What Would Happen if Trump Refused to Leave Office?

[bigfield]

Presidents have been assassinating targets overseas who pose a threat to the US for many many years. It's just that Obama was far more open about it. Trump carries them out all the time. Why the double standard? Why do you only hold Obama to your very high standard?

Because Anwar was a US Citizen.

Emphasis on "was." He effectively renounced that citizenship--and thereby any of its subsequent rights/protections, such as due process--when he actively allied himself with a declared enemy of the US.

He should have been convicted of treason, then.

Aside from that, however, is the fact that police officers routinely deny US citizens' their right of due process every time they shoot to kill a suspected criminal. The very act of authorizing police officers--as a general operating principle--to use deadly force against US citizens is, arguably, a defacto suspension of the right of due process, left up to the individual officers to determine in any given scenario.

The DoD doesn't need that blanket authorisation, though. Not for assassinations.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Emphasis on "was." He effectively renounced that citizenship--and thereby any of its subsequent rights/protections, such as due process--when he actively allied himself with a declared enemy of the US.

He should have been convicted of treason, then.

You are probably right. And had he been convicted, then and only then could this killing have fallen within legal bounds.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What standard was applied for justifying the attack on Anwar?

Good question. He certainly wasn't on an active battlefield, and he certainly wasn't tried in any court.

So the answer is, 'you don't know'?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What standard was applied for justifying the attack on Anwar?

Good question. He certainly wasn't on an active battlefield, and he certainly wasn't tried in any court.

So the answer is, 'you don't know'?

The actual answer is Obama told one of his attorneys to write a memo saying it was okay. I was hoping you would be able to figure that out on your own, but I guess not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the answer is, 'you don't know'?

The actual answer is Obama told one of his attorneys to write a memo saying it was okay. I was hoping you would be able to figure that out on your own, but I guess not.

So you’ve got nothing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Emphasis on "was." He effectively renounced that citizenship--and thereby any of its subsequent rights/protections, such as due process--when he actively allied himself with a declared enemy of the US.

"Effectively". That's not good enough.

What would be? Him writing a letter? He left America to become an active enemy, allying himself with Al-Qaeda, openly advocating violence against Americans. That made him a legitimate enemy combatant. If you were to walk across a battlefield and put on a red coat and then pick up a musket and fire upon American soldiers, they would be under no obligation to first try to capture you alive and try you for treason. They can simply kill you out of self-defense right there on the battlefield, if nothing else.

He certainly wasn't on an active battlefield

Absolutely false. Whether you agree with the AUMF or not, it categorically established an active battlefield:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Nor was it just the US. By unanimous consent of the entire UN Security Council:

[P]laced al-Awlaki on its UN Security Council Resolution 1267 list of individuals associated with al-Qaeda, describing him as a leader, recruiter, and trainer for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Btw, there was a bill introduced by Rep. Charles Dent to officially strip him of his citizenship, but it was not enacted by the House for reasons I can't yet find.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the answer is, 'you don't know'?

The actual answer is Obama told one of his attorneys to write a memo saying it was okay. I was hoping you would be able to figure that out on your own, but I guess not.

So you’ve got nothing.

Exactly, there was no standard applied. You finally figured that out. There is hope.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the answer is, 'you don't know'?

The actual answer is Obama told one of his attorneys to write a memo saying it was okay. I was hoping you would be able to figure that out on your own, but I guess not.

So you’ve got nothing.

Exactly, there was no standard applied. You finally figured that out. There is hope.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

What would be? Him writing a letter? He left America to become an active enemy, allying himself with Al-Qaeda, openly advocating violence against Americans. That made him a legitimate enemy combatant. If you were to walk across a battlefield and put on a red coat and then pick up a musket and fire upon American soldiers, they would be under no obligation to first try to capture you alive and try you for treason. They can simply kill you out of self-defense right there on the battlefield, if nothing else.

He certainly wasn't on an active battlefield

Absolutely false. Whether you agree with the AUMF or not, it categorically established an active battlefield:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

Nor was it just the US. By unanimous consent of the entire UN Security Council:

[P]laced al-Awlaki on its UN Security Council Resolution 1267 list of individuals associated with al-Qaeda, describing him as a leader, recruiter, and trainer for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Btw, there was a bill introduced by Rep. Charles Dent to officially strip him of his citizenship, but it was not enacted by the House for reasons I can't yet find.

It is true that the AUMF says that anywhere and everywhere is an active battlefield. I, however, still distinguish between an area where two sides are firing at each other and an area where they aren't. That's why I said he wasn't on an active battlefield. By AUMF definitions he was, by reasonable definitions he wasn't. Therefore your analogy to going out onto a battlefield, picking up a firearm, and starting to fire, is absolute rubbish. It is the exact opposite of what happened in this instance.

The only reference you found to have any legal check before this murder was a bill that did not pass. Therefore you are admitting there were absolutely no legal checks.

But what does this have to do with all the fear mongering about Trump staying in office? Are you afraid he might drone Biden? The AUMF does say everywhere is a battlefield, and Obama made sure that the President can just declare someone an anti-American enemy combatant without any checks or due process. Is that why you're trying to defend Obama's illegal move? You want Trump to do the same?

 

[Elixir]

But what does this have to do with all the fear mongering about Trump staying in office? Are you afraid he might drone Biden?

