ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 13th October 2017, 06:16 PM   #121
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,661
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If Congress has authorized the president to fire at will, then firing at will is not a war crime under US law.
That's not how it works. Congress has authorized the president to wage war. It has not authorized him to violate the laws and customs of war. Nor has it authorized him to break any of the treaties Congress has ratified.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:18 PM   #122
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not how it works. Congress has authorized the president to wage war. It has not authorized him to violate the laws and customs of war. Nor has it authorized him to break any of the treaties Congress has ratified.
If the authorization to fire nuclear missiles at will follows after ratification treaties that make first strikes and genocide illegal, then they have overrode those treaties.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:22 PM   #123
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,565
And remember, this president needs someone to take custody of him.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:32 PM   #124
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,299
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I tend to assume that we have smarter people now than during the Nixon Administration.
You are far more optimistic than I. Nixon was an *******, but he wasn't unintelligent. The same can't be said about Trump, probably.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:43 PM   #125
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,661
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If the authorization to fire nuclear missiles at will follows after ratification treaties that make first strikes and genocide illegal, then they have overrode those treaties.
Sooo not how that works.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 06:51 PM   #126
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,969
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
Frankly I'm surprised by the utter lack of movies that focus on the inevitable war crimes tribunals that would follow in the aftermath of nuclear armageddon. It would make for compelling viewing.
Who'd be viewing it, what justice system would there be to actually do it? If there was a Nuclear Armageddon then any survivors would be far too busy trying to survive and restore some semblance of normalcy to their parts of the world to be worry about conducting trials and the like.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:00 PM   #127
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,661
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Who'd be viewing it, what justice system would there be to actually do it?
Progressives would be viewing it. As for justice system, picture this: Trump expy triggers Armageddon. First thing the survivors do is form a People's Tribunal and execute him for crimes against humanity. Second thing they do is rebuild civilization as a socialist utopia. Miramax produces it, and it does surprisingly bad at the box office. As such morality plays always do.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:03 PM   #128
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,969
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Progressives would be viewing it. As for justice system, picture this: Trump expy triggers Armageddon. First thing the survivors do is form a People's Tribunal and execute him for crimes against humanity. Second thing they do is rebuild civilization as a socialist utopia. Miramax produces it, and it does surprisingly bad at the box office. As such morality plays always do.
Funnily enough, in the event of a nuclear war, Progressives are the least likely to survive. Progressives tend to be in cities, and because bases and other targets tend to also be in or near cities, they are the places that are most likely to be wiped out. Conversely those most likely to survive are those in rural areas well away from bases and other targets, and they tend to be far more likely to be conservative in their politics.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:05 PM   #129
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,661
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Funnily enough, in the event of a nuclear war, Progressives are the least likely to survive. Progressives tend to be in cities, and because bases and other targets tend to also be in or near cities, they are the places that are most likely to be wiped out. Conversely those most likely to survive are those in rural areas well away from bases and other targets, and they tend to be far more likely to be conservative in their politics.
Hollywood never lets facts stand in the way of a good sermon story.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:12 PM   #130
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sooo not how that works.
If a newer act of Congress conflicts with an older treaty, the newer act overrides the older treaty.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:14 PM   #131
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,661
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If a newer act of Congress conflicts with an older treaty, the newer act overrides the older treaty.
There is no conflict.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:22 PM   #132
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There is no conflict.
I think I agree. This started with me responding to a scenario by Craig that may not even have represented the treaties.

An authorization to wage war would only supercede any agreement not to wage war.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 13th October 2017 at 07:23 PM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 07:50 PM   #133
Sherkeu
Critical Thinker
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 438
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
You are far more optimistic than I. Nixon was an *******, but he wasn't unintelligent. The same can't be said about Trump, probably.
Trump like to brag about wealth and power, but he doesn't spend money without some idea of a return on investment. NK has nothing we need economically and war would cost the US many hundreds of billions- maybe over a trillion. I can see his motivation to boast , threaten, and put on a military dog and pony show but I do not see any motivating factors to actually want war, nuclear or otherwise. Same motivations for Kim!
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 08:08 PM   #134
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,464
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Hollywood never lets facts stand in the way of a good sermon story.
Yes, Hollywood deserves a great deal of criticism for hypothetically making the movie you just made up. Bad ol' Hollywood!
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 09:31 PM   #135
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,285
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I don't think it would happen quite like that. But if Trump said "We've got to take out North Korea before they build more nukes," especially if they start sending missiles over Guam or Japan, or "Iran will kill us if we don't kill them first," especially if they resume their nuke program after Trump kills our agreement with them, yes, I think the chain of command would snap to, and if not Trump could fire people until somebody down the line did. And if Trump fired Kelly, Mattis and the Joint Chiefs, the lower level commanders would be likely to believe their Commander in Chief was relying on urgent information that wasn't available to them.

