Trump's order to fire on civilians is illegal as hell, and already being used to justify murder

[phands]

This man is unspeakable.....anyone who supports him or votes for him is complicit....

During what was supposed to be a policy announcement on Thursday, Donald Trump actually launched into a campaign speech, hyping his message of xenophobia and racism and trying once again to increase fear about a rag-tag group of families hundreds of miles from any American border. But Trump did make one real policy change during his racism ramble. Trump has ordered the American military to fire on unarmed civilians.


According to Trump, he has ordered the military that if anyone throws a rock “we will consider that a firearm.” Later, Trump gets more specific.


Trump: They want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. We’re going [to] consider it, and I told them to consider it a rifle. When they throw rocks like they did at the Mexico military and police, I say, consider it a rifle.


Those words are already meeting with approval half a world away, where the Nigerian Army posted Trump’s statement.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...hell-and-already-being-used-to-justify-murder

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, thanks to Obama, there is precedent.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, thanks to Obama, there is precedent.

Ok, I'll bite. When did Obama tell our military to consider a thrown rock to be equivalent to lethal gun fire and that therefore lethal force is granted in response?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I read in another thread that lots of the caravan is pregnant women. Can you just imagine pregnant women throwing rocks, or worse chocolate milk, and then being fired on?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Have journalists gone down to this fearsome caravan and done any reporting? I would so love to see Donald's fear mongering exposed with a little light. (Not that the Fox News Nation would take note of it.)

 

[Harry Bosch]

Have journalists gone down to this fearsome caravan and done any reporting? I would so love to see Donald's fear mongering exposed with a little light. (Not that the Fox News Nation would take note of it.)

Send journalists down there without military protection? We're talking about Americans here...

 

[ideologyhunter]

Any journalist that can get out of a Trump rally alive can survive the caravan.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Well, thanks to Obama, there is precedent.

Ok, I'll bite. When did Obama tell our military to consider a thrown rock to be equivalent to lethal gun fire and that therefore lethal force is granted in response?

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well, thanks to Obama, there is precedent.

Ok, I'll bite. When did Obama tell our military to consider a thrown rock to be equivalent to lethal gun fire and that therefore lethal force is granted in response?

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

You are honestly comparing Anwar to women and children fleeing from terrorists? Honestly???! Jason: you can't be serious. This would put you the right of Trump. I'm sure that if you think about this you'd reconsider...

If your post was meant to be sarcastic - I'll apologize.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

You are honestly comparing Anwar to women and children fleeing from terrorists? Honestly???! Jason: you can't be serious. This would put you the right of Trump. I'm sure that if you think about this you'd reconsider...

If your post was meant to be sarcastic - I'll apologize.

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

 

[Politesse]

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

You are honestly comparing Anwar to women and children fleeing from terrorists? Honestly???! Jason: you can't be serious. This would put you the right of Trump. I'm sure that if you think about this you'd reconsider...

If your post was meant to be sarcastic - I'll apologize.

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I agree with your point here whole-heartedly, though I do not think Obama was the first extra-judicial murderer to occupy the White House; many presidents have benefited by the blank check handed to them by the public.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The precedent doesn't have to be the exact same thing. Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't even throwing rocks at the military at the time he was assassinated without even the slightest not to due process. The precedent is that the president doesn't need any sort of justification or process. Thanks Obama.

You are honestly comparing Anwar to women and children fleeing from terrorists? Honestly???! Jason: you can't be serious. This would put you the right of Trump. I'm sure that if you think about this you'd reconsider...

If your post was meant to be sarcastic - I'll apologize.

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

You mentioned Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not a great defender of immigrant rights. However, here is a quote from Sanders: " We are a nation of immigrants. I am the son of an immigrant myself. Their story, my story, our story is a story of America: hard-working families coming to the United States to create a brighter future for their children. The story of immigrants is the story of America, a story rooted in family and fueled by hope. It continues today in families all across the United States."

 

[Harry Bosch]

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I agree with your point here whole-heartedly, though I do not think Obama was the first extra-judicial murderer to occupy the White House; many presidents have benefited by the blank check handed to them by the public.

