NationStates

SECDEF has said that the US Military will not commit war crimes for Trump, including bombing Iranian cultural sites.

So how long until he gets fired?

Vassenor wrote:SECDEF has said that the US Military will not commit war crimes for Trump, including bombing Iranian cultural sites.

So how long until he gets fired?

Nice to hear him standing up to Trump and that illegal orders would be refused on his watch.

Gormwood wrote:

Vassenor wrote:Also it turns out that at least one of the concentration camps was actually being run by a neo-Nazi.

And the whole idea for detaining migrants masterminded by an alleged Jew. What a shitstorm.

Alleged? Really?

San Lumen wrote:

Vassenor wrote:SECDEF has said that the US Military will not commit war crimes for Trump, including bombing Iranian cultural sites.

So how long until he gets fired?

Nice to hear him standing up to Trump and that illegal orders would be refused on his watch.

Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

Eitoan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Nice to hear him standing up to Trump and that illegal orders would be refused on his watch.

Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.

When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries

Fahran wrote:

Gormwood wrote:And the whole idea for detaining migrants masterminded by an alleged Jew. What a shitstorm.

Alleged? Really?

Stephen Miller is supposedly Jewish even though his own relatives called him out for the detention scheme.

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:Alleged? Really?

Stephen Miller is supposedly Jewish even though his own relatives called him out for the detention scheme.

I do think he's Jewish. He's just a white nationalist at the same time. For reasons.

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:Alleged? Really?

Stephen Miller is supposedly Jewish even though his own relatives called him out for the detention scheme.

I do think he's Jewish. He's just a white nationalist at the same time. For reasons.

Eitoan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Nice to hear him standing up to Trump and that illegal orders would be refused on his watch.

Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

The fact that destroying cultural sites is against the laws of war? (1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict)

Gormwood wrote:

Fahran wrote:Alleged? Really?

Stephen Miller is supposedly Jewish even though his own relatives called him out for the detention scheme.

Stephen Miller is a self-loathing Jew and a tool for the alt-right, and you know what, I think he gets a jolly over being used as tool, and yes I mean in a masochistic way.

New Paine wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Stephen Miller is supposedly Jewish even though his own relatives called him out for the detention scheme.

Stephen Miller is a self-loathing Jew and a tool for the alt-right, and you know what, I think he gets a jolly over being used as tool, and yes I mean in a masochistic way.

I really want to stop public speculation on the sexual fetishes of men two to four times my age in these threads.

San Lumen wrote:

Eitoan wrote:
Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.

When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries

I mean a special case for him under US law.

Are the orders of other Presidents that are viewed as illegal to be ignored, or only Trump? And by what judicial authority in the United States? Are all his orders to be litigated? Those of other Presidents? Who has standing to determine this in the field? All combatants wearing the uniform of the United States? Officers only? Senior officers?

Eitoan wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.

When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries

I mean a special case for him under US law.

Are the orders of other Presidents that are viewed as illegal to be ignored, or only Trump? And by what judicial authority in the United States? Are all his orders to be litigated? Those of other Presidents? Who has standing to determine this in the field? All combatants wearing the uniform of the United States? Officers only? Senior officers?

So basically it's OK for Trump to commit war crimes because you said so.

And for the record, I direct you to the ruling in United States v. Keenan where The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal."

San Lumen wrote:

Eitoan wrote:
Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.

When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries

No, it doesn't.

I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

San Lumen wrote:

Eitoan wrote:
Who determines the legality of the orders? Need all orders coming from the President undergo review? For all Presidents or only Donald Trump?

There is something called international law and the rules of war. Attacking cultural sites violates that. The military is under no obligation to blindly follow a unconstitutional or illegal order.

When you say all Presidents do you mean a special case for him under US law or the world? I can't speak for the rest of the world but international law applies to all countries

International law only applies to small countries without the power to back up whatever they do.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

we're all better off that way.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

And Soviet exceptionalism, and Afghani exceptionalism, and North Korean exceptionalism, and... wait, none of this works...

Telconi wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

And Soviet exceptionalism, and Afghani exceptionalism, and North Korean exceptionalism, and... wait, none of this works...

US Exceptionalism is very real and tangible. Russian exceptionalism exists too, but not Afghani because you know what? They lost.

The US can commit war crimes with impunity because it's a superpower. I'm not sure why you would dispute it?

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

we're all better off that way.

The US is better off that way, but I'm really not. I'm one of your hapless allies, who get blamed for what you do.

sometimes we get killed … for what you do

We're still your allies, but could you please be less dickish about invading places and about accidentally killing civilians? It doesn't crush their fighting spirit, it just makes them more motivated to fight dirty.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:I will note just now that officers in the US military have taken an oath to obey the President and the US Constitution.
But not international law, Geneva convention or any such.

As to war crimes, see Exceptionalism, US.

The US is, however, bound by treaties it signs, as per its own constitution.
One of which was the Geneva Conventions.

As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.

The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.

The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.

The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.

The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.

does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?

Loben The 2nd wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:As time passes I have a dimmer and dimmer view of President Obama. But it's not for the usual "didn't do enough" reason, it's for the war crime he committed.

The CIA under Obama infiltrated the compound where they knew OBL was living. They did this with a CIA agent impersonating a nurse giving vaccinations. The cover story was well supported with other nurses giving vaccinations in the area. They were fake vaccinations but that's not even the point. They got strategic information by impersonating a charitable medical organization.

The only way that's not a violation of the Geneva convention is to claim that the immunity for medical services only applies to the literal Red Cross.

does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?

The Geveva convention applies to whoever signs it. Solemn word of oath. Supposedly the US is bound to it, though you apparently disagree?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Loben The 2nd wrote:
does the Geneva convention apply to terrorists?

The Geveva convention applies to whoever signs it. Solemn word of oath. Supposedly the US is bound to it, though you apparently disagree?

do we have to render medical aid to terrorists?