BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?At which point, I turned and gave Meade a look of woe and he said "Now, do you see?" This morning, as I was putting the text up, he prompted me to quote him, and at first, I didn't want to, because it implies that I hadn't heard these opinions from Trump before, but I had. I have been seeing this all along, but the effect was heightened by the way Bret Baier framed it — in terms of the point of view of military personnel who are trained to resist illegal orders — and Trump's very severe tone when he said "They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me." That is, there may be law and there may be extensive training about law, but there's something special about Trump, or so he thinks. They’re not going to refuse me. In his mind, Trump trumps law.
TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.
BAIER: But they’re illegal.
TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding. This really started with Ted, a question was asked of Ted last — two debates ago about waterboarding. And Ted was, you know, having a hard time with that question, to be totally honest with you. They then came to me, what do you think of waterboarding? I said it’s fine. And if we want to go stronger, I’d go stronger, too, because, frankly… (APPLAUSE) … that’s the way I feel. Can you imagine — can you imagine these people, these animals over in the Middle East, that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we’re having a hard problem with waterboarding? We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher than waterboarding. That’s my opinion.
BAIER: But targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: And — and — and — I’m a leader. I’m a leader. I’ve always been a leader. 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.
BAIER: Even targeting terrorists’ families?
TRUMP: Well, look, you know, when a family flies into the World Trade Center, a man flies into the World Trade Center, and his family gets sent back to where they were going — and I think most of you know where they went — and, by the way, it wasn’t Iraq — but they went back to a certain territory, they knew what was happening. The wife knew exactly what was happening. They left two days early, with respect to the World Trade Center, and they went back to where they went, and they watched their husband on television flying into the World Trade Center, flying into the Pentagon, and probably trying to fly into the White House, except we had some very, very brave souls on that third plane. All right?
UPDATE: Trump changed his position. Law trumps Trump.
Posts
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225Half-ass is flying sorties against ISIS where the ROE requires the pilots to abort the mission if even one civilian may be hurt. That isn't even good COIN tactics.
Lot's of 'may haves' and 'would haves' in your pointless post, Freder. I haven't heard anyone advocate for carpet-bombing. Play with your straw-man on your own time.
Yeah, Reagan screwed up Iran so much they gave us our people back. And Lebanon is another example of half-ass measures coming back to bite. Reagan learned his lesson after that. You learned nothing.
And what nonsense from Henry! To be expected of course. Being like the communists, indeed! There is a whole wing of the American political establishment openly working to make us more like the communists. And it isn't the Republicans. Do you believe that Mr. Keenan was saying that strategic bombing, carpet bombing, or even atomic bombing made us more like the communists? I don't.
During Katrina, there were videotapes on the Net of U.S. Military personnel entering people's homes and seizing their weapons without warrants or evidence of any crime.
Can you provide a link to these videotapes. If not, I think you are in the realm of Donald Trump's contention that he saw thousands of Muslims in NJ celebrating the fall of the towers.
I will grant you that there was an aborted attempt to confiscate guns in New Orleans immediately after Katrina (it lasted about a day and authorities admitted it was a really bad idea). But I question whether any houses were entered or if it was the U.S. military that conducted the effort (National Guard acting as agents of the state of Louisiana, not the Federal government, would be much more likely). If I recall correctly, they didn't search any houses, just knocked on the door and told people to give up their weapons.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
"Law doesn't operate in war."
Even Achilles knew it was wrong to drag the corpse of Hector around the walls of Troy for 12 days.
Think of it as cultural relativism: Why should we hold ourselves as too high-and-mighty to stoop to the enemy's time-honored practices? If their civilization is just as valid as ours, we can borrow their techniques. Kind of like we honored the Shinto sun-god emperor by dropping a couple of suns on his territory....
JSM
I haven't heard anyone advocate for carpet-bombing.
Well then you are not paying attention. Both Cruz ("We will carpet bomb [ISIS] into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out") and Trump ("bomb the shit out of ISIS) have.
the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 (Dec 88) -- all on Reagan's watch. There were also numerous individual Americans killed in other hijackings and terrorist attacks.
You somehow missed Reagan attacking and nearly killing Gaddafi. After that event, he was quiet and gave up his nukes after Bush invaded Iraq.
I agree the Marine barracks bombing was a fuckup but I was not aware that Reagan planned all the ROE for them or that he was intimately involved in site selection.
The hostage situation was a weakness of Reagan's but he was pressured by CIA to do something about station chief Bill Buckley's kidnapping and torture.
The KGB had a much better solution to Hezbollah.
Having gotten the message, the Soviets decided to send one back.
KGB agents ran the name of a prominent Hezbollah leader through their computers and came up with the name and address of one of his closest blood relatives. They then kidnapped the kinsman, castrated him, and sent his severed organs to the Hezbollah honcho.
