non-government combatants (e.g. Boumediene v Bush, et al) full protection of the Geneva Convention excessively ties the hands of the Executive Branch in its ability to fight a war, he's in agreement with the minority dissents of the SCOTUS. Scalia, I seem to remember, wrote an especially scathing dissent to that effect.

Beldar said...

Prof. Althouse, I think you are missing the obvious explanation for Trump's strange locution in saying "increase the law."

He meant, "Increase my power as President."

He certainly doesn't want to give to Congress, or to any other authority, the ability to pick our revenge targets. He wants that to be his perquisite, and his alone.

jaydub said...

Roger Sweeny has it about right at 11:04. Also, the allies did not carpet bomb the axis or Japan for the purpose of killing civilians, they did it to distroy the enemy's infrastructure and leave them without the ability or will to continue the war. Also, in response to the axis' first strikes against allied population centers. Civilian deaths were "collateral damage", albeit expected collateral damage. There is a similar argument regarding Obama's drone strikes - he's specifically targeting enemy combatants, but with the realization that some civilians in the vacinity will also become casualties. Nor did the CIA waterboard enemy combatants for the pleasure of it - they did it to extract information. That is different from specifically and indescriminately targeting civilians, which is covered by the Geneva Conventions even though there are a lot of valid questions as to whether those conventions even apply to terrorist warfare. So, it's a complicated issue, but I'm really shocked at how eager some folks would be to immediately go full criminal (in the eyes of the world and civilized rules of engagement) by explicitly advocating terrorism, themselves. Probably that's because some poor GI or field grade officer would be the one facing the gallows for this cavalier attitude toward well-defined war crimes, and not the brave souls advocating their commission here. But, it's still shocking. We're suppose to be better than that, and fortunately the boots on the ground who would have to serve as the implementing force actually are better than that. So, it's all kind of moot.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Trump isn't advocating these procedures in order to protect us, to save us from the proverbial ticking bomb. No, he's advocating it to scare others, to terrorize them into submission. Is this what we want? Really?

This cannot stand.

No Trump, never Trump.

YoungHegelian said...

Let me bring up a concrete example of when it seems one needs to punish family to dissuade terrorism.

In Israel, regimes like Iraq would reward the family of suicide bombers with a large cash bounty. Their son would be a hero, a martyr in heaven. They would be honored in their community as having given a martyr to the struggle. And, they would now have a big wad of money to boot.

So, how do you dis-incentivize this sort of behavior? Well, the Israelis tried by bulldozing the house & property of the family, so that in repairing the damage with their newly found money they were back to square one. Did it work? I don't know. But, it's clear example of where it seems to me some action against the family is warranted.

rhhardin said...

I equated terrorism and the use of violence (and the threat of violence) for the purpose of frightening the enemy.

But that's not what terrorism is. Terrorism is headline grabbing for the purpose of filling the media so that you are an important group.

The term was chosen to conceal that.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

He meant, "Increase my power as President."

He certainly doesn't want to give to Congress, or to any other authority, the ability to pick our revenge targets. He wants that to be his perquisite, and his alone.


Yes, this is it. The law/power for me, for me to act.

Just as he wants the military to be his own sort of Praetorian Guard. A sort of, "They will do what I say regardless of the laws."

What more evidence do we need to show that he's completely unqualified to be President?

Beldar said...

@ pm317, who wrote (3/6/16, 10:53 AM):

"This is not a new revelation. [Trump] has been consistent in that he has said that the barbarians who perpetrate asymmetrical wars require a different strategy. He says it in a common sense way that resonates with his supporters. Bush and his Patriot Act and Obama and his use of drone are all some examples in the same vain, are they not?"

First, Trump is indeed vain, but surely you meant "vein."

Second, you could not possibly be more wrong. I know the Patriot Act is long and complicated and legal and everything, and that you've almost assuredly never read it, or even parts of it, but if you're going to rely on second- and third-hand hysteria about its contents, you should stop getting that from the Democratic Underground or its ilk. I assure you that nowhere in the Patriot Act is there any authorization for the United States to target and kill people whose only connection to terrorism is that they are family members of terrorists.

Likewise, while the use of drone strikes by either the Bush-43 or Obama administration certainly involves collateral injuries to others, including occasionally those who are innocent (including those who've been used by terrorists as human shields for that precise reason), there has never been a drone strike whose purpose was terrorizing terrorists by targeting and killing members of their family who are innocents. To the contrary, drone strikes are the latest evolution in technology designed to limit collateral damage, as it's euphemistically called, to people and property that are not being targeted.

Some moron who wouldn't leave a name compared, in a comment above, the killings that Trump originally endorsed -- extra-legal targeting of innocents, including children -- to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the U.S. dropped atomic bombs to end WW2. First off, as the son of a junior USNR officer who was aboard a troopship literally steaming toward Japan in August 1945 to land Marines and soldiers on the Japanese mainland, I'd likely have punched that person's lights out if he'd had the bad judgment to make that kind of comment to my face. But more importantly, that moron's comment does have the benefit of showing how the determination of what is and isn't a war crime, and of what wartime deaths are and aren't morally acceptable, changes as technology changes.

During the Gulf War, the George H.W. Bush administration had what it thought was reliable and current intelligence that would have permitted the decapitation of the Iraqi government through the targeted bombing of Saddam Hussein in a particular bunker. A "smart bunker buster" bomb was employed; in WW2, the same sortie would have surely required squadrons of B-17s doing carpet bombing, with less likelihood of a good result. As things turned out, the intelligence was off by a few minutes or hours, and Saddam wasn't there, and instead the only casualties were civilians. Each of those deaths was tragic. But they were collateral consequences of the performance of a legitimate mission, and indeed, had the mission succeeded, they might have shortened that very short war and saved a large multiple of the further casualties, military and civilian, which were eventually inflicted upon Iraq.

It matters who you target. Intent is the difference between justifiable or excused homicides and murder.

And what Donald Trump was proposing on-stage at the debate, before he frantically walked it back the next day, was nothing else but murder, pure and simple. The man is a monster.