There is no legal mechanism to take command away from Trump except the 25th amendment, and that would be a slow (not to mention unfamiliar and unprecedented) process. That's why a bill to restrict the President's power has been introduced in Congress.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.6453a0a138ed
Assuming facts not in evidence.

Trump has made no friends and many enemies, and of all the recent Presidents I believe he's the most likely to be told to **** right off if he gets into a nuke strike mood absent actual incoming.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 10:38 PM   #136
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,831
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It's all the same goal. Nuclear weapons are weapons. The use of weapons is sometimes justified, and sometimes not. Agreeing on a framework for justifying the use of weapons helps us decide when the use of nuclear weapons is justified, and that in turn helps us reason towards a policy for controlling them.

A liberation war would be an offensive war launched in the defense of the victim of an offensive war. Britain going to war with Germany over Poland, for example. If Britain had nukes, could it have struck at Germany's military formation and industrial base with them? Who should have been entrusted with that authority? Would secrecy have been an important consideration?
You describe a war of collective defense. That's neither a liberation war nor a war of aggression.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 10:44 PM   #137
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,831
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If Congress has authorized the president to fire at will, then firing at will is not a war crime under US law.
Whether or not something is a war crime is a matter of international law, nor national law, obiously. But by having ratified the UN Charter, the USA has in fact made it, and its prohibition on firing at will, the "supreme law of the land" (in the words of the Constitution).
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 10:45 PM   #138
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,831
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's not how it works. Congress has authorized the president to wage war. It has not authorized him to violate the laws and customs of war. Nor has it authorized him to break any of the treaties Congress has ratified.
Thanks for that.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th October 2017, 11:09 PM   #139
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,557
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Assuming facts not in evidence.

Trump has made no friends and many enemies, and of all the recent Presidents I believe he's the most likely to be told to **** right off if he gets into a nuke strike mood absent actual incoming.

It's certainly nice to believe that. I hope it helps you sleep better. But the entire structure of the government pushes in the other direction. That is the fact. Yeah, maybe Gen. Kelly or Gen. Mattis might say "Let's talk about it tomorrow, Mr. President." But rejecting the President's orders would ultimately be a mutiny or a coup, not something career military leaders would take lightly. And if the President ordered the junior officer who carries the football "Open it up, we're under attack!," chances are he's not going to say "lemme call my office."
Quote:
If he were president, Donald Trump—who likes to say he doesn't spend a lot of time conferring with others ("My primary consultant is myself," he declared in March)—would be free to launch a civilization-ending nuclear war on his own any time he chose.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955

More:
http://www.businessinsider.com/nucle...aunched-2017-8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ats-by-design/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/s...ear-codes.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...clear-weapons/
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/g...weapon-launch/

Note also that Trump has asked advisors "Why do we have nuclear weapons if we don't use them?" and recently complained that we need more nuclear weapons. A snippet on Rachel Maddow tonight indicated that Trump believes -- falsely -- that the U.S. has a missile defense system that would have a "97% certainty" of stopping incoming missiles.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/w...-1073163843765

Sleep tight.

Last edited by Bob001; 13th October 2017 at 11:11 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 05:14 AM   #140
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Whether or not something is a war crime is a matter of international law, nor national law, obiously. But by having ratified the UN Charter, the USA has in fact made it, and its prohibition on firing at will, the "supreme law of the land" (in the words of the Constitution).
If a Congress authorizes the president to fire at will, then that portion of a treaty is overruled. No treaty can limit a future Congress.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 05:21 AM   #141
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Whether or not something is a war crime is a matter of international law, nor national law, obiously. But by having ratified the UN Charter, the USA has in fact made it, and its prohibition on firing at will, the "supreme law of the land" (in the words of the Constitution).
International law is just another flavor of domestic law.country X trying to enforce international law on country Y is the same as them trying to enforce some idiosyncratic piece of their national law.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 07:18 PM   #142
Seismosaurus
Philosopher
 
Seismosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,058
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
A war of agression is illegal. A non-retaliatory strike with WMD may well constitute genocide if launched "all out", especially against a smaller and densely populated country like North Koreo (>500 inhabitants per square mile, similar to Italy or Switzerland; 6x that of the USA; size about that of New Mexico)
  1. The United Nations Charter - Articles 1, 2, 33 and 39 (1945)
  2. Genocide Convention (1948) (would depend on actual impact of nuclear first strike)
  3. The Nuremberg Principles - Principle VI (1950)
  4. More information: War of aggression

It is helpful, IMO, to point out that the USA was a driving force behind 1. and 3., while being very reluctant to accept full responsibility for 2.
Let's assume that launching a nuclear first strike was indeed a "war crime".