The package was accompanied by a terse cover note indicating that the KGB had the names of other close relatives and that Hezbollah could expect more such deliveries unless the three remaining hostages were freed forthwith.
It didn't take much time for Hezbollah to realize it was dealing with a different breed of "Great Satan." The three surviving hostages were dropped off only 150 yards from the Soviet Embassy from a late-model BMW that couldn't drive away fast enough.
I'm sure Cookie disapproves.,
Carpet bombing may be appropriate IRT ISIS. If so, then bombs away!
Unless we can get John Althouse Cohen to volunteer to stop ISIS.
Isn't that the bottom-line, Professor?
Europe is being invaded, the West is under siege ideologically, economically, politically, and demographically, war is coming and Althouse is most concerned about virtue signaling.
I used to wonder how so many never saw the World Wars coming. I don't anymore.
Michael K,
I was merely pointing out that Tank's position -- "Reagan did not bomb every country we had a dispute with. But our enemies knew better than to fuck with him, because he made it clear that we would win, and they would die" -- is factually incorrect. In fact, numerous enemies "fucked" with us, all throughout Reagan's tenure in the White House. Tank was wrong- not that I expect him to admit it.
I wasn't trying to get into whether or not specific actors were deterred because that's not what he said -- that would have been a different reply because, obviously, Gaddafi was (eventually) successfully deterred. Some actors can be deterred by the carrot, some actors can be deterred by the stick, and some actors cannot be deterred even by Reagan-like strength. Understanding that is essential to knowing what are our best options in the Middle East (and elsewhere).
Forget about his persona for a minute - who do you think would do a better job making the big decisions: Trump or Clinton?
Do you believe that Mr. Keenan was saying that strategic bombing, carpet bombing, or even atomic bombing made us more like the communists?
The Long Telegram defined the policy of containment against the Soviet Union that eventually lead to its downfall without a global war and in spite of profound setbacks (and some successes) in proxy wars. I think it's worth reading in full.
Torture and carpet bombing is certainly unacceptable in my opinion. But even on the most ruthless and pragmatic level it is a self-destructive and short-sighted proposal. The political will for the U.S. to fight against a widespread ideological opponent must extend beyond one party or one president. The minute your first carpet-bombing target is leveled you lose half the country and alienate all of our allies. If you can't maintain the political support for your operations beyond a presidential term, you lose.
Here's more Keenan. He's writing about the Soviet Union, but with just a few edits, it could be about Islamic terrorism (I've highlighted a few points):
In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US there can be no permanent modus vivendi that it is desirable and necessary that the internal harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international authority of our state be broken, if Soviet power is to be secure. This political force has complete power of disposition over energies of one of world's greatest peoples and resources of world's richest national territory, and is borne along by deep and powerful currents of Russian nationalism. In addition, it has an elaborate and far flung apparatus for exertion of its influence in other countries, an apparatus of amazing flexibility and versatility, managed by people whose experience and skill in underground methods are presumably without parallel in history. Finally, it is seemingly inaccessible to considerations of reality in its basic reactions. For it, the vast fund of objective fact about human society is not, as with us, the measure against which outlook is constantly being tested and re-formed, but a grab bag from which individual items are selected arbitrarily and tendenciously to bolster an outlook already preconceived. This is admittedly not a pleasant picture. Problem of how to cope with this force in [is] undoubtedly greatest task our diplomacy has ever faced and probably greatest it will ever have to face. It should be point of departure from which our political general staff work at present juncture should proceed. It should be approached with same thoroughness and care as solution of major strategic problem in war, and if necessary, with no smaller outlay in planning effort. I cannot attempt to suggest all answers here. But I would like to record my conviction that problem is within our power to solve--and that without recourse to any general military conflict.
Sorry, forgot the highlighting. It's the third sentence that I think is pertinent.
Guys, it's George Kennan, not Keenan.
He's kind of a big deal.
The point of this election isn't to find a President at least as abusive of our rights as Obama and George W, it's to do better. So saying that 'we got that right now' doesn't cut it. The primary problem with the American political system is the growth of power in Washington and especially the Presidency itself. Obamacare, Iraq, Afghanistan and ISIS and the rest are symptoms of the problem not the problem themselves. The Candidate who best shows that they understand this and is willing to work with Congress to correct it, is who I will vote for.
I am just going to interject a little first person experience into this discussion. There is no distinction in those countries between combatant and non-combatant. The women and children are definitely part of the effort. They make that clear in their targets as well.
Sharia Law keeps them in their place which is in the house being beaten and raped for the women or holding some Imams pocket between forced blow jobs for the boys.