Gahrie said...

Some moron who wouldn't leave a name compared, in a comment above, the killings that Trump originally endorsed -- extra-legal targeting of innocents, including children -- to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, where the U.S. dropped atomic bombs to end WW2.

I don't know if I am the moron you are talking about (I left my name) But I did characterize the dropping of the atomic bombs as a means of terrorizing the Japanese into surrender, which is exactly what it was. Neither target was important militarily.

However what I didn't say was that dropping the bombs was evil or the wrong thing to do. I happen to think it was exactly the right thing to do. Terror has long been a military tactic....the Mongols were excellent at it.

Beldar said...

When Trump wanted the State of New Jersey, via eminent domain, to seize the little old lady's house in Atlantic City and give it to Trump so that he could build a parking lot for the limousines bringing whales to his casino, he wanted the government to "increase the law" in exactly the same way he meant here:

He wants power. And he wants it for his personal use.

Trump is among the most egregious crony capitalists in the United States, and he's certainly the most brazen and unapologetic -- bragging about buying off politicians of both parties. In the past, the only thing that has restrained him has been the law.

When he says he wants the law "increased," he's referring to what he can get away with while staying out of prison himself. Nothing more or less.

Krumhorn said...

While it's my own view that we must deal savagely with savages (since that is the only way to get their attention), Ann is making a valuable point. And to her credit, she's not overtly judging it. Nonetheless, she is clearly characterizing what she believes Trump is proposing as terrorism. I think she is wrong.

Another commenter pointed out that terrorism is savagery amplified by media that is conducted to induce fear in the population. Anyone who doubts the effectiveness of terrorism need only pass through the security lines at the airport to see how we have been affected.

Trump is addressing the need to extract vital information from captured enemy combatants who are not otherwise governed by and, therefore, not protected by the Geneva Conventions. It would be terrorism if the agonies of the damned were broadcast over local networks in PrimeTime. It's merely savagery if it is conducted in a damp, dark, stinking cell by a dentist from the Sadaam school of dentistry.

After a few test runs, the savagee will give up something far more valuable than his molars to the savagor. I dispute Ann's use of the word terrorism. Let's just call it a rough day at the office for the savagee.

- Krumhorn

-

Beldar said...

Gahrie, you're not the moron I was discussing; I meant the moron who just left the two-word comment and signed himself "Unknown."

But yeah, you've self identified as such, if you think neither Nagasaki nor Hiroshima had any military value.

There certainly was an example being made, but the example was of how thoroughly Japan's >war-making capacity would be destroyed. Pres. Truman explicitly announced it as such:

"We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war."

There were larger population centers available, if our goal had been to kill as many innocents as possible. You need to study some history, friend, if you don't want to embarrass yourself with this kind of wild misconception in the future.

Marc Puckett said...

Was reading about the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe the other day; it occurs to me that it'd be great if some intrepid journalist asked Donald Trump to read her essay Mr Truman's Degree and then get back to us, at his convenience, with his judgments & opinions on her argument.

rhhardin said...

Terrorists blow up civilians. So do we, in some strikes, as collateral damage, not that that matters to the victims.

The reason they don't seem the same is that one is terrorism, done to get headlines and seem important, and the other is not done to get headlines.

The seem detector is not fooled by the word.

pm317 said...

@Beldar, yeah I meant to type "vein" (in the age of cell phones., though for a non-native English speaker I am pretty good and not necessarily blaming my phone). I don't mind being wrong but I do think Trump is suggesting outside the box thinking for tackling barbarism from non-state actors (purported non-state but they have invisible state actors propping them up behind the curtain). I am not really invested in a Trump candidacy but you seem awfully anti-Trump which makes it hard to consider what you say as being objective or serious.

rhhardin said...

Anscombe is a great translator of Wittgenstein, but not so much in her own right.

I discovered the same about Alphonso Lingis, translator of Levinas.

It's a sort of weird effect, where nothing rubs off or someting.

rhhardin said...

Barbara Johnson, translator of Derrida, seemed to be okay, however.

Michael K said...

Also, the allies did not carpet bomb the axis or Japan for the purpose of killing civilians, they did it to distroy the enemy's infrastructure and leave them without the ability or will to continue the war.

The allies after the war concluded that civilians were not discouraged by bombing cities but responded with anger and increased incentive. This applied to both British and German civilians.

I think we see some of this at work in Israel. The Palestinians have consistently misjudged the effects of their terror campaigns.

With Japan, the atomic bombes were aimed more at the Emperor and the hierarchy. It is significant, although not widely known, that Japan had a nuclear program and the leadership had concluded that we could not have enough U235 for a second bomb. They would not have surrendered after Hiroshima but Nagasaki upset their calculations and they concluded that we could have more bombs. That;s why they surrendered. The Nagasaki bomb was Plutonium which the Japanese had not anticipated.

Beldar said...

@ pm317: I am indeed very anti-Trump, but it's not because I lack objectivity.

It's because I do business litigation for a living, including business litigation in the bankruptcy courts. I was a partner in a NY-based firm that regularly represented other businesses (lenders and investors mostly) who dealt with Trump and his companies. And although I've never had Trump as a client (there's a story there, but I can't tell it without upsetting some of my former partners), I'm very well acquainted with what a spectacularly awful businessman he actually is. I'm also a political junkie, and I've followed his entry into politics closely, with increasing dismay, since the late 1990s.

That is to say, I'm fairly knowledgeable about Mr. Trump, and certainly about his business history. By all means, take anything I say about him with a grain of salt, or as many grains as you think justified. Google is your friend, if I make a factual assertion, by all means go and double-check me.

Fabi said...

@Beldar: Are you saying that Trump's attempted use of an existing law -- 'eminent domain' -- is actually an expansion of the law? I thought that the Supreme Court decided Kelo. Care to expand on that?

pm317 said...

