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 administration , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 20th November 2017, 04:40 AM   #121
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
IA soldier, particularly an officer, can also be guilty of obeying orders: When the order is clearly illegal. You see, "I was following orders" was the standard defense of Nazi criminals. The Nuremberg trials established the principle that this is no defense, iow that orders must be disobeyed if it constitutes a war crime or a crime against humanity.
And it is why we refuse to charge those who tortured people for america with their crimes. Following orders really does work as an excuse so much of the time.

I will believe this stuff about illegal orders when we actual charge instead of covering for those who where in charge of Bush's torture programs.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 05:26 AM   #122
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
More direct sources:

JP 1-04 Legal Support to Military Operations
(Basically, an order can be considered legal for course of action determination if your staff Judge Advocate says so)

Guidance for Law of War:
DODD 2311.01E, DOD Law of War Program
Thanks, that helps a lot!
Reading the Executive Summary of the first document, I find this quote:
Quote:
It is DOD policy that US forces follow the law of war in all military operations. Therefore, legal advisors help ensure that the JFC and staff consider law of war principles during the planning process for all joint military operations, and particularly during planning for combat operations. Some of the key law of war principles to be considered during the planning process are military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.
I think this takes care of the President ordering strikes that are inhuman, disproportionate, indistinct or without military necessity.

Of course the DOD could change policy...
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 05:30 AM   #123
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
It's almost as if forgot he was the one who decided last week to allow the "horror show".
It's not clear what the expression "horror show" refers to in his tweet. Perhaps he means "this piece of Obama-style government regulation"?
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 05:32 AM   #124
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
As attacking north korea is a legal order is would be carried out.
No.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 05:37 AM   #125
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So his ordering of air strikes against syria earlier this year would be illegal?
Yes.
(I'll qualify: There already is a war going in Syria, and the US is a party to it, and the UN is engaged in the matter; all that makes this vastly more complicated, as that attack was not a unilateral one - your implied premise is false -, it was just one more in a multilateral desaster)

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You certainly seem to be the first person to seriously suggest that.
No. This one should be rather obvious.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 05:39 AM   #126
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No.
Well you showed me what part of the UCMJ it violated to make it an illegal order. Former secretaries of defense, you meet your match on random people on the internet simple one word answer.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 05:43 AM   #127
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Yes.
(I'll qualify: There already is a war going in Syria, and the US is a party to it, and the UN is engaged in the matter; all that makes this vastly more complicated, as that attack was not a unilateral one - your implied premise is false -, it was just one more in a multilateral desaster)
So that is why no one carried them out and if they had they all when to prison.

We have to get the news to stop reporting lies like this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1d318de45882

As for unilateral vs multilateral how on earth are the troops supposed to know that when the order comes down? They are not involved in that level of negotiation and where in american law does it say anything about that?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 05:58 AM   #128
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And it is why we refuse to charge those who tortured people for america with their crimes. Following orders really does work as an excuse so much of the time.

I will believe this stuff about illegal orders when we actual charge instead of covering for those who where in charge of Bush's torture programs.
Some were actually charged and convicted.

That the political reality in the USA allows and supports the shielding of higher officers and political leaders testifies ill of the moral fabric and functionality of the country, and not for the legality of their orders and policies.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 06:08 AM   #129
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 79,146
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It's not clear what the expression "horror show" refers to in his tweet. Perhaps he means "this piece of Obama-style government regulation"?
I really don't know how Obama has managed to not troll Trump.

If I was Obama I'd be saying something like "If I was still president I'd be dismantling Obamacare and replacing it". Just to watch Trump pivot, then I'd post "Obamacare is my most important legacy". I reckon within a few hours Obama could give Trump a fatal case of whiplash!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 20th November 2017, 06:10 AM   #130
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So that is why no one carried them out and if they had they all when to prison.

We have to get the news to stop reporting lies like this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.1d318de45882

As for unilateral vs multilateral how on earth are the troops supposed to know that when the order comes down? They are not involved in that level of negotiation and where in american law does it say anything about that?
The day Trump orders a nuklear attack on North Korea, the JCS and next level generals surely will know if there is a war (they will know better than Trump, because it's their job, and they are emminently qualified, while Trump obviously isn't). They will thus have a hunch if the order violates the Law of War or not, and hopefully get their legal counsel involved, who will hopefully tell them the truth: It's illegal.

What the President does, in effect, is to issue a policy directive. The President typically does not order specific military actions, like "sent the USS Nimitz to Boston Harbour and shoot 6,000 rounds of suchandsuch shells at City Hall". It's the JCS's job to translate the policy directive into specific military plan. And as the legal documents linked by LSSBB show, the US military top level command has procedures to ensure the President's policy directives are carried out in a legal way - which implies that not every way to carry out a Presidential order is ipso facto legal.

