• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Trump Fires Comey....

Argumemnon said:
Well, it's like self-defense: if you kill the guy trying to murder you, that's fine. If in so doing you murder the entire population of a small town, it's not. Of COURSE the effects of your actions enter into it!

Can the US launch a nuclear strike legally at a city to kill a small group within? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

What law stops it?
 
The Don said:
Is it though ?

I realise that on this board there is a great deal of (IMO righteous) outrage against President Trump but then again that's amongst politically engaged people who would never have supported the man in the first place.

IMO the vast majority of the US electorate are far too busy living their lives to get particularly interested in the behaviour of this, or any other, President - much less to get outraged. Maybe just before the 2018 midterms, the politically ambivalent may start to take notice but even then it may only be on a superficial level.

IMO a significant majority of people in the US don't feel outraged either because they actually think President Trump is doing a good job (80+% of GOP supporters and 40% of independents) or because it's not that important to them on a day to day basis.
Click to expand...

Latest poll shows his approval at ~36% and GOPers are hiding from their constitutents in droves. Sounds like outrage to me.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Senator Harris just asked McCabe, 'who was in charge of securing Comey's files when he was fired given Comey was out of the office in CA?' McCabe assured her Comey's files were secured by the FBI when Comey was fired.
Click to expand...

Reassuring. Hope whoever did the securing is not a Trump stooge.

Yes, I think we are that far down the rabbit hole....

But your theory is interesting. My concern it that when Trump appoints a replacement, that director will leak whatever Trump wants to Trump. This is where the confirmation hearing will matter but given Sessions got through, I am hopeful but not confident.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Have you heard the "strike" rumor about congressional Democrats? They may do what happened right after Walker took over in WI and go on the lam so that there can't be a quorum to conduct business.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Inside that power and inside those limitations is firing the FBI director without cause. I understand being angry that it is exercising that power for personal gain, but how does that extend to the sense that this is violating limitations?
Click to expand...
I dont know anyone claiming that Comey's firing was illegal. The President absolutely has the authority to fire the FBI Director without cause. But let's be honest. There was/is a cause. Was the cause as the Trump administration has claimed that Trump is firing Comey because of Hillary Clinton's emails? Do you believe that? My guess is that you don't. Do you believe that Comey was fired because the rank and file of the FBI had lost confidence in his leadership? Or do you believe it was something else?

Traditionally the position has not been one which changes with each new administration. There is also intended to be some distance or independence. Nobody can or should be able to tell the FBI who/what to or not to investigate.

The idea that it is legitimate in any way for the President to show pleasure or displeasure over what the FBI investigates is an anathema to how it has always been done. It would be for example ethically wrong for the FBI to start an investigation into the wiretapping of Trump Tower for no other reason than the President saying it happened. It would also be ethically wrong to halt an investigation just because the President doesn't like it. Just because the President has the legal authority doesn't mean the exercise of such authority is ethical.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
AUMF.
Terrorists in Paris represent a national security threat.
Consistent with presidential power to initiate conflict against threats as needed and consistent with previous strikes authorized by presidents without congress.
Click to expand...

Under those conditions, that would be an illegal order and the Joint Chiefs would be legally bound by the UCMJ and the Geneva convention to refuse it.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
Formally, you are correct, but there are several steps in that process where the president can be checked. First, authentication requires the confirmation of a cabinet member, with the Sec Def at the top of the list. He cannot be compelled to confirm the order, nor can any member of the cabinet. In addition, the Joint Chiefs (who are bound by the laws of war under the Geneva Convention) have to agree to transmit the order to the missile controllers and they cannot be compelled to do so.

There is an excellent discussion of this topic on Quora

https://www.quora.com/If-the-US-Pre...s-a-first-strike-attack-could-anyone-stop-him
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this stuff? Where do you think any law requires "the confirmation of a cabinet member?" The Agriculture Secretary? The HUD Secretary? The system is designed to allow an immediate response to the detection of incoming missiles, which would leave less than 15 minutes to react. We hope that somebody would refuse an unlawful order, if they knew it to be unlawful. But a properly authenticated order from the President is presumed to be lawful, and authentication only requires that the correct codes have been issued. This has been written about extensively, and there have been times when, as a result of a terrible mistake, the U.S. has come within minutes of launching ICBMs. My cite quoted a SecDef who says the President only needs to make one phone call. Do you know more than he does?

You're whistling past the graveyard if you think there is a restraint on the President's power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...apons-thats-by-design/?utm_term=.8f565b60f08b
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-how-the-president-orders-nuclear-war/article/2599478
 
BobTheCoward said:
So is there a good piece on why this is wrong? I'm having trouble understanding a reason. I don't mean disagree with it. I definitely think this was a bad decision and it is an example of the garbage why I hate the guy. But there seems to be attacks that this is a fundamental violation of the office.

Presidents are elected to exercise the power of the executive branch. Trump did so. What is the problem?