After Obama changed the ROE and we males couldn't touch/search their females because 'sensitivity" they started hiding the things we were looking for in women's crotches. There were numerous events where women came out shooting. They don't act individually. You can't stop at the family either. You have to take out the whole clan.
For all of the virtue signalers out there I would just propose you move to one of these shitholes. See how irreversibly fucked up their entire culture is. Half of you would end up as pocket boys and the other half would be stuck in a burka and beaten every night.
It is a measure of the protection you are provided that you can even come on here and pretend to talk about Geneva Conventions or what torture is. Pull a 3 foot tall burning body out of a car that was hit by a drone. Carry a body out that was the guy that was just spotting you in the gym yesterday. Take pictures of a scalp that was burned into a wall. Wear sunglasses everywhere you go because you were in too many explosive events.
What Trump said is just straight talk. If you were upset by it that is a problem you have with reality and just skimming through these posts there is massive denial of reality here.
You live in a country and have freedom because people did horrible things on your behalf. If you want to disavow that move the fuck out.
Livermoron said...
"Carpet bombing may be appropriate IRT ISIS. If so, then bombs away!
Unless we can get John Althouse Cohen to volunteer to stop ISIS.
Isn't that the bottom-line, Professor?"
It is an entirely rational response.
You wouldn't have to carpet bomb entire countries. You would only have to prove you will do it.
Anyone with first hand experience in those countries will tell you how fucked up the people there are.
Suppose all the foreign policy experts upped and quit.
Trump should welcome that development. It's easier than firing them.
"some actors cannot be deterred even by Reagan-like strength. Understanding that is essential to knowing what are our best options in the Middle East (and elsewhere)."
Reagan-like strength will deter most actors. That's why he fired the PATCO controllers. Those that can't be deterred need killin' as the saying goes.
We currently live in a country dominated by cry-bullies and shrinking violets who scream "FUCK" in your face if they don't like something you did, like wrote an e-mail.
I would be OK with smacking some of them around as a sort of wake-up call. Sometimes the smacking is done physically. Sometimes it is done by firing an idiot like Professor Click and sometimes it is electing a guy who will not listen to their crap.
Political Correctness is what gave us Trump.
Robert Cook:
"Given also that our invasion of Iraq was predicated on lies, it was a fraud and would therefore be illegal even if the UN Security Council had approved it."
Incorrect. See the answer to "Did Bush lie his way to war with Iraq?".
The law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire plainly show enforcement was compliance-based. According to the "governing standard of Iraqi compliance" (UNSCR 1441), the Saddam regime was evidentially in material breach across the board of the Gulf War ceasefire mandates for casus belli, including WMD-related mandates.
Robert Cook:
"Under our treaty obligations as signatories to the UN Charter, we violated the law in invading Iraq, (and subsequently, other countries in the ME) without UN Security Council approval as there was no self-defense basis for our invasion."
Incorrect. Both criteria were satisfied for Operation Iraqi Freedom with, one, the standing authorization of UNSCR 678 (1990) to enforce Iraq's compliance with the UNSCR 660-resolutions and, two, the defense basis was intrinsic in the Gulf War ceasefire - eg, "the threat Iraq’s non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security" (UNSCR 1441) - such that Iraq's noncompliance provided the defense basis.
Excerpt from "Was Operation Iraqi Freedom legal?":
The disagreement at the decision point for OIF was not substantive. Saddam was confirmed guilty.
... The procedural disagreement stemmed from the ambiguity of paragraph 12 of UNSCR 1441, which mandated the UN Security Council merely to "convene" to "consider the situation" if Iraq failed to comply with the "enhanced inspection regime". "Consider" is not a term of art that is understood to mean 'then decide on enforcement with a new specific authorization'. "Consider" just means consider.
Meanwhile, paragraph 2 "decid[ed] to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations ... with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process" and paragraph 13 "recall[ed], in that context, the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".
The UN Security Council duly convened upon the presentation of the UNMOVIC Cluster Document on March 7, 2003. After considering the situation for 10 days, the decision for OIF came as a result of Iraq's continued violations of its obligations - "Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area" (UNSCR 1441).
...
Substantively, Saddam was evidentially noncompliant in his "final opportunity to comply" (UNSCR 1441). In the procedural controversy, I believe, on balance, the American progressive view wins out over the episodic view due to Iraq's material breach of the ceasefire, the threat posed by Iraq's material breach, the over-decade-long precedent set by the US-led enforcement of the UNSC resolutions for Iraq pursuant to UNSCR 678, and the UN's structural dependence on sovereign authorities, especially American sovereign authority, for the military enforcement of UN mandates. The decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom appears to be legally sufficient despite the political controversy.
@Bobby, good call. Picked up a wrong spelling in the back and forth.
Robert Cook:
"Which means every war we've fought since WW2 has been illegal. Congress' authority to declare war is not just a legalism; it is the governing body of our nation--representing (purportedly) the people of the United States--granting authority to the President to initiate military actions against another country."
Setting aside the unsettled debate over whether a Congressional predicate is needed at all for the President to deploy the military under the apportionment of war powers under Articles I and II (for example, see http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/02/the-war-precedent/), it's safe to say that Congress can determine that a Congressional joint resolution, eg, a specific statutory authorization, is a functional legal equivalent to a Congressional declaration of war.
Michael K,
"Reagan-like strength will deter most actors. That's why he fired the PATCO controllers. Those that can't be deterred need killin' as the saying goes."
Yeah, unfortunately, the death cult of the radical Islamist extremists are not American PATCO controllers, and it's the Islamist extremists whom Trump (and Cruz, for that matter) claims can be deterred through superior firepower- as in he'll make us so strong that "Nobody is going to mess with us!" No amount of strength can deter the radical Islamist extremists because of their quest for martyrdom. Now I absolutely agree with you that they're going to need to be killed, and that will have to happen continuously for the foreseeable future- sadly, at times, we will be unsuccessful in preventing their attacks on American soil or interests, and that's going to hurt, but it's inevitable. But neither Reagan nor Trump could make American so strong that "nobody will fuck with us" -- it's simply not possible. The best we can do is remain eternally vigilant to prevent their attacks, disrupt their networks, destroy their sanctuaries and decapitate their leadership, but it doesn't end in our lifetime.
Israel learned that lesson a long time ago.
elcee,
Korea an ongoing meatgrinder?
If I read the figures correctly, in the 63 years since the ceasefire, there have been a total of 41 American military deaths in Korea, and none at all since 1984. Some meat grinder!
elcee @ 9:25pm,
Actually I think you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. The Constitution indeed require Congress, not the president, to declare war, but it doesn't require any specific wording to be used.!
I've read both the 2001 and 2003 AUMFs, and they both clearly have Congress giving the president authorization to conduct warfare against specific entities. If that's not a declaration of war, I don't know what is.
Kirk Parker:
"If I read the figures correctly, in the 63 years since the ceasefire, there have been a total of 41 American military deaths in Korea, and none at all since 1984. Some meat grinder!"
Yep.
I was responding to Livermoron's statement about "war in a half-ass way, feeding an endless chain of young men and women piecemeal into a meat-grinder", which expresses an over-simplified conception of the military's role(s) in the continuum of war and peace.
My point is that we don't win a war until we've secured the peace post-war, which usually calls upon different degrees and forms of military use and a long timeframe. In that respect, the US soldiers who fought the Korean War upheld the policy implemented for post-WW2. Subsequently, the US soldiers who've served in Korea since the Korean War have upheld the same mission as the soldiers who fought the "meat grinder" of the Korean War, though as you highlight, obviously in a different form.
The rules do get tricky for insurgencies that purposely skirt major combat and, by design, strain the policies and rules for peace operations.
Kirk Parker:
"If [the 2001 and 2002 AUMF]'s not a declaration of war, I don't know what is."
I was responding to Robert Cook's contention that a Congressional authorization falls short of Congress's Constitutional obligation to declare war, therefore all military deployments since WW2 have been illegal.
Your take that the Constitution doesn't mandate a specific form for a declaration of war and my take that Congress can decide that a joint resolution is equivalent to a declaration of war converge on the same place: Congress can determine the constitution of its obligation to declare war under Article I.
I think an equivalency framing of the issue makes more sense than a non-specific wording framing because, although you are correct that the Constitution doesn't mandate a specific form for a declaration of war, there are historical precedents. And, there is law, the 1973 War Powers Act, that addresses the issue as an equivalency.
More fundamentally, as a separate but related point from Robert Cook's contention, it's actually not settled that a Congressional predicate is necessary at all for the President to deploy the military.
In the Foreign Policy article at the example link, Bobbitt contends, citing Bas v Tingy (1800), that deployment of the military is exclusively an Article II power and not predicated on a Congressional declaration of war. That such a predicate would have infringed on the legislative and executive division of powers under the Constitution. Rather, a declaration of war was designed as a complementary, not predicative, legislative device that legally "perfected" an "imperfect" military engagement by applying a conventional rule-set of the laws of war. Setting aside other practical and political considerations, the President's war power is not plenary under Article II only due to Congress's power of the purse, not because a Congressional predicate is required for the President to deploy the military.
Like I said, the issue is unsettled. For the most part, Congressional authorization has been approached like a predicate. But not always. In our history, the President has at times deployed the military without prior Congressional authorization while citing Article II and only subsequently involved Congress.
Post a Comment