So what to do if the President is so dumb and arrogant and childish as to invent his own military planning? -> JCS figures out it's dumb, arrogant and childish, and if it's illegal, they'll not do it.


The idea that the President is above all law is supremely dangerous.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 06:13 AM   #131
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Some were actually charged and convicted.

That the political reality in the USA allows and supports the shielding of higher officers and political leaders testifies ill of the moral fabric and functionality of the country, and not for the legality of their orders and policies.
Only because they made the mistake of letting pictures get out, the more official programs always made sure to destroy all such emotionally incendiary evidence. So you have only text reports of Americans picking up the wrong people and torturing them to death. Brazil(the movie) makes a nice model of how such torture programs were run.

None of those people have to face anything for their crimes. Only the enlisted troops dumb enough to record what they were doing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 06:18 AM   #132
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The day Trump orders a nuklear attack on North Korea, the JCS and next level generals surely will know if there is a war (they will know better than Trump, because it's their job, and they are emminently qualified, while Trump obviously isn't). They will thus have a hunch if the order violates the Law of War or not, and hopefully get their legal counsel involved, who will hopefully tell them the truth: It's illegal.
Sure and they refused the Bush torture doctrines for violations of such "laws". This is simply not true.
Quote:
What the President does, in effect, is to issue a policy directive. The President typically does not order specific military actions, like "sent the USS Nimitz to Boston Harbour and shoot 6,000 rounds of suchandsuch shells at City Hall". It's the JCS's job to translate the policy directive into specific military plan. And as the legal documents linked by LSSBB show, the US military top level command has procedures to ensure the President's policy directives are carried out in a legal way - which implies that not every way to carry out a Presidential order is ipso facto legal.
And as such he can simply order them to nuke north Korea to destroy the government. They might have some freedom to interpret these orders but they nukes will be on their way within 5 minutes.

The president has sole authority on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, and their use in general. This is very much by design, as Truman was pissed that they never even consulted him about the second nuclear strike against Japan. They also told him Hiroshima was military installation instead of a city.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 06:24 AM   #133
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Oystein here is a chart showing how this works and how all the people involved can do is resign in protest. There simply is nothing to stop the president from ordering nuclear strikes at his discretion. This is how the system was designed to work, it was never designed to act as a check on his authority to nuke who he pleases.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/g...weapon-launch/
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 06:41 AM   #134
NoahFence
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,265
Now the orange menace is firing up the twitters to forward a fake news story from the Boston Globe that Marshawn Lynch sat for the US anthem and stood for the Mexican Anthem.

All we have to go on at this point is a photo of him sitting next to a photo of him standing. That's it.

Could have been in the middle of the 2nd quarter for all we know.
NoahFence 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 20th November 2017, 06:49 AM   #135
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Sure and they refused the Bush torture doctrines for violations of such "laws". This is simply not true.


And as such he can simply order them to nuke north Korea to destroy the government. They might have some freedom to interpret these orders but they nukes will be on their way within 5 minutes.

The president has sole authority on the preemptive use of nuclear weapons, and their use in general. This is very much by design, as Truman was pissed that they never even consulted him about the second nuclear strike against Japan. They also told him Hiroshima was military installation instead of a city.
There are just a lot of unanswered questions about the boundaries of the branches in regulating operations. I imagine if most people were forced to work through all the implications, they wouldn't like the answer.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 20th November 2017 at 06:55 AM.
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 20th November 2017, 06:55 AM   #136
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Now the orange menace is firing up the twitters to forward a fake news story from the Boston Globe that Marshawn Lynch sat for the US anthem and stood for the Mexican Anthem.

All we have to go on at this point is a photo of him sitting next to a photo of him standing. That's it.

Could have been in the middle of the 2nd quarter for all we know.
I don't understand his complaints. I actually do want to disrespect this nation and the armed forces. What is the problem then with me not standing.
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 20th November 2017, 07:01 AM   #137
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,147
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't understand his complaints. I actually do want to disrespect this nation and the armed forces. What is the problem then with me not standing.
I'm not 100% sure about how sitting for the national anthem disrespects the US military. AFAIK US != US Military.
The Don 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 20th November 2017, 07:03 AM   #138
NoahFence
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,265
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't understand his complaints. I actually do want to disrespect this nation and the armed forces. What is the problem then with me not standing.
You're nobody.
NoahFence 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 20th November 2017, 07:04 AM   #139
Armitage72
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,767
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Surely this is the time for 'thoughts and prayers' not exploiting deaths for politics. Doesn't he claim to be offended by that?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...20488642617344

I don't remember of it was here or on another forum, but someone commented that the problem with Trump offering "thoughts and prayers" is that he doesn't have the former, and he thinks that the latter should be to him, not from him.
Armitage72 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 20th November 2017, 07:08 AM   #140
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm not 100% sure about how sitting for the national anthem disrespects the US military. AFAIK US != US Military.
I agree. But I will do it simply because enough military members are offended by it.
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 20th November 2017, 07:10 AM   #141
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
You're nobody.
Trump's prohibition seems to apply to everyone, not just famous people.
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 20th November 2017, 07:21 AM   #142
NoahFence
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,265
trumps prohibition is all in his head.
NoahFence 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 20th November 2017, 07:22 AM   #143
Armitage72
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,767
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Trump's prohibition seems to apply to everyone, not just famous people.