Let's say a US President ordered it anyway.

What exactly is it that you think would happen? Do you think the military would refuse the order? Do you think some other country would come and arrest the American President?

What?
__________________
Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul
Seismosaurus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 07:21 PM   #143
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Let's assume that launching a nuclear first strike was indeed a "war crime".

Let's say a US President ordered it anyway.

What exactly is it that you think would happen? Do you think the military would refuse the order? Do you think some other country would come and arrest the American President?

What?
Can we modify this? What if Congress passed a law declaring a war of agression and said nukes could be used?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 10:05 PM   #144
Octavo
Master Poster
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Can we modify this? What if Congress passed a law declaring a war of agression and said nukes could be used?
The thread drift on this thread is pretty severe, yet I've not seen any carding happening. It's all most like the mods aren't applying the rules consistently.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 10:42 PM   #145
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Octavo View Post
The thread drift on this thread is pretty severe, yet I've not seen any carding happening. It's all most like the mods aren't applying the rules consistently.
Here is why I don't think of it as thread drift. How others in the chain of command respond is dependent on what we think the domestic laws by treaty are. As a starting scenario, the current authorization granted to the president is complicated. Modifying the scenario with a more encompassing new law simplifies it to look at one specific aspect of the law.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th October 2017, 11:03 PM   #146
Octavo
Master Poster
 
Octavo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2,983
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Here is why I don't think of it as thread drift. How others in the chain of command respond is dependent on what we think the domestic laws by treaty are. As a starting scenario, the current authorization granted to the president is complicated. Modifying the scenario with a more encompassing new law simplifies it to look at one specific aspect of the law.
Oh I agree with you. I'm just surprised, given how trigger-happy moderation seems to have been lately.
__________________
This signature is intended to imitate people.
Octavo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 12:13 AM   #147
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 389
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Depends on the target? I doubt if China would risk getting themselves nuked by starting nuclear retaliation for a US first-strike on North Korea, for example. So it isn't 'nuclear war' in the sense of '******* global holocaust' at that point, just the use of nukes.

Then the diplomatic row kicks in.
Seriously?
The US launches nukes at N.K. and China would just sit back?
You are aware of exactly where N.K. and China are in relationship to each other geographically?

I'm sure they would have no issues at all with somebody lobbing nukes at their doorstep-literally
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:35 AM   #148
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,831
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If a Congress authorizes the president to fire at will, then that portion of a treaty is overruled. No treaty can limit a future Congress.
Then if North Korean law authorizes Kim to nuke the USA, it will be alright legally.

And I am sure you never understood why they put Nazi leaders on trial in Nuremberg, since what they did was authorized nationally.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:42 AM   #149
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,831
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
Let's assume that launching a nuclear first strike was indeed a "war crime".

Let's say a US President ordered it anyway.

What exactly is it that you think would happen? Do you think the military would refuse the order? Do you think some other country would come and arrest the American President?

What?
Is that question you expressing your utter, utter feeling of powerlessness under a President-King with unchecked powers not bound by any law? Does it hurt you much that you country has absolutely no recourse at all to holding a President responsibel for atrocious crimes?

Or are you suggesting that Americans should be good patriots and follow the President in everything including war crimes?

Führer befehle, wir folgen (Führer order, we will follow)?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:47 AM   #150
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 21,004
Originally Posted by Dabop View Post
Seriously?
The US launches nukes at N.K. and China would just sit back?
You are aware of exactly where N.K. and China are in relationship to each other geographically?

I'm sure they would have no issues at all with somebody lobbing nukes at their doorstep-literally
They would have huge issues, no doubt. But I don't see them lobbing nukes at the USA in retaliation, knowing for sure that a load would be lobbed right back.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 04:44 AM   #151
Dabop
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Oz
Posts: 389
Angry

Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
They would have huge issues, no doubt. But I don't see them lobbing nukes at the USA in retaliation, knowing for sure that a load would be lobbed right back.
I beg to differ- they would be quite likely to launch in retaliation (which is the whole idea of MAD btw) and the USA would not only stand alone in a war where they launched first, but I suspect that once the US nuke missiles fly (even in a 'limited' first strike), then everyone will launch in retaliation- you will have proven too untrustworthy to have 'big boy toys'

Should everyone else do the sane thing and withhold a retaliatory strike, the US will be a worldwide pariah- noone will be supporting you, the entire country would be held accountable for the actions of its madman leader and likely would be subject to a massive worldwide economic retaliation

Even the threat of using nukes has the rest of the world stunned- it's such a stupid thing to even say (let alone thinking of doing)
__________________
It's a kind of a strawman thing in that it's exactly a strawman thing. Loss Leader
Dabop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 05:37 AM   #152
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Then if North Korean law authorizes Kim to nuke the USA, it will be alright legally.