@Beldar, fine.. but wouldn't there be such considerations for other candidates as well? Cruz seems awful to me and his ideas are scarier. Rubio seems so unready and we will have a 8 year status quo and may be worse. What makes you single out Trump? How do you extrapolate what you know about him to his current ideas which seem to resonate with a lot of people? Well, what Obama was saying resonated with a lot of people too. It is a crapshoot all the way around. But can you judge Trump's current ideas on their own merit is perhaps the question but then again, I don't mean to put you on the spot.

Hagar said...

People tend to get hung up on the A-bombs in Japan, which were also spectacular media events, but tend to forget or not know about the fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities, which killed a lot more people. And it was not done "from 30,000 feet;" having complete air superiority, LeMay and Norstad had the bombers go in as low and personal as possible. It was terror bombing, pure and simple.

buwaya puti said...

Hagar is correct.
Also "bomber" Harris objective in the firestorm raids was maximum civilian casualties, just as with the US B29 incendiary raids.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Donald Trump uses a lot of wrong words. You can add "increase" the law to the list.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Trump was quite clear. He wants increased laws; more laws; more of the absolute coercive power of government available for his use.

iowan2 said...

If only we could have gotten the same amount of anguish over Obama's killing American Citizens suspected of terrorism. But alas.

Freder Frederson said...

This is why crime in Britain has skyrocketed.

This is simply untrue, crime in Britain has not skyrocketed. Even if it had skyrocketed as you claim, the effective banning of handguns would have had nothing to do with it. Prior to the ban, handgun permits were only issued for sporting purposes. Having a handgun (or even long gun) in your home for self defense was and is strictly prohibited (and carry permits were non-existent). Weapons and ammunition both have to be under lock and key and stored separately. This was enforced by random and frequent police inspections. If the police found a loaded or unlocked gun or ammunition in your home, that was the end of your right to own a gun. The rule is pretty much the same in all of Europe.

iowan2 said...

Does anyone remember Obama running guns into the Mexican Drug cartels. Those guns used to kill border agents? Is that the same as 'increasing the law'?

iowan2 said...

Fundamental:a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based:

Obama wants to fundamentally change America.

mccullough said...

Beldar,

You very much lack objectivity. You are an ideologue.

Freder Frederson said...

Also "bomber" Harris objective in the firestorm raids was maximum civilian casualties, just as with the US B29 incendiary raids.

No it wasn't. Both the British and the Americans never claimed they were specifically targeting civilians. The British maintained that they were trying to "dehouse" workers and were not targeting the workers themselves. Likewise, the Americans used the flimsy excuse that much of the war manufacturing late in the war was cottage industry carried out in individual homes, making those Japanese homes legitimate targets. Both were paper thin justifications, but it is telling that the Allies felt the need to maintain these legal fictions.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Beldar @3/6/16, 12:06 PM

And what Donald Trump was proposing on-stage at the debate, before he frantically walked it back the next day, was nothing else but murder, pure and simple. The man is a monster.

He has no inner revulsion toward tyranical regimes, and, unlike Jimmy Carter, doesn't feel the need to fake it.

The Clintons don't have that either, and don't fake it either, but instead they come up with other reassons to be against despotisms. Bill Clinton tells us our worst problem with China is climate change and Hillary went to Beijing in 1995 where she made a point of saying that:

"Women's rights are human rights."

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/05/20-years-later-hillary-clintons-beijing-speech-on-women-resonates/

Not so, Hillary.

Human rights are women's rights.

Yes she said that other line too, but meant it as a sort of definition.

I mean:

Human rights are women's rights, too.

Both Clintons have no compunction about taking money from dictators, particularly if the dictatorships are not well known in the United States, or not perceived as tyrannies.

Donald Trump, of course will tell you taht the problem with China is the vakue of its currency. Not so.

Freder Frederson said...

It is significant, although not widely known, that Japan had a nuclear program and the leadership had concluded that we could not have enough U235 for a second bomb.

Please provide proof of this ridiculous statement. It is complete and utter bullshit. They hadn't even separated any U235, and they had no way to know how much we had.

iowan2 said...

Nixon threaten to use the IRS to punish his enemies.
Obama's IRS visited the White House over 100 times and Louis Learner pled the 5th. Not that she 'increased the law' or anything.

Michael K said...

"Please provide proof of this ridiculous statement. It is complete and utter bullshit. They hadn't even separated any U235, and they had no way to know how much we had."

I'm not going to do your reading for you, kid. The Japanese had not separated enough U235 to do anything with it but they knew how difficult it was. They were right, by the way, about the U235. If you had any sense you would have noticed the next sentence that they had not anticipated the Plutonium bomb.

I think it was in "Downfall," but I have read a half dozen books on the end of the war. Why don't you try that?

Birkel said...

pm317:

Cruz has the idea that the federal government should leave you the hell alone. How absolutely scary!!

EDH said...

Beldar said...

There were larger population centers available, if our goal had been to kill as many innocents as possible. You need to study some history, friend, if you don't want to embarrass yourself with this kind of wild misconception in the future.

Who said "as many as possble". How about enough to terrorize?

Word of advice to those who believe Trump is a disingenuous demigogue: Try to avoid sounding that way yourself when attacking him.

Birkel said...

EDH:

The word 'if' is doing work in the quoted sentence.

YoungHegelian said...

@Freder,

Of course, the Japanese had a war-time nuclear program. Do you think they were imbeciles who couldn't read the same papers in physics that everyone else was reading? Their scientists were top-notch, but, both they and the Germans just didn't get it done in time & we did. But, the Germans & the Japanese were very well aware of each others nuclear programs.

Wikipedia has a decent brief write-up here.

Michael K said...

OK, punk, I will do some Google search for you. Here's some.

Shortly after the surrender of Japan, the Manhattan Project's Atomic Bomb Mission, which had deployed to Japan in September, reported that the F-Go Project had obtained 20 grams a month of heavy water from electrolytic ammonia plants in Korea and Kyushu. In fact, the industrialist Jun Noguchi had launched a heavy water production program some years previously. In 1926 Noguchi founded the Korean Hydro Electric Company at Konan (now known as Hungnam) in north-eastern Korea: this became the site of an industrial complex producing ammonia for fertilizer production. However, despite the availability of a heavy-water production facility whose output could potentially have rivalled that of Norsk Hydro at Vemork in Norway, it appears that the Japanese did not carry out neutron-multiplication studies using heavy water as a moderator at Kyoto.[11]

God you are stupid !

