Stupid Republican idea of the day

[Kamino_Neko]

@commasense

A Trump adviser says it was disrespectful to Jews for President Obama to give a speech on Hanukah; he should have done it on Shabbat, instead. :smack:

Not only do I get my daily dose of headshaking at the Donald, I learn a new word!

Narishkeit.

It’s a good word. Has a perfectly dismissive sound, which is good for a word that means ‘nonsense’.

[Locrian]

:rolleyes: Yeah. Thousands. Traffic is a bigger mess everyday with all the new recruits lining up for the bus to the airport. The subways are just packed to the gills to get on ISIS Express Airlines here.

[Jack_Batty]

I like how he thinks Bill Gates has an “Internet Off” button in his study or something.

[running_coach]

@Jack_Batty

I like how he thinks Bill Gates has an “Internet Off” button in his study or something.

Then he needs to see Gore.

[Kobal2]

@up_the_junction

Well yeah, they are going in good sized numbers. I have no idea of how many from the US but several hundred have gone from the UK and about half have returned. Here’s a recent BBC summary:

Who are Britain’s jihadists? - BBC News

Even the number of people who have left France for ISIS (which is one of the highest in Europe in total, though not per capita) numbers in the thousand, tops. No s.

[Defensive_Indifference]

And what I thought was the stupidest part of Trump’s statement was his idea that the US asks returning ISIS fighters what they were doing, they admit they were fighting for ISIS, and we just say “OK. Off you go then.” Yeah, if only we bothered to check for the “Fighting in a Civil War” stamp on their passports, we’d be able to keep the jihadists out. It’s just a matter of good management.

[Defensive_Indifference]

Serious question if I may… Trump seems to be suggesting that if a US citizen gets radicalized and goes overseas to fight for ISIS, that the US should not let them re-enter the country. Putting aside whether this is a good idea or practical, can the US legally refuse to allow a citizen to re-enter the country? Or, is there some mechanism to revoke someone’s citizenship (and if there were, wouldn’t you have to let them in at least to defend themselves against the case for possible revocation?).

[dropzone]

When Trump sets his jaw, tightens his lips, and looks out on a vision of a rebuilt American Empire, does he remind you of il Duce? When I was young we lefties wore out the word “fascist” by accusing everybody of being one, but Trump’s, and his followers’, words and actions are making me take the word out of mothballs. But is he modeling his look on Mussolini consciously?

FTR, Mussolini’s granddaughter is hotter than Trump’s daughter.

[elucidator]

She can make your train run on time!

[El_Kabong]

@dropzone

When Trump sets his jaw, tightens his lips, and looks out on a vision of a rebuilt American Empire, does he remind you of il Duce? When I was young we lefties wore out the word “fascist” by accusing everybody of being one, but Trump’s, and his followers’, words and actions are making me take the word out of mothballs. But is he modeling his look on Mussolini consciously?

FTR, Mussolini’s granddaughter is hotter than Trump’s daughter.

Actually, the person he seems closest to in both splotchy red-faced appearance and predilection for a mix of toxic nostalgia, inflammatory rhetoric and good old-fashioned bigotry, is Jean-Marie le Pen of the Front National.

[Locrian]

@Bayard

Serious question if I may… Trump seems to be suggesting that if a US citizen gets radicalized and goes overseas to fight for ISIS, that the US should not let them re-enter the country. Putting aside whether this is a good idea or practical, can the US legally refuse to allow a citizen to re-enter the country? Or, is there some mechanism to revoke someone’s citizenship (and if there were, wouldn’t you have to let them in at least to defend themselves against the case for possible revocation?).

For me, I’m confused on this. If you pledge to ISIS, go to Syria, decide to return, fine. Why not charge them with treason or terrorism crimes? If you pledged to shoot Americans and any other Western enemy, why not jail? And if they actually did set up a bomb, shoot at or aid in a terror attempt against Americans, what’s the penalty?

[foolsguinea]

@Rick_Kitchen

Rick Santorum is still pretending like he’s running for President. At a gathering of Iowa Catholics, he said:

[…]
“If you have a concealed carry permit, if you have been trained to use a gun and can use it proficiently, I think you have an obligation these days to carry a gun,”
[…]

What does “proficiently” mean in this case? Knowing how to squeeze a trigger?

[Kimstu]

@Bayard

Serious question if I may… Trump seems to be suggesting that if a US citizen gets radicalized and goes overseas to fight for ISIS, that the US should not let them re-enter the country. Putting aside whether this is a good idea or practical, can the US legally refuse to allow a citizen to re-enter the country?

@Locrian

If you pledge to ISIS, go to Syria, decide to return, fine. Why not charge them with treason or terrorism crimes?