ETA: Yes, I know this is a weird question. I want to be able to pass the ideological turing test and I know I can't on this issue.
Click to expand...

There is theory and there is convention. Breaking political convention is a big deal. For example, the Queen can in theory refuse to sign any UK act of parliament into law. if she does so, it's highly likely that the UK becomes a republic very shortly afterwards.

Similarly, the prime minister theoretically serves at her pleasure.

This is not just an arcane odfity, her representative in Australia used that power in 1975


http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/closer-look/the-australian-constitution/constitutional-crisis.html
 
BobTheCoward said:
The Authorization for Use of Military Force has pretty much covered any group people have thought of in the last 15 years.


Where does the justification of killing millions of civilians enters into if it is a lawful order or not?
Click to expand...

The UCMJ binds military personnel to the Geneva Convention (to which the US is a signatory). Nuking Paris to take out a terrorist cell would be excessive force, and targeting a civilian population center at a minimum.
 
uke2se said:
I agree. Trump won't get the benefit of doubt on this by the press - excluding FOX news who will probably air puppy vids and rainbows. I truly hope this is the thing that we've been waiting for, that snowballs into impeachment. I don't dare to believe too much just yet, but it's looking promising.
Click to expand...

And We are beginning to see GOP congressmen distancing themselves from Trump. IMHO McCOnell made a bad mistake with his instant support of the Comey firing.McConell thinks he can stall things long enough to get the major items of the GOP agenda through,but I think he has miscalculated.
 
Border Reiver said:
Geneva Conventions (1949)

The US is a signatory and the Senate ratified it.
Click to expand...

Obviously, a treaty cannot circumscribe the constitution. No treaty can change the president's term from 4 years to 3.

The constitution defines the president as commander in chief. It also defines what powers of the military congress can regulate. I think we can agree that a treaty cannot regulate the president on war more than passed legislation can.

As to UN treaties and NATO treaties on who we can attack, I think it is clear that those provisions are void IF we recognize that the CinC power includes the ability to launch attacks in the name of national emergency. I would say that power to launch attacks, while I don't agree with the common interpretation, is recognized as legitimate. If that is the power of the president, and congress cannot regulate (as every president has rejected the war powers resolution) then a treaty cannot.

Nuclear weapons are funded, so it isn't a "power of the purse" issue.

That leaves the geneva conventions, similar agreements, and the ability of congress to regulate tactical and strategic decisions.

I have seen the full range of views on this from
-congress has the power, if it chooses, to direct the most tactical level decision (this law directs platoon A to take hill Wolf 359).
-Congress has no power to even direct strategic decision (what funded weapons to use when).

When we think of if laws can restrict the president as CinC, my bet is the court would say these laws are nonjusticiable and leave it as an impeachment issue.

Well, the president can be impeached for anything. However much risk he wants to tolerate, Bombs Away.

But then we are back to the Joint Chiefs, and they would be confined by those agreements, if we recognize a power to regulate strategic decisions is held by congress.
 
Last edited:
ChristianProgressive said:
The UCMJ binds military personnel to the Geneva Convention (to which the US is a signatory). Nuking Paris to take out a terrorist cell would be excessive force, and targeting a civilian population center at a minimum.
Click to expand...

Technically the UCMJ makes it illegal to follow an illegal order. But I think that's the last thing the officer would be concerned with after launching nukes.
 
Ambrosia said:
Acting FBI director to continue FBI Russia probe

[link]

What are the odds that the FBI under McCabe will move faster on the Russia investigation now? (before he gets fired as well)
Click to expand...

I think the real danger is not the official investigation, but what the media is going to bring out.
 
Bob001 said:
Where are you getting this stuff? Where do you think any law requires "the confirmation of a cabinet member?" The Agriculture Secretary? The HUD Secretary? The system is designed to allow an immediate response to the detection of incoming missiles, which would leave less than 15 minutes to react. We hope that somebody would refuse an unlawful order, if they knew it to be unlawful. But a properly authenticated order from the President is presumed to be lawful, and authentication only requires that the correct codes have been issued. This has been written about extensively, and there have been times when, as a result of a terrible mistake, the U.S. has come within minutes of launching ICBMs. My cite quoted a SecDef who says the President only needs to make one phone call. Do you know more than he does?

You're whistling past the graveyard if you think there is a restraint on the President's power.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...apons-thats-by-design/?utm_term=.8f565b60f08b
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/3/12367996/donald-trump-nuclear-codes
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/this-is-how-the-president-orders-nuclear-war/article/2599478
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Command_Authority

Even if the President were to find someone who would confirm the order, there is still the joint chiefs, who may not and in some circumstnaces are legally required to refuse to.
 
Meadmaker said:
I don't know about outrage, but his approval ratings have dropped....farther.
Click to expand...

And he is losing the all important undecided/independent voters.
And you have to wonder how much of his GOP support is done holding their noses...they really don't like Trump,but think he is better then a Democrat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom