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

[Tom Sawyer]

I think that the official progression is that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to Trump support.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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

No, we should be complaining about both the negative things that Obama did, and the negative things that Trump did. That isn't to say they both are equally bad. Just that sweeping the negative things Obama did under the rug is unhelpful, if you want to be actually objective about the situation. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

But my complaint is always the double standard. Why does Obama always get held to the highest standard? Maybe the next time we criticize Trump that maybe we could cite Grover Cleveland instead?! Seriously, when we criticized GWB, we didn't cite past presidential actions each time.

Because we're on Talk Freethought and not Red State.

Bush made it quite clear that all you have to do if you want to kill foreigners is tie it - however weakly - to the war on terror. If Bush were in office I'm sure he could find out that there are Islamists hiding in that crowd, probably with the missing WMDs that justified the invasion of Iraq.

The problem with that is, is trying to make this an act of war. Bush loved war, but unless he could frame it as a war he didn't care too much. Perhaps he would have given a better response to Hurricane Katrina if it had been called "War on Katrina". He loved war.

The Obama precedent is more recent. It's also a degree worse because the justification was even weaker, the oversight even less, and the implications even more horrible. Anwar was accused but not tried, not sentenced but executed, all on the same unitary executive theory Bush endorsed. People are terrified only now that Trump has the powers accumulated by his predecessors.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Bush made it quite clear that all you have to do if you want to kill foreigners is tie it - however weakly - to the war on terror. If Bush were in office I'm sure he could find out that there are Islamists hiding in that crowd, probably with the missing WMDs that justified the invasion of Iraq.

Trump has already done that with his "middle easterners" assertion.

The problem with that is, is trying to make this an act of war.

Done as well. Trump keeps calling this an "invasion." That's all it takes for DK fuckheads. In their shit for brains the "caravan" is actually an invading force from the middle east.

Anwar was accused but not tried, not sentenced but executed, all on the same unitary executive theory Bush endorsed.

Partially. Though he never officially renounced, he certainly effectively renounced his citizenship when he embraced Al Qaida and went to Yemen. Bipartisan steps were taken to to strip him of his citizenship and the State Department even revoked his passport a full six months before he would eventually be killed.

While it's not bureaucratically sufficient, if you join our enemy, then you have defacto renounced imho, so this is only really an issue for pedantics and not really the same as what the Bush cabal did. Bush expanded the mandate from Congress to apply to basically anyone the President decided was a "terrorist" (or in aid to terrorists). Obama self-restricted the Office of the President to only the original mandate to go after Al Qaida (i.e., those responsible for 9/11).

Anwar was unquestionably Al Qaida--whether he officially posted a letter on a wall saying, "I renounce my citizenship" or not--and placed himself in a war zone as well (as Yemen was at the time). There was evidently an intensive, two year long effort to capture him alive that never could result, including this episode:

Yemen’s elite counterterrorism commandos, backed by weapons from Yemen’s regular armed forces, formed a ring around the town as commanders began negotiating with local leaders to hand Mr. Awlaki over, said one member of the unit.

“We stayed a whole week, but the villagers were supporting him,” said the counterterrorism officer, who is not authorized to speak on the record. “The local people began firing on us, and we fired back, and while it was happening, they helped him to escape.”

The point being, of course, that if Anwar had ever wished to assert his rights as a citizen, he could have done so at any time and had plenty of opportunity to do so, but repeatedly chose instead to align himself with Al Qaida, so it's not as if there was just an arbitrary hey let's kill that guy for no reason aspect to any of it.

People are terrified only now that Trump has the powers accumulated by his predecessors.

Not "accumulated;" created by the Bush cabal and repeatedly mandated by Congress.

 

[Elixir]

Not "accumulated;" created by the Bush cabal and repeatedly mandated by Congress.

... which begs the question: will there EVER be a president who will allow a reduction of the power of the executive office? If not, we're likely screwed in the long run regardless of who gets elected.

 

[Politesse]

Not "accumulated;" created by the Bush cabal and repeatedly mandated by Congress.

... which begs the question: will there EVER be a president who will allow a reduction of the power of the executive office? If not, we're likely screwed in the long run regardless of who gets elected.

This is my real concern. Autocratic leadership has seen a strong uptick in global politics, and I am terrified that we are taking seemingly no action to prevent a similar situation here. It really is only a few steps. I feel like the executive branch has spent the last few decades continually "testing the waters", and finding that no, apparently we're not concerned about this. Or at least, not concerned enough to take concerted action to stop it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Chocolate milk is ...









































... wait for it ...














































... beyond the pale.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Not "accumulated;" created by the Bush cabal and repeatedly mandated by Congress.

... which begs the question: will there EVER be a president who will allow a reduction of the power of the executive office? If not, we're likely screwed in the long run regardless of who gets elected.

Oh don't worry. Eventually the "good guys" will gain control of the One Ring, and everything will turn out to be wonderful.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

The fact is that via warrant he was asked to return to America and answer charges. He refused to do so. The Fourth Amendment was satisfied by the government.

Anwar refused a civil resolution. His choice and I'm not going to cry over his bones.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

if you are at risk of harm of injury causing rocks, consider it an attack.

This is our land, and we have a right to defend it.

Is your idea of an appropriate defense against people throwing rocks, to shoot them?
That's just bonkers.

Are they on US territory? Are they advancing within US territory? Threatening to overwhelm our defensive capabilities by throwing rocks? That HAS to be it if they constitute a threat to "our land".

How far have we fallen since we were able to defend against Japan's 51 divisions and various special-purpose artillery, cavalry, anti-aircraft, and armored units with a total of 1,700,000 men, plus fleets of state of the art warships and aircraft, while helping quash the Trump er, Nazi threat?

Apparently we've fallen to the point where a couple of thousand unarmed civilians a thousand miles away, on foot and without provisions, have 40% of the country hiding under their beds... sheesh.
#Shameful.

Forum really needs a like button for these sorts of posts.

This issue is fear-mongering, no more, no less.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes to excessive force but not to the point of needless overkill. You think rocks cannot cause serious harm?

Are you really comparing rock-throwing to shooting?

When I was a kid, rockfights were everyday things. Got clunked in the kisser a couple of time myself.

Never thought grabbing the .22 was a reasonable answer. Come the fuck on. Someone hits you in the kisser with a rock, you either chuck one back or close and wrestle. A cop with TG grenades, riot armor, a baton, face-mask, pepper-spray, and a firearm loaded with "non-lethal" rounds? And they're throwing rocks?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is incredible how Trump's handlers manipulate you folk. These people are walking through Mexico, thousands already dispersed in Mexico (or seeking asylum) and have shown no evidence they plan on throwing rocks, yet, Trump has you folks acting as if this is a sure thing. That they'll be an angry mob.

Do you even know why the term handlers is being used? It's not a derogatory term per se, but had it been used to refer to obama, it would be so interpreted in such a derogatory manner that it would inflame others to scream racism.

As Darwinism awards are used for, oughtn't it be known that throwing rocks at savage animals come not with likewise repercussions?

Reverse-racism card spotted, in this thread.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I wonder if the president's thinking was impacted by that incident at the Israeli border some months back. The Naqba protests. Where protestors gathered near a walled border gate, rocks were thrown, bullets were returned, a molotov may have been thrown, quite a lot of people died, and rightwing media spent months justifying and praising the bloodshed.

You seem to be assuming that the President is thinking,

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The Obama precedent is more recent. It's also a degree worse because the justification was even weaker, the oversight even less, and the implications even more horrible. Anwar was accused but not tried, not sentenced but executed, all on the same unitary executive theory Bush endorsed. People are terrified only now that Trump has the powers accumulated by his predecessors.

It's more recent, so there was precedent when Obama did that. Obama seems to have been the first to target an American citizen, but with regard to non-citizens, I do not see why the implications would be worse. Why do you think they were?

The people targeted during the Bush presidency were also not tried or sentenced. They were killed, though not as an application of the death penalty, but rather, as acts of war. But so was Anwar.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Obama precedent is more recent. It's also a degree worse because the justification was even weaker, the oversight even less, and the implications even more horrible. Anwar was accused but not tried, not sentenced but executed, all on the same unitary executive theory Bush endorsed. People are terrified only now that Trump has the powers accumulated by his predecessors.

It's more recent, so there was precedent when Obama did that. Obama seems to have been the first to target an American citizen, but with regard to non-citizens, I do not see why the implications would be worse. Why do you think they were?

The people targeted during the Bush presidency were also not tried or sentenced. They were killed, though not as an application of the death penalty, but rather, as acts of war. But so was Anwar.

