Merged Trump Fires Comey....

[Belz...]

My use of "illegal" is "as defined by domestic law." I believe that is the only law the joint chiefs would be able to reference in determining an illegal order.

So treaties are irrelevant?

I don't think you understand how those things work.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But, again, it's perfectly possible for the US to launch a strike that is legal by our local standards but that violates international law.

If you don't consider that illegal, then this isn't really much of a discussion.

I think without getting into a semantic argument, we can bring it back to the joint chiefs of staff. Under what you describe (legal domestically, illegal internationally), do the joint chiefs have a responsibility to not follow that order? I'm pretty confident their obligation only applies to domestic law.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So treaties are irrelevant?

I don't think you understand how those things work.

Treaties that have no weight in US domestic law are irrelevant in the borders of America.

 

[TraneWreck]

I think without getting into a semantic argument, we can bring it back to the joint chiefs of staff. Under what you describe (legal domestically, illegal internationally), do the joint chiefs have a responsibility to not follow that order? I'm pretty confident their obligation only applies to domestic law.

We're talking about an order to send a nuke to Paris because we suspect/know ISIS is there?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

That is a legal order though, it violates no law. So your premise that they need to not do it is flawed at the start. Their legal obligation is to obey these legal orders.

The President cannot legally order a soldier to do an illegal thing. What a soldier is allowed to do is covered by the Geneva Convention, to which the US is signatory

Those GC provisions are unconstitutional, therefore they are void.[/quote}

The President is bound by all treaties duly signed and ratified by Congress, which the Coventions are.

http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2976&context=clr

The only part of the Conventions not binding on the US are the two 77 protocols, which Congress did not ratify, but those only deal with the extention of the 49 protocols to non-combatants and certain types of other soldiers.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/586

This by the way, is the loophole Bush used in his infamous "illegal enemy combatants" declaration.

Other references:

https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/...-his-finger-on?utm_term=.jaBQ0O3D2#.lnAPWYwZK

And they reject it under the premise that they are not limited by a need to report or 90 days. Their argument is they are unlimited.

That they argue it does not make it correct, nor does it ensure that they will be obeyed.

 

[Bob001]

Conservatives may now come after Acting Director McCabe:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/10/new-fbi-boss-could-be-more-controversial-than-comey

 

[Sideroxylon]

A lot of buzz about FBI activity on Twitter. Something going down.

 

[Belz...]

Treaties that have no weight in US domestic law are irrelevant in the borders of America.

You're not answering the question. You're answering a different question.

Nuking Paris is not a domestic affair, nor is it within the borders of America.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As much as I despise Trump,he has a point that the Dems are being hypocrites on the issue of Comey. Of course, so is the GOP...

Fact is, Comey had pretty much managed to alienate the leadership of Both Parties with his conduct.

Stop it, just stop it! He does not have a point. No Democrats are saying they don't think Comey should have been fired. It's a room full of squirrels Trump let out to hide the real reason he fired Comey.

We agree Trump is using an excuse to cover up the real reason he fired Comey.

 

[Belz...]

A lot of buzz about FBI activity on Twitter. Something going down.

The Night of the Long Tweets...

 

[BobTheCoward]

You're not answering the question. You're answering a different question.

Nuking Paris is not a domestic affair, nor is it within the borders of America.

I think the question is if it is a lawful order with the implications is US domestic court. Obviously there are international implications. But there are international implications in any US military action that doesn't mean US soldiers can necessarily be charged in US court.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The Night of the Long Tweets...

See ClaudeTaylor@truefactsstated.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Considering the Orange Menace just admitted that he was going to fire Comey regardless of what the memo said, I think Rosenstein might be a little miffed at the scapegoating the White House put him through.

Typical Trump trying to address a lie, he just makes it worse.

 

[pgwenthold]

Conservatives may now come after Acting Director McCabe:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/05/10/new-fbi-boss-could-be-more-controversial-than-comey

Well, Trump already pissed off all the intelligence agencies, the FBI was naturally next. Despite the fact that they largely supported him, he can't be content with that.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The President cannot legally order a soldier to do an illegal thing. What a soldier is allowed to do is covered by the Geneva Convention, to which the US is signatory



The only part of the Conventions not binding on the US are the two 77 protocols, which Congress did not ratify, but those only deal with the extention of the 49 protocols to non-combatants and certain types of other soldiers.

http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/586

This by the way, is the loophole Bush used in his infamous "illegal enemy combatants" declaration.

Other references:

https://www.thebalance.com/military-orders-3332819

http://www.omjp.org/ArtLarryDisobey.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/...-his-finger-on?utm_term=.jaBQ0O3D2#.lnAPWYwZK




That they argue it does not make it correct, nor does it ensure that they will be obeyed.

There are two pieces to an argument.

The logic behind it

The presentation of facts to substantiate the logical pieces are true.


It feels like you are rejecting or ignoring the logic of my argument so I am going to talk about that here.

A ratified treaty whose provisions violate the constitution are not valid in the US. My argument is that those ratified provisions violate clauses in the constitution, and are not valid and therefore it would be a lawful order by the president.

 

[Bob001]

The President cannot legally order a soldier to do an illegal thing. What a soldier is allowed to do is covered by the Geneva Convention, to which the US is signatory

But the soldier must recognize that the order is unlawful and must be willing to accept the consequences of refusing an order, which in a combat situation might be severe. From My Lai to Abu Ghraib to drones bombing unarmed reporters and wedding parties, you can find plenty of examples of soldiers obeying orders that were subsequently deemed unlawful. It's extremely unlikely that anybody down the chain of command, faced with a direct order from the President saying "We are under attack! We must respond before our bases are hit!," will say "Not so fast. I wanna talk to your supervisor."

And I note that the Geneva Conventions are largely about how prisoners and non-combatants are to be treated. They don't say much about how to kill the enemy, or how to determine who the enemy is.
https://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3640104_IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Isn't there a "Trump with nukes" thread to move this segue to? I know we've had this conversation before.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I'm afraid we'll be flogging that horse for a while. Press briefing going on right now they are tripling down on the hypocritical Democrats who wanted Comey fired and insisting this wasn't about the investigation.

Honestly, how stupid are people that they buy this crap? It's insane.

"These are not the droids you're looking for" stupid.

 

[BobTheCoward]

We're talking about an order to send a nuke to Paris because we suspect/know ISIS is there?

yes, but there are a ton of parts to my argument (that congress cannot constrain the constitutional power of the president, that use of nukes is CinC power, that a treat would not apply in this case, etc).

It is a very reprehensible scenario, so it is very easy to jump from this debate about treaties to then the argument that of course congress has the power to regulate the president and of course the treaties apply in this case.

That is why I don't want to get back to the scenario until we see if we still disagree that the joint chiefs can or cannot count a legal domestic/illegal international order as unlawful.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Rosenstein chose to say firing is a serious decision and Comey can't fix the bureau. Rosenstein chose to write his last paragraph, but the letter would still have worked if he omitted it. The paragraphs before that are mostly an explanation of the facts.

No one on the left is doubting Trump found the perfect excuse to fire Comey.

Anyone with half a functional brain can see it wasn't the real reason Trump fired Comey.