Normal people don't get national attention, and that's what he really wants out of this.
Armitage72 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 20th November 2017, 07:23 AM   #144
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,948
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Trump's prohibition seems to apply to everyone, not just famous people.
tweeting about you will not generate enough media attention, which is Trump's currency.
The Great Zaganza 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 20th November 2017, 07:28 AM   #145
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
tweeting about you will not generate enough media attention, which is Trump's currency.
I think I am confused. I didn't say anything about tweeting about me. I was saying I don't get the logic of his complaint.
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 20th November 2017, 08:16 AM   #146
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Oystein here is a chart showing how this works and how all the people involved can do is resign in protest. There simply is nothing to stop the president from ordering nuclear strikes at his discretion. This is how the system was designed to work, it was never designed to act as a check on his authority to nuke who he pleases.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/g...weapon-launch/
None of that makes an illegal order legal.

Yes, they can, and should resign. They could also stay and disobey and wait out the consequences.

The idea that ANY order the President issues is ipso facto legal, that iow he is above all law, particularly above all law concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity, is a grave error and reveals those believing in its righteousness as totalitarians.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 08:18 AM   #147
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
None of that makes an illegal order legal.
What makes the order illegal in the first place? Please cite the UCMJ.

Quote:
The idea that ANY order the President issues is ipso facto legal, that iow he is above all law, particularly above all law concerning war crimes and crimes against humanity, is a grave error and reveals those believing in its righteousness as totalitarians.
This isn't any order as well, this is specific to the launch of nuclear weapons. Not illegal but no one cares orders like ordering torture of detainees. That is specifically legal.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

Last edited by ponderingturtle; 20th November 2017 at 08:19 AM.
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 08:43 AM   #148
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
What makes the order illegal in the first place? Please cite the UCMJ. ...
The Law of War. Which consists of Treaty Law and customary international law.

I already cited http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_04.pdf
Page 11:
Quote:
Law of War Principles
The law of war regulates the conduct of states and combatants engaged in armed conflict hostilities and is often referred to as the law of armed conflict. It is DOD policy that US forces follow the law of war in all military operations. Therefore, legal advisors help ensure that the JFC and staff consider law of war principles during the planning process for all joint military operations, and particularly during planning for combat operations. Some of the key law of war principles to be considered during the planning process are military necessity, humanity, distinction, and proportionality.
This, issued by the JCS, makes clear that ALL military operations follow the law of war in general, and that specifically orders that are militarily unnecessary, inhuman, indistinct or disproportionate violate the Law of War.
__________________
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 20th November 2017, 09:03 AM   #149
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The Law of War. Which consists of Treaty Law and customary international law.

I already cited http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_04.pdf
Page 11:


This, issued by the JCS, makes clear that ALL military operations follow the law of war in general, and that specifically orders that are militarily unnecessary, inhuman, indistinct or disproportionate violate the Law of War.
I see they say policy and not legal requirement. The president can declare it no longer the policy when he gives the order.
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 20th November 2017, 09:46 AM   #150
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,089
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I see they say policy and not legal requirement. The president can declare it no longer the policy when he gives the order.
Stop.

The Laws of Armed Conflict, specifically the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Hague Conventions, are treaties signed on behalf of the US government, ratified by the US Senate and thereby incorporated into the national law. They are legal documents.

An order by the POTUS to the US military to disregard the law is invalid.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver 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 20th November 2017, 10:04 AM   #151
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Stop.

The Laws of Armed Conflict, specifically the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Hague Conventions, are treaties signed on behalf of the US government, ratified by the US Senate and thereby incorporated into the national law. They are legal documents.

An order by the POTUS to the US military to disregard the law is invalid.
Any provisions of those that violate the constitution or have been even inadvertently superceded by later US law are void. The policy appears to be they will adhere to any technically voided portions.
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 20th November 2017, 10:05 AM   #152
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Stop.

The Laws of Armed Conflict, specifically the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Hague Conventions, are treaties signed on behalf of the US government, ratified by the US Senate and thereby incorporated into the national law. They are legal documents.

An order by the POTUS to the US military to disregard the law is invalid.
Sure but would an order for nuking north korea be illegal?