"Primeminister Tojo ordered Colonel Kawashima (he may have been a general) to innitiate a Japanese atomic bomb project (fall 1942). Kawashima reports that, "The prime minister commented vthat the war might be decided by atomic bomb. I don't think prime minister Tojo had any idea what vthey were." [Chen] The greatest problem for the Japanese as it was fior the Americans was obtaining the adequate quantities of weapons grade uranium. needed for a Japanese atomic bomb. We know from NARA Magic decrypts that Kawashima attempted to obrain Uranium Pitchblende from the Germans. [Magic decrypt--Signal sent to the Japanese Embassy in Berlin, July 7, 1943.] The Germans wanted to know the purpose. Kawashima attempted to hide the purpose. He said it was for a catalyst to produce jet fuel from coal. The Germans either did not believe him or wanted details on the catalyst for their synthetic fuel program. [August 1943] This forced Kawashima's hand. He signaled the Japabnese Embassybin Berlin explaining it was for a nuclear weapons project [November 1943] The Germans agreed to the shipments. The Germans had Uranium ore from Jac-y-mov (Joachimsthal) in western Czechoslovakia. It was partially refined at the Degaussa plant in Oranienberg. The initial plan was to ship the uranium oxide (yellow cake) on Japanese I-class submarines. We do not know if any such shipments were made. We do know that few Japanese submarines in 1944 made it to France, let along the roundctrip back to Japan. Of course after D-Day, the French Atlantic ports rapidly fell into Allied hands. There are reports that some such shipments did make it through. This is impossible to verify, in part because Japanese sources are very reluctant to release information on their World War II atomic program. The Japanese attitude is to portray themselves, using the American atomic bomb attacks, as a victim of the War. Information showing that Jpan had an active atomic progrm goes against the conventional Japanese view of the War. We do know that the I-52 failed to make it to France (July 1944). By this time if the war, Allied ASw operations was making it increasonly dangerous for Axis submarines to operare in the Atlantic.
After D-Day closed the French ports, the Germans agreed to send the Japanese uranium oxide on out-bound U-boat (August 1944). It was difficult enough for the Japanbese to reach French ports, making it to German ports was considered virtuallt impossible."


Idiot !

That's all I will do, fool.

Hagar said...

The Germans and the Japanese both a theory of conducting war by "schrecklichkeit," however you say that in Japanese.
The Anglo-Saxon response was, OK, you want "schrecklichkeit," we will give you "schrecklichkeit" and see how you like it.

Hagar said...

That is interesting. Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" said Japan only had a very minimal program not supported by Gen. Tojo, but then this probably was still all highly classified when that book was written.

Birkel said...

Michael K:

Pace yourself. You'll never be able to educate the likes of Freder Frederson, the willfully ignorant.

The reason I use mockery is I refuse to get angry at the ignorance. Much better to point and laugh at the untrained monkeys.

jr565 said...

This is the difference between Bush and Trump. For Bush etraordinary rendition or enhanced interrogation was not meant to terrorize people and/or be used on anyone accused of terrorism.
He didn't have John Yook write a memo about how to torture people. Instead he asked "waht is torture?" give me the line so that we dont cross that line.
Trump would crosss that line.

he COULD in fact get someone to write a memo that says enhanced interrogation and torture are the same. And he could even, as president do it. But he'd have to answer to people saying "that's torture". And this time they'd be right.

Birkel said...

jr565:

I would like to believe you are right @ 2:08PM. But I worry that the Democrats have cried wolf so many times, as betrayed by Robert Cook, et al, that nobody would listen.

Further, and perhaps contrarily, I think Democrats might go along because they recognize Trump as one of theirs while Republicans go along because of party affiliation.

Michael K said...

"Pace yourself. You'll never be able to educate the likes of Freder Frederson, the willfully ignorant.
"

Oh, I know. What gets me sometimes is the nasty know it all manner with which they spout stupidity.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Trump doesn't think America was kept safe on 9/11. Part of his reasoning for the causes of the security failures and ruination of vast amounts of life and wealth (and American pride and drive) is political correctness and a fear of being accused of being monstrous by unwitting terrorist enablers like Beldar.

Consider the people who thought the Muslims who attacked us on 9/11 and since, especially the most egregious cases like Nadal Hassan,* who were suspicious of the (verified) monsters but afraid, or at least too cautious, to alert anyone because of potential bigotry labels they might have faced.

Trump wants to obliterate that quasi-suicidal mindset, like any real American wanted to end Jamie Gorelick's wall preventing various federal agencies from communicating with each other.

Beldar, in effect, wants these monsters of Islam to remain able to attack us so Beldar can feel superior about his morals compared to Trump and Trump supporters.

Trump sees his children and grandchildren's future as more important than what people might accuse him of in his efforts trying to protect the country in the face of internal and external enemies that use our sense of decency to keep killing us.

Funny how, like in Christian examples of properly following God's laws not man's, Trump is willing to be condemned as a monster and face potential great loss of stature in order to do what he thinks will Make America Great Again. Think Ross Perot saying POTUS isn't a job he would want but rather a duty he felt he needed to fulfill.

Funnier still, the people making the most vitriolic "to the man" attacks against Trump will argue Trump didn't risk anything by running for POTUS as a Republican, even vitriolic attacks on the internet, as if Trump didn't know politics is polarizing and not "good business." People still claim Trump wants Hillary elected and both of them trusted and trust each other to conspire against the voters knowing exactly how everything will play out, like in a movie or something else made up. The idea is the Most Selfish Business Failure In History could not have figured out how to privately bribe or threaten others to gain wealth and power, but had to resort to running for POTUS to satiate his devilish greed.

pm317 said...

Cruz has the idea that the federal government should leave you the hell alone

No, he does not. His views on intersection of religion and government is scary.

jaydub said...

Hagar said...

