Posted on 03/04/2016 10:51:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
At this pace of flip flops - if he wins the nomination or presidency - what will his supporters do if he says “ that whole WALL business is not really a good idea. But for abandoning it, I got a great deal with the Democrats to raise taxes ! “
Gee. It’s not nice to be hated for believing in Trump. Examine yourself. Determine your motivation for believing that I and others like me are your enemy.
True. They clear out the family house on the west bank before blowing it up.
Yet the Israelis are still condemned for it.
Look...Trump is a seat of the pants guy. I don’t think he’s thought through a lot of issues, and just talks from his gut. Which often leads him to say stupid things.
I can’t stand the guy, but it looks like he’s going to be the nominee. So it’s far better than he gets attacked on these issues, gets informed, and then changes his opinion. If that happens enough, and he is forced to learn stuff because of the crapstorm that comes from his gaffes, maybe he’ll morph into a guy that more of us can support in the fall.
Right now, I don’t think I could pull the level for him. But I’m willing to consider that he’ll become more educated on issues between now and the general, so I’ll be able to vote for him with a clean(er) conscience.
___________________________________________________________
I get what you’re saying here and I agree. Despite my major skepticism, I don’t doubt at all Trump’s love for this country nor his patriotism. I don’t believe he would sell the country out to the highest bidder like she would.
The problem us conservatives have is he’s all over the map. His past statements and positions don’t jive with what he’s saying now. Will we get the border enforcing, debt slashing, government agency slashing, Establishment killing, Trump?
Or will we get the Hillary donating and praising, mandate loving, illegal immigration sympathizer, Democrat donating, media suing, trade war starting, government growing, Trump?
Romney was easy to pin in 2012 as he had a legislative record. Trump is a complete crapshoot
How is it a war crime? Specifically.
Waterboarding? Don’t know if I see a problem with that is the case of terrorists.
Killing families of terrorists? When did he say he would do that?
Not if the whole family consists of terrorists
It applies to the treatment of all noncombantants in war zones, regardless of the country. No, ISIS is not a signatory, but we are.
You're a typical Trump moron. You have no grasp of serious details, and when you find your knowledge lacking, you make an outlandish insult, such as insinuating I love ISIS because I don't believe US Marines should murder children.
Yours is a sick cult of personality, maybe one day you'll wake up to the nonsense you're spewing, but knowing the IQ of the average Trumpkin, I expect the delusion will continue.
That’s it - Trump is finished!!!
You can’t trust him.
We should go back to trusting the GOP establishment, they’ve never lied to us!
Only signatories are members covered by the Geneva Convention! Therefore ISIL, Taliban etc combatants are not covered.
To my Trump buddies can you help me with this, do I trust Trump's last stand on an issue or do I extrapolate all his answers to a question and believe the answer that comes up the most.
What I've come up with is that you put a huge premium on celebrity, and have trouble differentiating from a celebrity and a politician. Trump is famous, and therefore when he says a few things I agree with, he'll make a great President. Interest in celebrity clouds judgement.
The second would be that you believe that politics is supposed to be some kind of emotional release. For instance, when Trump tells some reporter to go screw himself, I like it. But I don't mistake it for leadership, policy, wisdom, or think that because he told a reporter to go screw himself, he'd automatically be a good President.
Third, you don't seem to have the same aversion that I do to the wielding of Presidential power. Saying you're going to "make things great", "take care of everybody", and make "fantastic deals", automatically sets off alarm bells in my head, because I don't see why these things should be part of the President's power.
I don't know if I would declare you my "enemy", but you certainly don't look for the same things in a President that I do.
It doesn't matter where in the world it takes place, as long as such place is a warzone, civilians are covered.
As for those protesters, they may be plants to jazz up the proceedings. It’s been done before at Democrat rallies.
“Killing families of terrorists? When did he say he would do that?”
“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,” Trump said.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families/
If a dozen Taliban leaders show up for a wedding, it becomes a target. Commanders on the ground get to make the decision whether they should hit it.
If it is just a wedding of family members and the Taliban don’t show up, you don’t strike it.
That is not a double standard, you don’t waste ordnance unless you can achieve an actual operational effect on the enemy.
What the Geneva Convention says about fighting terrorist groups
The Geneva Conventions were designed after World War II to establish agreed-upon rules of war. The United States, like most countries, is a party to them and "is hugely committed in principle and in the training of soldiers," said Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor.
All four Geneva Conventions from 1949 contain "Common Article 3," which applies to "armed conflict not of an international character." What does that mean? The U.S. Supreme Court, in the 2006 case Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, ruled that "armed conflict not of an international character" means a war that is not fought against a sovereign state. (A sovereign state simply means a country with a recognized government.) Since groups like ISIS are not considered sovereign states, that means that Common Article 3 applies to the current war on terrorism.
According to Common Article 3, people who are taking no active part in the hostilities "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever … violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."
Experts said this language would make Trump’s approach a violation of the Geneva Conventions, assuming that the family members were not taking part in terrorist activities.
Common Article 3 "would seem to prohibit any targeting of families or others who were ‘taking no active part in hostilities,’ " said Anthony Clark Arend, Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service. "The principle of noncombatant immunity is a fundamental principle of international law."
What the Geneva Conventions say about targeting civilians
This extension of the original Geneva Conventions was finalized in 1977.
The most relevant portion for judging the Trump scenario appears to be Article 51.2, which states, "The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited."
This root principle here is to ensure that civilians are not the object of an attack, said Richard D. Rosen, director of the Center for Military Law and Policy at the Texas Tech University School of Law.
"I believe that a policy of intentionally and directly targeting the families of terrorists, assuming the family members are not combatants themselves, is a gross violation of the law of war and a war crime," Rosen said.
Rosen and others acknowledged that there are some gray areas when putting this provision into practice.
For instance, the Geneva Conventions don’t outlaw all civilian casualties when armed forces are undertaking a military objective. It effectively permits them if precautions are taken and the "expected loss of life or injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects incidental to the attack, is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected to be gained," Rosen said.
This balance can be difficult to strike, Ratner said, but at least it means that "you can't kill a huge number of people just to knock out a small target."
There’s another wrinkle: Officially, the United States is not a party to the Additional Protocols of 1977. However, the United States has blessed them in practice, experts said.
The United States "has recognized much of (the Additional Protocols) as binding customary law," said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a Notre Dame law professor. The Supreme Court "said as much in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld in 2006. As customary international law, the U.S. cannot ‘pull out’ of the rule. It binds us until a new treaty rule or customary rule supersedes it."
In addition, Rosen said, the Defense Department Law of War Manual published in June 2015 says that civilians may not be made the object of an attack.
The provisions in the Additional Protocols "prohibit acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror in a civilian population," said David P. Fidler, a law professor at Indiana University. "Trump's proposal to have U.S. military forces deliberately kill families, including women and children, in order to deter ISIS fighters is a proposal to use acts of violence to spread terror among civilians. Or Trump wants to fight terror with terror, something abhorrent to America's warriors and unconscionable as a suggestion from someone who wants to be commander in chief."
What part of killing their family members is part of international law, since he isn’t violating them?
Enquiring minds want to know...
You win the Godwin’s Law award.
>>>Trump would not have to spend his time correcting their
Trump is constantly having to correct Trump, fairly disingenuously at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.