Only if the international laws are also US law. And that would be the US’ interpretation of US law, not random international lawyers who say things like white phospherous and depleted uranium are illegal.
Is Mary Ellen O’Connell, a Notre Dame law professor, a random international lawyer.
And I see that you are indeed willing to carry water for Trump. What a surprise.
That would be a random international law professor. Are you saying that the military should be disobeying orders to use depleted uranium shells because an American law professor says it’s illegal?
I’m not carrying water for Trump, just noticing that something here is a candidate for “Stupid liberal idea of the day”. Fortunately, Michael Hayden is citing extreme examples Trump has mentioned which are no doubt illegal, such as killing family members of terrorists, which the military should disregard just as they disregarded Obama’s order to save the Benghazi consulate.
He is not saying that, he is saying that “Former CIA Director Michael Hayden blasted Donald Trump’s rhetoric in a recent interview, saying that the U.S. military would refuse orders from him, even as commander-in-chief, to kill the families of terrorists, as Trump has pledged to do.”
Could you read it again? That was the same issue of why it is illegal and it was the same reason I mentioned that Trump does want to do war crimes.
Um, what?
Just a reminder: in the vocabularies of decent people, “illegal” is exclusively an adjective.
That is all.
See post 2207.
Heard my first anti-Trump radio ad here in the Chicago area, put on by some super PAC or another. It was pretty terrible, really: poorly cut audio of Trump’s “I love the poorly educated!” soundbite repeating over and over, telling me that Trump thinks I’m dumb and a few bad Trump things like bankrupt casinos and trying to evict the widow to build a parking lot. I’m not voting for Trump regardless but it was a pretty lousy ad.
Jobs are the primary attractor. It makes sense to target that above all, if reducing illegal immigration is actually the objective. It would certainly be far more cost-effective than additional barriers and patrols on the border. (Indeed, with appropriately large fines against the illegal employers, it would even defray its own costs.)
NASCAR president Brian France endorsed Trump. So much for attempting to grow NASCAR’s demographic reach.
Yes. Harold Hongju Koh is another example of someone whose opinion mattered a lot when he was in government service, but now as a respected professor at a distinguished academic institution, his opinion is more or less one voice in a chorus of a thousand attorneys with two thousand opinions… even though I still respect his thinking quite a bit.
Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick revive The Producers for their newest production… Trumped!: Matthew Broderick And Nathan Lane Revive 'Producers' To Give Donald Trump His Final Bow | HuffPost Entertainment
I guess the issue here is that I forgot a question mark in my post.
Point that was being made was that no, these are not random lawyers, the other poster had a peculiar definition of what random is. But if that was the point I would say then that it may be easy to find some lawyers defending Trump, but that would be a minority and less distinguished bunch. Based on what the fact checkers found.
Anyone can pick specifics and then dismiss them.
Do you believe there are ANY circumstances in which a U.S. soldier should disobey the commander-in-chief?
And do you believe it’s more likely that Trump would issue such an order than other candidates? (I sure as hell do. Anybody who responds to a foreign president’s promise not to pay for a wall with “The wall just got ten feet higher!” as if it’s his personal plaything to use to spite people is dangerous).
Jobs are the primary attractor, but I also sense that liberals are more comfortable punishing business owners than immigrants. Which would be fine, if going after the business owners actually worked. It doesn’t, and when it comes close to working, Democrats lose heart for the enterprise. Which is why workplace raids were sharply curtailed under the Obama administration. They were working too well.
Absolutely soldiers should refuse to obey unlawful orders. Such as executing family members of terrorists, which I’m sure they would mutiny at such orders.
Soldiers should also refuse to deploy in violation of posse comitatus too. Another risk with Trump or any other President insufficiently committed to our laws.
I just get suspicious whenever anyone cites international law, a concept which has only symbolic value. Only US law matters to US soldiers in the real world, and international law as far as the US is concerned is only spelled out in ratified treaties such as the Geneva Conventions.
Okay.
This is incorrect. Treaties are binding on ratifying states, but when enough states sign on they become normative law and binding on everyone. The Montevideo Convention (to use one example) was ratified by only 16 states but is considered binding international law everywhere.
Read the Constitution. A soldier takes an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of this country. International laws are only the law of the land if ratified by the Senate in treaty form. Everything else is just tacit agreement and can be legally revoked at any time.