You agree? So, American's shouldn't complain about Trump because of Obama's "precedent"? Should all Americans just keep our mouths shut?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

So you can show me the court case where it was established by the executive in front of the judicial that Anwar had murdered innocent civilians and the Judicial concurred and sentenced Anwar to death? If you can, then you can accuse me of sarcasm or whatever. If you cannot, you lack any reason to say that I am wrong. You are saying "the executive said it was right, therefore it was right." That is what Obama did, that is what Trump is doing. Thank you Obama for giving Trump that power. (That last sentence was sarcasm, I don't want Trump or Obama or any other president to have that power.)

You're just upset that Trump now has access to the power Obama accumulated. If Obama were to fire on the migrants you wouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[Axulus]

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

You mentioned Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not a great defender of immigrant rights. However, here is a quote from Sanders: " We are a nation of immigrants. I am the son of an immigrant myself. Their story, my story, our story is a story of America: hard-working families coming to the United States to create a brighter future for their children. The story of immigrants is the story of America, a story rooted in family and fueled by hope. It continues today in families all across the United States."

You are misreading what he is saying. The OP claimed it would be illegal to fire upon civilians outside the US border. Jason is saying the Obama precedent demonstrates such killing would in fact be legal. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't complain about it. In fact, Jason is very clearly complaining/criticizing this precedent.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Look, I have criticized this killing ever since it happened. Not only am I well known as one of the few people on this board who is anti-war no matter the party of the president, I am against executive action of this sort no matter the party of the president.

The Anwar killing counts even though it was Saint Obama who did it. He killed a US citizen, outside of a war zone, without any judicial input. Killing a US citizen by the US government can take place in a few very specified ways - self defense by a government agent, judicial approval, that citizen is embedded in a hostile foreign force, etc. The essence is either actively hostile or judicial input.

Anwar was neither. Even you have to admit it.

So now that I have made my case, you are telling me that opposing the execution of Anwar is to the right of Trump? Does that mean you think Trump is to the left of Bernie? Or do you even know what the fuck you think you are saying in the first place?

So. Precedent. US President can kill anyone at any time without any justification. That is what Obama established. That means if Trump actually goes through with his ridiculous plan to fire on the migrants, he is acting on the Anwar precedent established by Obama.

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

You mentioned Bernie Sanders. Bernie is not a great defender of immigrant rights. However, here is a quote from Sanders: " We are a nation of immigrants. I am the son of an immigrant myself. Their story, my story, our story is a story of America: hard-working families coming to the United States to create a brighter future for their children. The story of immigrants is the story of America, a story rooted in family and fueled by hope. It continues today in families all across the United States."

You are misreading what he is saying. The OP claimed it would be illegal to fire upon civilians outside the US border. Jason is saying the Obama precedent demonstrates such killing would in fact be legal. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't complain about it. In fact, Jason is very clearly complaining/criticizing this precedent.

First off, he's creating a massive derail. But he's creating what is called a False Equivalence. Anwar was a terrorist who killed and tortured civilians. He is not equivalent to women and children. If someone wants to create a separate thread to debate Saint Anwar and Ghengis Khan Obama - I'd gladly join. Anwar joined a terrorist group that killed and tortured civilians.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I'm still hoping that there is a chance that you are being sarcastic. But yes, if someone equates Anwar (who murdered innocent civilians) with a bunch of women and children who at best are simply seeking a better economic life - you are to the right of Trump. Secondly, is it really your point that if a person's government engages in an activity that one may or may not approve of that they can't criticize future behavior? America used to officially practice slavery, so American's can't criticize slavery now?

So you can show me the court case where it was established by the executive in front of the judicial that Anwar had murdered innocent civilians and the Judicial concurred and sentenced Anwar to death? If you can, then you can accuse me of sarcasm or whatever. If you cannot, you lack any reason to say that I am wrong. You are saying "the executive said it was right, therefore it was right." That is what Obama did, that is what Trump is doing. Thank you Obama for giving Trump that power. (That last sentence was sarcasm, I don't want Trump or Obama or any other president to have that power.)

You're just upset that Trump now has access to the power Obama accumulated. If Obama were to fire on the migrants you wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'd be happy to debate this issue with you in a separate thread.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

First off, he's creating a massive derail. But he's creating what is called a False Equivalence. Anwar was a terrorist who killed and tortured civilians. He is not equivalent to women and children. If someone wants to create a separate thread to debate Saint Anwar and Ghengis Khan Obama - I'd gladly join. Anwar joined a terrorist group that killed and tortured civilians.