The US has killed many citizens in war time. Reportedly, there were hundreds of American born citizens of German descent who joined the Nazis in WW2 for example.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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?

The fact is that via warrant he was asked to return to America and answer charges. He refused to do so. The Fourth Amendment was satisfied by the government.

Anwar refused a civil resolution. His choice and I'm not going to cry over his bones.

Yea, the guy was a piece of shit. I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but citizenship won't protect a person who voluntarily joins a group that is at war with the US; a group that tortures and kills thousands of civilians, rapes and just creates misery in the world.

 

[Politesse]

The Obama precedent is more recent. It's also a degree worse because the justification was even weaker, the oversight even less, and the implications even more horrible. Anwar was accused but not tried, not sentenced but executed, all on the same unitary executive theory Bush endorsed. People are terrified only now that Trump has the powers accumulated by his predecessors.

It's more recent, so there was precedent when Obama did that. Obama seems to have been the first to target an American citizen, but with regard to non-citizens, I do not see why the implications would be worse. Why do you think they were?

The people targeted during the Bush presidency were also not tried or sentenced. They were killed, though not as an application of the death penalty, but rather, as acts of war. But so was Anwar.

The US has killed many citizens in war time. Reportedly, there were hundreds of American born citizens of German descent who joined the Nazis in WW2 for example.

We fought, I'm told, a civil war as well.

Looking at, say, an electoral map... would you say that there are no natural consequences for all that killin'?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The US has killed many citizens in war time. Reportedly, there were hundreds of American born citizens of German descent who joined the Nazis in WW2 for example.

We fought, I'm told, a civil war as well.

Looking at, say, an electoral map... would you say that there are no natural consequences for all that killin'?

I'm sorry to say that I'm not following you. War is terrible. But I'm not seeing your comparison. The electoral map is more due to dems tending to live in cities; while farmers and people who live off the land tend to be conservative...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

The fact is that via warrant he was asked to return to America and answer charges. He refused to do so. The Fourth Amendment was satisfied by the government.

Anwar refused a civil resolution. His choice and I'm not going to cry over his bones.

Yea, the guy was a piece of shit. I'm sorry for sounding harsh, but citizenship won't protect a person who voluntarily joins a group that is at war with the US; a group that tortures and kills thousands of civilians, rapes and just creates misery in the world.

That's my view of it as well: once you've declared war, death is an option for anyone involved.

Had he returned to the US for trial, I would happily stand up for his rights. He refused to take that avenue, and instead continued to foment acts of war. He turned down the opportunity for lawful justice, so I'm all about the <shrug>.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not "accumulated;" created by the Bush cabal and repeatedly mandated by Congress.

... which begs the question: will there EVER be a president who will allow a reduction of the power of the executive office? If not, we're likely screwed in the long run regardless of who gets elected.

Obama repeatedly did precisely that (as evidenced in every signing statement he ever made where the issue of the AUMF being reinstated came up), but he had to do so voluntarily (i.e., self-restraint). Only Congress has the authority to revoke the AUMF and, arguably, the President has no authority NOT to enforce it, but then it would have become a question of Congress insisting that Obama act beyond his self-restraint, which is what he evidently was hoping to provoke in order for Congress to then in turn be forced to address it (via a constitutional crisis involving the SCOTUS and such).

The Bush cabal knew what they were doing when they circumvented the Constitution and concentrated all power in the Pentagon and Oval through the PATRIOT Act (and subsequent AUMF). It was deliberately designed to be a cudgel of Presidential power circumventing Congressional approval, which is why Obama had to keep reiterating his objection to it's re-ratification in the signing ceremonies. No President, on principle, can allow the judicial to reduce Presidential powers, which is precisely why the Bush cabal used that condition. Thus Obama--or any President, no matter how beneficent--was constantly caught having to defend the indefensible (precisely because if he didn't, it would have meant judicial imposition on Presidential powers) and having to keep voicing his personal objections.

 

[Elixir]

No President, on principle, can allow the judicial to reduce Presidential powers, which is precisely why the Bush cabal used that condition.

Right. It would fall to Congress to get the ball rolling, but would require the assent of the President eventually. The party of a sitting President doesn't want those powers reduced, since it all comes out of their "pocket" and some of that power would accrue to the opposition if not held by the President by their party. Party before Country has slowly consumed our political landscape.