"People tend to get hung up on the A-bombs in Japan, which were also spectacular media events, but tend to forget or not know about the fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities, which killed a lot more people. And it was not done "from 30,000 feet;" having complete air superiority, LeMay and Norstad had the bombers go in as low and personal as possible. It was terror bombing, pure and simple."

buwaya puti said...

"Hagar is correct. Also "bomber" Harris objective in the firestorm raids was maximum civilian casualties, just as with the US B29 incendiary raids."

Actually, as regards Japan, the fire bombing was strategic and civilian casualties were not the objective. By the time or those raids the Japanese had redistributed much of the war production to tens of thousands of small shops and factories and private homes in cities throughout the country. It was impossible to target all of them, but it was possible to burn them out. If maximum civilian casualties were the objective, the allies would not have dropped leaflets on the cities which were to be targeted and warned the citizens to leave while, at the same time, giving the Japanese military a heads up on where to concentrate their forces. Nor did the USAF face no opposition and carry out raids at low level - they were carried out at altitudes above 30K feet where the Japanese antiaircraft fire was ineffective and above the operational altitude of the Japanese fighters. B29s were not designed to bomb at low levels, nor did they. The later addition of P-51 fighter escorts also helped to render the Japan fighters ineffective, as did the lack of radar to direct those fighters. In all the firebombing raids on Japan were estimated to have killed about 330K Japanese civilians, or about 30K more than the Japanese slaughtered in Nanking, China in one six week operation. (continued)

jaydub said...

Continued:
Regarding the A-bomb attacks (see http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=49 for more information,) but I'll quote for you the relevant excerpts on target selection and targets:

"Target Selection

Between 10 and 11 May 1945, Oppenheimer led a committee which came up with a list of cities most potentially suitable as targets of atomic attacks. The committee eventually arrived at the recommendation of four targets: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and Kokura.

Hiroshima
6 August 1945

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.

Nagasaki
9 Aug 1945

The second bombing was originally planned to be against the city of Kokura, which housed a major army arsenal....

Sweeney had hoped that, despite better defended by the Japanese, the skies over Kokura would be clear enough for them to conduct the bomb run. He knew the Kokura was a much greater military target when compared to the secondary target, Nagasaki. To his disappointment, Kokura was 70% cloud covered. He was ordered that the bombardier must be able to visually identify the target point before releasing the bomb, thus he made three runs over Kokura, expending the precious fuel that he had little of. All three runs failed to give them the chance to properly identify their target, and Sweeney made the decision to go for the secondary target, Nagasaki."

These were not media events. About 185K people total are estimated to have died in both cities, or about 18 to 35% of the number of Filipinos that died during the Japanese occupation of buwaya puti's home country.

Was is hell, but wasting men, bombs and planes on killing civilians doesn't win wars.
Your casual slandering men who went through that hell for their countrymen's sake is less than admirable.

Birkel said...

pm317:
Quote Cruz; find where he says the state should intersect religion. I will wait patiently, here.

Guildofcannonballs:
That was one of the most ridiculous things ever typed. Did you aim toward comedy or arrive there purely by accident?

grackle said...

I said that Trump sees terrorism as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy and that he advocates torture (or close to torture techniques) for a purpose that those who supported enhanced interrogation NEVER openly embraced and ALWAYS denied.

Ok, I think I get it. Terrorists are not much frightened by enhanced interrogation techniques and our hostess knows this. But her problem with Trump is that she believes or suspects Trump doesn’t realize this obvious truth, that the terrorists are not impressed with waterboarding. Instead, she believes that Trump believes that the terrorists ARE frightened by waterboarding. Therefore, when Trump advocates waterboarding Trump is embracing terrorism. To top it off, she has never seen examples of other politicians embracing what she believes Trump has embraced – so Trump is an oddball, an outsider and doubly worrisome for that.

I think I saw the same interview and did not come to the same conclusion as our hostess. I came out of it with the impression that Trump, among other topics, declared emphatically that he as POTUS would follow the law but would prefer that the law could be changed to allow waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques. Frankly, his desire for change legislation by Congress in this area sounded very democratic and reasonable to me. Don’t democracies usually change laws in this mundane manner? I did not hear Trump say that he wanted to waterboard terrorists because he desired to frighten the world’s terrorists.

With all due respect, because we all comment here at her discretion and I am grateful to be given the platform to air my opinion freely, I believe this may be a case of searching for significance that was not there. We await the evidence of the transcripts and are poised to yield this particular debate to her if she is proven to be correct.

I had thought that "terrorism" was distinguished from other acts of killing and mayhem by its being directed at non-combatants with an intent of making no one feel safe. So if random people were taken off the street and waterboarded, that would be terrorism, but if a soldier of an enemy army were waterboarded, that might be torture (and a violation of the rules of war) but it wouldn't be terrorism.

This is one of those comments I wish I had thought of. Kudos, Sweeny.

coupe said...

I've found that most people who actively avoided the draft, or were too crippled to serve, are usually the first ones to become mass murderers by starting a war we can't win.

The only way to end Islam, is to do a Knights Templar on them.

Not going to happen. "Them people"(tm) breed like rats.

Hagar said...

No president can "keep America safe." The best they can do is to make sure whoever harms us learn to regret it.

A good start, however, is to try to make it clear to one and all that they really mean it and are going to do it.

Beldar said...

@ Guildofcannonballs (3/6/16, 2:59 PM), who ranted, in part:

"Beldar, in effect, wants these monsters of Islam to remain able to attack us so Beldar can feel superior about his morals compared to Trump and Trump supporters."

Bwah-hah-hah! Yes, I oppose government murder of children. Therefore I am in favor of radical Islamist jihadis.

Where exactly did you train in rhetoric, Guildofcannonballs?

Trump University, perhaps?

Tony Austin said...

Trump is using the excuse that "the dirtiest fighter sets the rules." Even Shakespeare explored this obsolete barbarism concept in the play, Titus Andronicus. The resulting blow-back or consequences of "one-upping" your enemy with sheer terror and punishment becomes a never ending loop that effects generations to come. But more notably it reduces the rank and file politicians and the military they command into the same sort of monsters we were fighting in the first place.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Imagine being a Republican Congressional candidate campaigning with Trump.