I don't know what kind of fool would think that I think Anwar was a saint. All I know is that he was accused. He wasn't tried. He wasn't convicted. He wasn't engaged in hostilities at the time of his death. That is what I know. He could be guilty of everything he is accused of, or he could be innocent, but no attempt to convince a judge was ever made. Therefore the president has the power to kill any person on the basis of accusation alone. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you disagree.

Based on the power to kill any person any person without any oversight, the power assumed by Obama, therefore Trump has the power to kill any person without any oversight. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you agree.

I see the two as the same, because in both the president asserts the power to kill without any oversight. You see the two as different because one is Trump and the other is Obama.

And before you repeat that line about all the stuff Anwar was accused of, show me the court hearings where this was established. Give me the case number. Give me the citations. Court stuff. You know, evidence, the stuff you normally ignore.

 

[Harry Bosch]

First off, he's creating a massive derail. But he's creating what is called a False Equivalence. Anwar was a terrorist who killed and tortured civilians. He is not equivalent to women and children. If someone wants to create a separate thread to debate Saint Anwar and Ghengis Khan Obama - I'd gladly join. Anwar joined a terrorist group that killed and tortured civilians.

I don't know what kind of fool would think that I think Anwar was a saint. All I know is that he was accused. He wasn't tried. He wasn't convicted. He wasn't engaged in hostilities at the time of his death. That is what I know. He could be guilty of everything he is accused of, or he could be innocent, but no attempt to convince a judge was ever made. Therefore the president has the power to kill any person on the basis of accusation alone. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you disagree.

Based on the power to kill any person any person without any oversight, the power assumed by Obama, therefore Trump has the power to kill any person without any oversight. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you agree.

I see the two as the same, because in both the president asserts the power to kill without any oversight. You see the two as different because one is Trump and the other is Obama.

And before you repeat that line about all the stuff Anwar was accused of, show me the court hearings where this was established. Give me the case number. Give me the citations. Court stuff. You know, evidence, the stuff you normally ignore.

I'll ignore the personal attacks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2c941cf35f1_story.html?utm_term=.fb5c02b5efb8

To be fair, the above was not disclosed for several years after the attack. The issue here is that Obama didn't follow the 4th amendment in delivering justice to Anwar. However, how was he suppose to? How in the world is the US to bring a combatant to trial when they are in a separate country that is at war with the US?

 

[Axulus]

First off, he's creating a massive derail. But he's creating what is called a False Equivalence. Anwar was a terrorist who killed and tortured civilians. He is not equivalent to women and children. If someone wants to create a separate thread to debate Saint Anwar and Ghengis Khan Obama - I'd gladly join. Anwar joined a terrorist group that killed and tortured civilians.

I don't know what kind of fool would think that I think Anwar was a saint. All I know is that he was accused. He wasn't tried. He wasn't convicted. He wasn't engaged in hostilities at the time of his death. That is what I know. He could be guilty of everything he is accused of, or he could be innocent, but no attempt to convince a judge was ever made. Therefore the president has the power to kill any person on the basis of accusation alone. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you disagree.

Based on the power to kill any person any person without any oversight, the power assumed by Obama, therefore Trump has the power to kill any person without any oversight. I think that is a bad thing, apparently you agree.

I see the two as the same, because in both the president asserts the power to kill without any oversight. You see the two as different because one is Trump and the other is Obama.

And before you repeat that line about all the stuff Anwar was accused of, show me the court hearings where this was established. Give me the case number. Give me the citations. Court stuff. You know, evidence, the stuff you normally ignore.

I'll ignore the personal attacks:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...2c941cf35f1_story.html?utm_term=.fb5c02b5efb8

To be fair, the above was not disclosed for several years after the attack. The issue here is that Obama didn't follow the 4th amendment in delivering justice to Anwar. However, how was he suppose to? How in the world is the US to bring a combatant to trial when they are in a separate country that is at war with the US?

I think being tried in absentia would be acceptable to a panel of three judges. Also give the accused the ability to hire a representative to defend them in absentia (or have a court appointed defender). We are talking about a death sentence, so througral due process should be mandatory.