There does not seem to be any real consensus on that, and sorting it out via constitutional crisis would likely take far too long to change what happens as a result of the orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f0744629c75f
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 12:38 PM   #153
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,738
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Stop.

The Laws of Armed Conflict, specifically the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Hague Conventions, are treaties signed on behalf of the US government, ratified by the US Senate and thereby incorporated into the national law. They are legal documents.

An order by the POTUS to the US military to disregard the law is invalid.

As I've posted above, the senior military leadership is outside of the chain of command regarding a nuclear launch. The order goes from the White House directly to the launch commanders, who are only required to authenticate the order and who have no way to know whether or not the U.S. is under eminent nuclear attack. The SecDef, the Joint Chiefs, the service heads don't even need to be notified. It would be a big step forward -- and some in Congress are trying to move that way -- to require at least one other top official to confirm a presidential launch order. But that's not the way it is now. So the military is claiming that troops a long way down the CofC would tell the President "I don't believe your order is lawful. Go pound sand." Not gonna happen.
Quote:
The fact is—and it was a fact that witnesses evaded for most of the hearing—the president of the United States has no legal obligation to heed any adviser on this score. He can launch a nuclear attack at will. And much as the four-star general in charge of Stratcom or the civilian secretary of defense might muster opposing arguments, they are not even in the nuclear chain of command. The order goes from the president to a one-star general at the National Military Command Center, and straight from there to the officers manning the ICBM silos and the nuclear submarines who would turn the keys and launch their missiles.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ar_weapon.html

Last edited by Bob001; 20th November 2017 at 12:40 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 20th November 2017, 12:55 PM   #154
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,906
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'm not 100% sure about how sitting for the national anthem disrespects the US military. AFAIK US != US Military.
It's not even disrespect for the US in my opinion. It's quite respectful protest.
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 20th November 2017, 01:14 PM   #155
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,738
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The day Trump orders a nuklear attack on North Korea, the JCS and next level generals surely will know if there is a war (they will know better than Trump, because it's their job, and they are emminently qualified, while Trump obviously isn't). They will thus have a hunch if the order violates the Law of War or not, and hopefully get their legal counsel involved, who will hopefully tell them the truth: It's illegal.

What the President does, in effect, is to issue a policy directive. The President typically does not order specific military actions, like "sent the USS Nimitz to Boston Harbour and shoot 6,000 rounds of suchandsuch shells at City Hall". It's the JCS's job to translate the policy directive into specific military plan.
.....
I repeat, that's not the way it works. See above. The senior military leadership -- let alone their legal advisers -- is not part of the chain of command. The President opens the football, picks the targets, and issues the launch orders. It happens in minutes unless somebody literally tackles him. That's what some in Congress are trying to change.
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 20th November 2017, 01:42 PM   #156
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
It's not even disrespect for the US in my opinion. It's quite respectful protest.

I think the organized kneeling is a respectful protest. Quite so in fact.
And with no connection to the military or really even the larger state of US Gov't actions/policies (in this case, at least).

Sitting, quietly, strikes me more as just ignoring.
It's what I do every time it's played on TV... if I don't actually change the channel.

I'm fairly sick of the song... almost can't stand hearing it actually.
Just because of sports (I have no issue with the song, it's message of patriotism or its' use at appropriate events/functions).

But who the hell thought it would be just a grand idea to begin every freakin' sporting event with a public display of patriotic devotion?
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP 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 20th November 2017, 01:45 PM   #157
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 40,260
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
I think the organized kneeling is a respectful protest. Quite so in fact.
And with no connection to the military or really even the larger state of US Gov't actions/policies (in this case, at least).
But they are black, that really pisses real americans(tm) off.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 20th November 2017, 01:46 PM   #158
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I repeat, that's not the way it works. See above. The senior military leadership -- let alone their legal advisers -- is not part of the chain of command. The President opens the football, picks the targets, and issues the launch orders. It happens in minutes unless somebody literally tackles him. That's what some in Congress are trying to change.

Fair point.
I am (like many/most?), just beginning to become informed on the actual procedure.

It's generally not been something the public has needed, or wanted, to think about. Not for quite a while at least.

What a difference an election can make.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP 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 20th November 2017, 01:48 PM   #159
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,045
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But they are black, that really pisses real americans(tm) off.

Some things truly fit the definition of "political hay".

This one shouldn't but... there you go.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP 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 20th November 2017, 02:46 PM   #160
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,188
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
Some things truly fit the definition of "political hay".

This one shouldn't but... there you go.
I think Matt yglesias said it best

"I think Trump picks fights with black people because he genuinely has a problem with black people."

"Trumpís been all over the map on a lot of issues over the decades, but heís been doing racist #### pretty consistently since the 1970s."
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
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 12:58 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.