And I am sure you never understood why they put Nazi leaders on trial in Nuremberg, since what they did was authorized nationally.
It would absolutely be all right for Kim to Nuke the US under north Korean domestic laws.

US soldiers are not obligated to follow international law in general. They are obligated to follow international law that is adopted as US law.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 05:40 AM   #153
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Or are you suggesting that Americans should be good patriots and follow the President in everything including war crimes?

Führer befehle, wir folgen (Führer order, we will follow)?
I have committed a lot of Lèse-majesté. I could be tried for a number of things in a few foreign countries that are not crimes in the US. Why in the world should I hold myself to a legal standard that my country of residence is not a party to?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 05:43 AM   #154
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,464
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Is that question you expressing your utter, utter feeling of powerlessness under a President-King with unchecked powers not bound by any law? Does it hurt you much that you country has absolutely no recourse at all to holding a President responsibel for atrocious crimes?

Or are you suggesting that Americans should be good patriots and follow the President in everything including war crimes?

Führer befehle, wir folgen (Führer order, we will follow)?
Rather than analyze his motives for the question, one could try answering it.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 12:56 PM   #155
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 171
If it comes to pondering the question of whether the President must be kept away from the nuclear football, then the immediate and unavoidable question comes down to whether the President should be removed from office. To me the first inexorably leads to the second. Such uncertainty resulting from instability regarding a *crucial* field of competence is grounds for dismissal in any position of employment I can conceive of. And yes, the President is an employee.
Lurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 01:06 PM   #156
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
If it comes to pondering the question of whether the President must be kept away from the nuclear football, then the immediate and unavoidable question comes down to whether the President should be removed from office. To me the first inexorably leads to the second. Such uncertainty resulting from instability regarding a *crucial* field of competence is grounds for dismissal in any position of employment I can conceive of. And yes, the President is an employee.
No, the president is not an employee. Elected office is elected office. It isn't something else.

What is the critical mass of people questioning fitness that justifies removing someone from office?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 05:47 PM   #157
Lurch
Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 171
In the broader sense the President is of course an employee. If he were not, once installed only death could remove him. He serves at the pleasure of the People (and by that I include everyone from the VP on down), although the mechanisms for his removal are less straightforward, you could say, than those which can be exercised against lesser shlubs in the wider workforce. In a democracy, when an official is *elected* this does not bestow priveledge sufficient to enjoy immunity from dismissal for cause. The only real difference is that the impetus for removal comes from below, which necessarily involves concensus and the overcoming of inertia.
Lurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th October 2017, 06:20 PM   #158
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,295
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
In the broader sense the President is of course an employee. If he were not, once installed only death could remove him. He serves at the pleasure of the People (and by that I include everyone from the VP on down), although the mechanisms for his removal are less straightforward, you could say, than those which can be exercised against lesser shlubs in the wider workforce. In a democracy, when an official is *elected* this does not bestow priveledge sufficient to enjoy immunity from dismissal for cause. The only real difference is that the impetus for removal comes from below, which necessarily involves concensus and the overcoming of inertia.
There is no broader sense and none of that makes the person an employee. All of that is elected official. That is all it is: elected official.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th October 2017, 07:16 PM   #159
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,458
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Use of nuclear weapons should require a 3 person vote. President, Vice-President and Secretary of Defense. 2 votes wins.
I suggest that you research the term "national command authority" an note who isn't part of it. Your vote is irrelevant. Likewise your opinion.
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
I doubt very much that we have officers in between the president and launch officers who would pass in unlawful orders to commit war crimes.
I hope that you are right.
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Trump has made no friends and many enemies, and of all the recent Presidents I believe he's the most likely to be told to **** right off if he gets into a nuke strike mood absent actual incoming.
One hopes.
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If a Congress authorizes the president to fire at will, then that portion of a treaty is overruled. No treaty can limit a future Congress.
Fireworks a-plenty. But not a nice morning after, and maybe no cigarette after ...
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Then if North Korean law authorizes Kim to nuke the USA, it will be alright legally.
In North Korea, sure. Sadly for North Korea, they are not one of Five Permanent members of the UNSC. Sucks to be them. I doubt the Chinese will have a sense of humor about that.
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.