You'll have to defend: (1) Bush lied us into a war (2) It's okay to order the military to kill civilians (3) It's fine to torture captured terrorists NOT for vital information but because we have to be just as harsh as they are (4) It was okay to intern over 100,000 Americans without due process....on and on and on.

It'll be fun to watch, that's for sure; but electorally it's going to be an absolute disaster.

Trump is a, there's the phrase again, absolute disaster for the Republican Party. Of course, to many of his supporters that's a good thing. Because "Burn it down".

And replace it with what?

If liberals had sent a Manchurian Candidate directed to destroy the Republican Party they couldn't have done a better job than the one Trump will do.

iowan2 said...

Birkel said...
pm317:

Cruz has the idea that the federal government should leave you the hell alone. How absolutely scary!!

Well to clarify, The Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, and the 1st 150 or so years of the colonies codified the idea. Cruz did not invent it.

Ken B said...

Hyperbole. Trump thinks we are hampered by laws that embody squeamishness, and we should -- so that we still fight within the law -- extend what is permissible. I suspect he means torture to interrogate. This sounds like what Dershowitz advocates with torture warrants.

Michael K said...

By the time or those raids the Japanese had redistributed much of the war production to tens of thousands of small shops and factories and private homes in cities throughout the country. It was impossible to target all of them, but it was possible to burn them out.

Agreed but I disagree with:

Nor did the USAF face no opposition and carry out raids at low level - they were carried out at altitudes above 30K feet where the Japanese antiaircraft fire was ineffective and above the operational altitude of the Japanese fighters. B29s were not designed to bomb at low levels, nor did they.

Nobody knew about the Jet Stream and the accuracy was poor. LeMay decided to go in at low level and there was fighter opposition. The fighter base at Iwo Jima and the location of an emergency landing site was the reason for the invasion.

His ability led Arnold to name him commander of the B29s in the Marianas where the main air effort against Japan was centered. Always a tactical innovator, LeMay took the risky and controversial step of abandoning the long held American doctrine of high altitude, daylight, precision bombing, and instead stripped his B29s of guns, loaded them with incendiaries, and sent them against Japanese cities at night and at low level. The new strategy was remarkably successful; Japan was devastated, and the dropping of the atomic bombs in August 1945 brought the Pacific war to an end without an invasion of the Japanese home islands and the hundreds of thousands of casualties that would have entailed.

It was only after the war that we learned of the Jet Stream which made high altitude bombing of Japan ineffective.

Another source (Japanese) on the B 29 raids

When Curtis LeMay took over the XX1st Bomber Command he ordered the B-29s to go in at lower altitudes at night, and not in formation. Using less gas, they could carry a larger bomb load. LeMay also started using incendiaries and systematically started bombing virtually every city in Japan. As the bombing runs increased so did the ramming which had become a real nightmare for the B-29s. The Japanese pilots were desperate, realizing the war was lost, and wanted to sacrifice themselves for the glory and honor which would be bestowed on them and their families. As the bombing altitudes got lower the number of B-29s in the attacks increased to where every day hundreds of them were destroying Japanese cities.

About 400 B 29s were lost bombing Japan.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

iowan2:

Too true. I gladly accept that good-natured clarification.

cubanbob said...

It appears that Trump's view on terrorist is that they are outside the laws of war, not more than mercenaries or pirates and not deserving of any consideration. To my mind, he is right. Trump should be more modest and artful in stating this but that doesn't alter the validity of the point of view. There is no reason to handicap ourselves by insane ROIs when it comes to stateless terrorist groups and their members. It isn't as the terrorist are complying with any of the conventional laws of war. Why neither Bush or Obama didn't request Congress to pass into legislation the removal of these terrorist organizations and members outside the scope of US law and outside the purview of the courts is something I don't understand. perhaps they were too sophisticated and nuanced to openly advocate such policies against the terrorists but it is obvious Trump isn't and Trump just might exactly go to Congress asking for just such legislation. And how many members of Congress other than Sanders and the safe far left members are going to vote no against such legislation that exempts terrorists organizations and their members from US laws as long as the members aren't apprehended on US soil? I like Cruz and will vote for him in my primary but I don't think he would advocate such a position. Trump to me does appear to be willing to do just that.

As for the atomic bombings yes the Japanese had a nuclear program like the Germans but give it a low priority like the Germans in the belief no such weapon could have been produced and fielding during the the current war and thus they saw no purpose in diverting resources needed to fight with the technology already at hand and those that could have an immediate impact on the fighting. After Hiroshima they quickly determined the type of weapon (atomic), the explosive yield and the nuclear composition. They did not surrender immediately after Hiroshima as stated up thread they didn't think the Americans had the uranium for more bombs. Nagasaki showed them the Americans had an alternate nuclear explosive material and even that initially wasn't enough to stop an abortive coup to prevent the surrender to the allies. In the end it wasn't the number of deaths the frightened the Japanese into surrendering. What frightened the emperor is just how casually one plane dropping one bomb like dropping a rock of a highway overpass could destroy a city and by extension like casually squashing a bug Japan could be annihilated. No great final battle for honor and glory, no twilight of the gods, just merely be squashed like a bug without almost any notice.

FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FullMoon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
cubanbob said...

@ Beldar I general agree with your comments but in your using the Mob as an example I would hedge it a bit. I'm no expert on Italian mafioso either American mafia or Italian Mafia never mind the other Italian criminal organizations that are reputedly extremely violent and savage but I have read press accounts where South American and Central America and Mexican drug cartels have committed atrocities against the families of those they targeted for killing as an encouragement to the others. How effective the killings are in deterring I don't know but apparently it must have a positive (from the perpetrators view) effect otherwise why continue and risk the same on them?

Paul said...

Increase the law? Trump really is a damn Nazi.

He is gonna make Obama look good (just as Obama made Jimmy Carter look good.)