Fear mongering? I guess that is meant to imply that you think Trump will concede the election if he loses. Is that the case?
I would love to find someone who is dumb enough to think that, and is willing to put a few bucks in escrow now as a bet on it (we both get our money back if Trump wins).

I remind you that Trump disputed the results of the election he "won"!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We are currently on the road to one of the most chaotic elections this country has seen. Note the words "one of" meaning I am not saying it is the ultimate in that category just near the top. There is indeed a chance that there will be no clear winner or a fairly clear but disputed winner in either direction.

But if it is clear that Trump lost, he will leave office. I am not made of fear the way you are.

 

[Elixir]

We are currently on the road to one of the most chaotic elections this country has seen. Note the words "one of" meaning I am not saying it is the ultimate in that category just near the top. There is indeed a chance that there will be no clear winner or a fairly clear but disputed winner in either direction.

But if it is clear that Trump lost, he will leave office. I am not made of fear the way you are.

Big man. Ever been tear-gassed?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

We are currently on the road to one of the most chaotic elections this country has seen. Note the words "one of" meaning I am not saying it is the ultimate in that category just near the top. There is indeed a chance that there will be no clear winner or a fairly clear but disputed winner in either direction.

But if it is clear that Trump lost, he will leave office. I am not made of fear the way you are.

Big man. Ever been tear-gassed?

As part of my chem warfare training.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We are currently on the road to one of the most chaotic elections this country has seen.

1876 is a very high bar. We have Union troops in the South! And the popular vote is ignored as is generally the electoral vote. Some pretty shady shit goes down and we have a President. So most chaotic election in 2020 will require some serious problems to break the established FUBAR'd 1876 election.

Yes, the GOP, in many states is trying to pull back on allowing mail-in voting, in order to limit turn out. And the President is almost purposefully trying to expand a pandemic to ensure it is actually on going in November. So yes, definitely have ingredients for it.

Note the words "one of" meaning I am not saying it is the ultimate in that category just near the top. There is indeed a chance that there will be no clear winner or a fairly clear but disputed winner in either direction.

That is the problem, I'm not certain in what universe Biden is the 'unclear' winner. Trump can contest the vote based on lies, but Biden wins, he likely won straight up, short of the Electoral College giving Trump the middle finger, a stone-cold stunner, and putting Biden in despite Trump winning. But I can't imagine that happening.

But if it is clear that Trump lost, he will leave office. I am not made of fear the way you are.

Trump is already contesting his loss today, well... actually months ago. His campaign manager is an Internet Troll.

 

[Elixir]

Trump is already contesting his loss today, well... actually months ago. His campaign manager is an Internet Troll.

Cheato even contested his WIN. The idea that he will nt offer an alternative reality to whatever happens simply flies in the face of reason.
But that's a libbertard "norm".

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

That is the problem, I'm not certain in what universe Biden is the 'unclear' winner. Trump can contest the vote based on lies, but Biden wins, he likely won straight up, short of the Electoral College giving Trump the middle finger, a stone-cold stunner, and putting Biden in despite Trump winning. But I can't imagine that happening.

If the number of disputed votes exceeds the margin, you have a universe in which there is an unclear winner.

 

[Elixir]

That is the problem, I'm not certain in what universe Biden is the 'unclear' winner. Trump can contest the vote based on lies, but Biden wins, he likely won straight up, short of the Electoral College giving Trump the middle finger, a stone-cold stunner, and putting Biden in despite Trump winning. But I can't imagine that happening.

If the number of disputed votes exceeds the margin, you have a universe in which there is an unclear winner.

And we have a clear precedent for what votes Trump disputes. There were three million of them in a single State in 2016. He might well declare that number for each State this year.
Maybe Jason, you can tell him "no, you can't dispute those votes". His opinion that there is no clear winner has already been voiced, anyhow.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump has a plan to stay in the White House if he loses election, former senator says - Tim Wirth of Colorado

The former Democratic senator begins with an allegation that Mr Trump will attempt to retain power through voter suppression. Mr Wirth alleges there is a strategy to suppress voter turnout by purging voters - especially inner-city voters - from registration rolls and to suppress mail-in voting. He also believes physical polling locations will be limited, especially in urban areas, in an effort to create long lines on Election Day and discourage voting.

... He believes that - should the president lose - he will claim the vote was rigged and rely on a complicated gambit involving emergency powers and the compliance of Republican legislators to stay in the White House.

He would order investigations of the swing states' elections, with the hope of running out the clock on the Electoral College. It would then vote for a president, and there would not be enough electoral votes for a clear winner. The vote would then go to the House, and each state delegation would then have one vote each in the House's vote. Since there are 26 Republican-dominated delegations and 23 Democratic-dominated ones, the Republican ones would re-elect Trump.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Maybe Jason, you can tell him "no, you can't dispute those votes".

Maybe you can do it. I'm fighting sexism by voting for a woman.

Does sexism mean nothing to you?

 

[Elixir]

If the number of disputed votes exceeds the margin, you have a universe in which there is an unclear winner.

And we have a clear precedent for what votes Trump disputes. There were three million of them in a single State in 2016. He might well declare that number for each State this year.

No response. Instead Jason needs a pat on the back for voting for some unidentified woman.
Gee whiz.