Noting first of all that IANAL, I don’t think we can legally bar them but we can certainly make their welcome home warmer than they’d like. This honkin’ big report on foreign fighters in armed conflicts sez:

States have several options if they decide to take criminal law measures to punish their nationals who join an armed insurgency abroad. First, returning foreign fighters may be prosecuted when they return to their home country if they are suspected of committing or being involved in war crimes or other international crimes while they participated in an armed conflict abroad. As we have seen, IHL [international humanitarian law] governs the conduct of non-state actors during an armed conflict, regardless of their nationality or permanent residency status […]

Second, foreign fighters may be prosecuted for ordinary crimes. In most states, it is not in itself illegal to travel to and participate in an armed conflict abroad. The recently adopted Security Council resolution 2178 (2014) requires states to criminalise travel and attempted travel of ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ […]

Whether or not they craft specific laws to address the phenomenon, many states can use their regular criminal law framework to prosecute outgoing and returning foreign fighters. During a NIAC [non-international armed conflict], domestic law and IHL have always applied in parallel; and domestic law has generally criminalized use of force against the state. As a result, foreign fighters in NIACs can be prosecuted under national criminal laws, even for acts that do not violate IHL, such as lawful and proportionate attacks against military objectives (see Section B).

If domestic fighters flee abroad, they may escape prosecution because the jurisdiction of national law in most states does not extend to acts committed by foreigners abroad (with the possible exception of war crimes and other international crimes, such as torture). If foreign fighters return home, however, national law frequently has jurisdiction on the basis of the active nationality principle. Foreign fighters may therefore face prosecution for acts committed during an armed conflict abroad. […] In addition, ordinary criminal law may be used to prosecute potential foreign fighters for acts they take to prepare to commit such crimes. […]

Finally, foreign fighters who join or attempt to join an armed group that has been officially listed as a terrorist organization may be investigated and prosecuted on the basis of domestic terrorism legislation. In fact, most reported investigations and prosecutions of foreign fighters returning from Syria and (above all) individuals planning to travel to Syria, as well as individuals associated with their recruitment, appear to be based on domestic terrorism legislation, reflecting the fact that most foreign fighters have reportedly joined or intended to join Islamic State or al-Nusra.

[boytyperanma]

@Bayard

Serious question if I may… Trump seems to be suggesting that if a US citizen gets radicalized and goes overseas to fight for ISIS, that the US should not let them re-enter the country. Putting aside whether this is a good idea or practical, can the US legally refuse to allow a citizen to re-enter the country? Or, is there some mechanism to revoke someone’s citizenship (and if there were, wouldn’t you have to let them in at least to defend themselves against the case for possible revocation?).

The Obama administration has argued we can legally target American citizens for drone strikes without trial, if we detained them without trial at least they aren’t dead…

[up_the_junction]

@Locrian

For me, I’m confused on this. If you pledge to ISIS, go to Syria, decide to return, fine. Why not charge them with treason or terrorism crimes? If you pledged to shoot Americans and any other Western enemy, why not jail? And if they actually did set up a bomb, shoot at or aid in a terror attempt against Americans, what’s the penalty?

Well, there is the criminal justice system, which tends to frown on folks blowing other folks up.

If someone is known to have fought with ISIS but the results of what they did is unknown, what can happen depends on the status of the organisation they worked for - they could be legal terrorists, like dual citizenship people working for the Israeli Defence Force in Gaza, or illegal terrorists. Similarity people who go to fight with the Kurds, or Free Syria Army, etc - those organisations are terrorists to some and not others.

Atm, all countries are struggling with the legalities, including levels of proof required for various aspects of involvement.

Hell, some of the USA’s best friends are either terrorists or fund terrorism - the headbanging Saudi Wahhabists, for example.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@boytyperanma

The Obama administration has argued we can legally target American citizens for drone strikes without trial, if we detained them without trial at least they aren’t dead…

The reason we take the drone stance is that the targeted people are not coming back for a trial. It’s not like they’d shoot someone trying to come back or send a drone to their house. They’d be arrested and tried.

[boytyperanma]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

The reason we take the drone stance is that the targeted people are not coming back for a trial. It’s not like they’d shoot someone trying to come back or send a drone to their house. They’d be arrested and tried.

Maybe the policy should include making some attempt to inform them they are wanted for trial? If your first notice is a bomb it’s kinda hard to turn yourself in.

[Kobal2]

@boytyperanma

Maybe the policy should include making some attempt to inform them they are wanted for trial? If your first notice is a bomb it’s kinda hard to turn yourself in.

Drone lawyers are next, you mark my words.

[up_the_junction]

The drone thing reminds me a little of the Medieval ducking of witches - either they confessed and were killed or they drowned. Or in this case blown up.

I’m still working through the detail but it’s there somewhere … that’s mooslims for yer.

It’s all very ‘extra judicial’.

[BlankSlate]

The Pig getting his just desserts on the cover of the New York Daily News, Godwin be damned.

Republicans should hang their heads in shame and apologize to the rational Americans for allowing this diseased anus of a man becoming the face of their party.

The GOP is a disgrace.