And this country can't afford any more of these clowns.

jr565 said...

everyone mentions the Geneva Conventions and how Trump is suggesting we violate them. We had this conversation before. Saboteurs are not protected by geneva conventions. You could shoot them on the spot.
That doesn't mean that we should go right to torture as Trump suggests. But they aren't totally protected by Geneva either.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Saboteurs are not protected by geneva conventions.

They are protected under the conventions from being tortured and/or abused.

A party simply cannot do whatever they want to them. Even terrorists who violate all norms of international law have some protections.

This is absurd: Trump is advocating immoral, unethical, un-American actions whether Congress allows it or not.

This will simply not be done.

No Trump, never. Not ever.

Freder Frederson said...

I never wrote that the Japanese didn't have a nuclear program. Michael K's unsupportable contention was that the Japanese knew we didn't have enough U235 for a second bomb. It is significant, although not widely known, that Japan had a nuclear program and the leadership had concluded that we could not have enough U235 for a second bomb. That is ridiculous. The Japanese didn't even know what a critical mass was (even Heisenberg was way off and never did figure out what a critical mass would be), and even if they knew "oh that bomb must of contained 30 Kg of U235" (and Little Boy was extremely inefficient), they didn't have the slightest clue of what the production capacity of the U.S. was.

Freder Frederson said...

It appears that Trump's view on terrorist is that they are outside the laws of war, not more than mercenaries or pirates and not deserving of any consideration. To my mind, he is right.

Well your mind and Trump's are wrong. Illegal combatants are covered by Geneva (e.g., summary execution of anyone for any reason is a war crime). As for the International Convention Against Torture, there are no exceptions to it, or are there classes of people that deserve less protection under it.

Michael K said...

""Please provide proof of this ridiculous statement. It is complete and utter bullshit. They hadn't even separated any U235, and they had no way to know how much we had."

Freda seems to be backing away from his statement, perhaps recognizing how stupid it sounds.

"That is ridiculous. "

More idiot bombast,

" they didn't have the slightest clue of what the production capacity of the U.S. was."

Yes and that is why they were surprised and alarmed at the second bomb. They did not know they had been correct and the second bomb was Plutonium.

Idiot.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Political correctness allowed the deaths at Hassan's hands, so Trump is going to kill political correctness no matter how many times he is called Hitler or a monster.

What else can Trump do to help prevent another attack other than increase the law, legally speaking?

If one assumes sinister motives on his part the expansion of efforts to stop terrorism can be seen as expanding government power, but most people don't assume sinister motives but the desire to not see another WTC destroyed along with the people in it.

Because Trump isn't waiting for another crisis to implement what he feels would help I conclude his vocalizations sincere, the opposite of Rahm and Obama.

Freder Frederson said...

Freda seems to be backing away from his statement, perhaps recognizing how stupid it sounds.

I am not backing away from my original statement. You misread it.

Gahrie said...

If liberals had sent a Manchurian Candidate directed to destroy the Republican Party they couldn't have done a better job than the one Trump will do.

As long as the Establishment continues to blame Trump on others, the problem will never be fixed.

Michael K said...

Freder, to end this silly exchange.

"Michael K's unsupportable contention was that the Japanese knew we didn't have enough U235 for a second bomb.

"the leadership had concluded that we could not have enough U235 for a second bomb."

How are you at pattern recognition ? Can you tell the difference between "KNEW" and "CONCLUDED"?

I just noticed you wanted to argue about crime in Britain. A big part of the s;pike in property crimes is the fact that police are processing homeowners for defending their property and themselves.

No, I won't do your search for you. I am there almost every year and read the newspapers.

Michael K said...

Prosecuting homeowners...

ellamentary said...

Beldar and Ann are exactly right. Trump wants to increase his own power. And he doesn't look at waterboarding and "beyond that," whatever that might be, as means to extract information but as forms of punishment. He is a scary scary dude. He wants to torture people, basically. Really vile, awful, scum-of-the-earth people to be sure, but people none-the-less. I may be as naive as Mitt Romney, but I just don't think that's what Americans do, not how America became or remains the greatest power on earth. I thought Trump was all about making "America great again." This is not how that is done.

Michael K said...

" I just don't think that's what Americans do, "

You were obviously not at Guadalcanal.

My father-in-law was commandant of a Japanese POW camp shortly after the war. Most of the POWs were noncoms but there were a few officers who were physicians.

One of the noncoms insisted on wearing one of those white headbands with a Shinto motto printed on it.

My father-in-law told the officers if that noncom did not stop wearing the headband, he would shoot him. He stopped wearing it and when they were all repatriated to Japan, the doctors gave him a canteen with their names scratched on it.. It burned up in the Bel Air fire.

mtrobertslaw said...

In Trump can point to influential leftist thought for support for his notion of "increasing the law".

Consider the organic or astronomical metaphors used by social liberals to describe the Constitution: the Constitution is a "living document", the Constitution "is an organism that grows and changes with the times" and with a discerning eye, one can discover new rights hidden in "the penumbras" that surround various clauses in the Constitution.

The purpose of every one of these metaphors is to "increase the law" found in the Constitution without having to deal with the Tenth Amendment or the troublesome democratic process of amending the Constitution.

So it is that the law of the Constitution has been "increased" to include, among things, a constitutional right to abortion as well as a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

And those who argue the Constitution is neutral on these matters and that they should properly be addressed by the several states, soon find themselves drowned out by the rhetoric of the "Constitution as Metaphor" theory.

The great value of this theory is that it allows social liberals and progressives to enact their own personal vision of the "Good" into the Constitution without having to bother with either the Tenth Amendment, or the amendment process.

"Increasing the law" of the Constitution in this way may not be democratic, but it sure is effective.

Birkel said...

Freder Frederson:

You want to argue that summary executions are wrong? Or illegal? Or covered by law?

Because, while limited to certain circumstances, they are not illegal.

You are an idiot, performing the ritualistic monkey dance. Get your shine box.

Mountain Maven said...

Hillary gives top secret information to the enemy, which is worse?

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
eric said...

Terrorism is one of those words that you can't argue over because the two people arguing have a completely different idea of what it means.

After 9/11, a lot of people thought terrorism meant killing innocent civilians because if you did what Allah told you to do, you'd get a bunch of virgins for your effort.

Then critics started to post that terrorism was mostly non-Muslim terror and they linked to FBI stats to prove it. If you looked through the stats, you'd see what they were talking about was Earth First type of dummies who started fires, burnt down buildings, broke windows, put sand in gas tanks, etc, etc. In other words, they weren't killing anyone but instead, they were causing economic damage to people and companies.

And we were supposed to think, "Phew, most terrorism isn't Islamic Terror."

Now Althouse wants you to equate interrogation with terrorism.

It'll never end.

n.n said...

The response to a threat is commensurate to its risk. The response to an existential threat includes committing mass casualties. The response to an imminent threat includes extraordinary measures. This policy prescription has bipartisan support.

cubanbob said...

Blogger Birkel said...
Freder Frederson:

You want to argue that summary executions are wrong? Or illegal? Or covered by law?

Because, while limited to certain circumstances, they are not illegal.

You are an idiot, performing the ritualistic monkey dance. Get your shine box.

3/6/16, 8:45 PM"

Thanks for sparing me a reply to Freder.

Chuck said...

I very much like your post here, Professor Althouse.

In an earlier post, I had observed that indeed Trump didn't seem to be interested any intelligence out of his "worse than waterboarding" threat. I had written that Trump's goals seemed to be "punishment and retribution." I had not written "deterrence," and I suppose that I should not put that word or any other in the voice of Althouse. I'm not sure that Trump would even understand the notion of of deterrence in this regard. Although let's remember that Trump rolled out the phony story of General Pershing, dipping bullets in pig's blood before executing 49 of 50 muslim prisoners in the Philippines and sending the 50th back to the insurgents with the news. It never happened; but of course Trump was not only delighted to tell it as a true story; he assured his audience they'd find it "in the history books."

But the gist is all the same and just as Professor Althouse observed; it's a startling position from Trump. I'd say it's devoid of any serious legal thought, but that's not nearly enough. It's an embarrassment.

Freder Frederson said...

Because, while limited to certain circumstances, they [summary executions] are not illegal.

Please, with citations, explain where and when summary executions are legal under any current recognized laws of war.

Freder Frederson said...

You want to argue that summary executions are wrong? Or illegal? Or covered by law?

Because, while limited to certain circumstances, they are not illegal.


You know, if you were going to make such an outrageous claim, you would provide a link to the relevant international law treaty. But of course you can't, because it doesn't exist. And maybe you should get a shine box yourself.

Freder Frederson said...

My father-in-law told the officers if that noncom did not stop wearing the headband, he would shoot him.

Your father-in-law is either an idiot, liar or just full of shit. A commandant of a POW camp (after the war, no less), who threatened to shoot a prisoner for such a routine violation of camp rules would have been court-martialed faster than his head could spin.

Freder Frederson said...

My father-in-law told the officers if that noncom did not stop wearing the headband, he would shoot him.

The only thing your father-in-law could have charged the noncom with was being out of uniform, which is not a capital offense. So he is full of shit, as are you.

And yes, during World War II we did execute POWs. But they were tried under military law. But out of the hundreds of thousands we captured, fourteen were executed, all for murder (of fellow prisoners).

Michael K said...

"Your father-in-law is either an idiot, liar or just full of shit."

Thank you for proving what an idiot you are. You, of course, are very familiar with the rules in 1946.

God, what an Idiot !

Birkel said...

Start at Wikipedia, Freder Frederson. Move along from there. Or apply some basic logic, dumb ass.

Get you some fucking knowledge!

Apologies accepted during regular business hours. Shoe shines can happen either before or after work.

It's not that you are stupid, it's that you know so many things that are not so.

Birkel said...

Soldiers in Korea were shot in the field for desertion. Viet Nam too.

Now they are given Rose Garden ceremonies.

But Freder Frederson says blah, blah, blah, bull shit...

Freder Frederson said...

Soldiers in Korea were shot in the field for desertion. Viet Nam too.

You are a liar.

Please provide citations. The last American soldier executed for desertion was in World War II (and there was only one). All except one of the executions of U.S. soldiers (or even foreign soldiers in U.S. custody) from WWII on have been for murder or rape.

Freder Frederson said...

Thank you for proving what an idiot you are. You, of course, are very familiar with the rules in 1946.

Yes I am. A commandant of a POW camp did not have the right to summarily execute anyone. Please provide any evidence to the contrary.

Freder Frederson said...

Start at Wikipedia, Freder Frederson. Move along from there. Or apply some basic logic, dumb ass.

Again, provide a link.

grackle said...

I think it could be useful to try to determine if Trump has a messaging purpose in his handling of the waterboarding issue. What could the message be, I wonder. Maybe this:

As POTUS Trump I will always put the safety of Americans as my first priority. I will follow the law and not waterboard high value terrorists. I realize I cannot waterboard as long as it is against the law of the USA. But my first instinct will always be to protect Americans.

Obama, on the other hand, attended a Las Vegas fundraiser the day after the deaths of Americans that Obama had abandoned to die at the hands of terrorists. Then he and his surrogates lied about the incident repeatedly. A message, perhaps unintended, but a message that many of us got loud and clear.

I am a Trump supporter but if another GOP candidate ends up as the nominee I will gladly support them. There are SCOTUS appointments at play in the next few years and the thought of a Democrat making these appointments is scary, especially considering how our hapless GOP majority Congress is usually out-maneuvered by the current Whitehouse occupant.

grackle said...

Google is your friend, if I make a factual assertion, by all means go and double-check me.

Naw, the commentor has it backwards. If challenged it is up to the commentor to provide proof of his assertions. Anecdotal offerings are not very convincing, either.

JamesB.BKK said...

http://www.professorbainbridge.com/professorbainbridgecom/2016/02/donald-trump-is-the-beta-test-of-a-cure-for-the-revolt-of-the-elites.html