Posted on Mar 7, 2016
Last Night, Donald Trump Disqualified Himself
7.95K
37
37
4
4
0
Is Donald Trump saying that we would have to obey his orders even if they are unlawful?
Last Night, Donald Trump Disqualified Himself
Posted from huffingtonpost.com
Election 2016
Office of the President (POTUS)
Orders
Donald Trump
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 12
4
4
0
LT Michael Cavaggioni - Unfortunately, Mr. Trump's commentary reflects either a deep disregard for both the Constitution and the multiple Geneva Convention Treaties governing the Laws of Warfare. Should he be elected C-in-C, the burden of upholding these documents will fall squarely into the laps of field-level commanders. Fortunately, the latter group does understand their scope & content. To this, I would stand behind Mr. Trump... like, WAY behind him.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Thinking back Geo W Bush 43 ordered some enhanced interrogation techniques be used on terrorist-types to see what they knew. At the time the military didn't have any problem in carrying out those orders. It was only later there was a big uproar about the techniques being so immoral etc, but nothing was said about them being against any American law of any sort (ie unlawful). A lot was said later about international laws, etc. Come to find out that the WH lawyers and the DOJ had blessed off on the techniques and said they were ok/legal to use. Hence the orders were not illegal according to any American laws. DT has said he would not order anything illegal. That pretty well settles it. Anything else beyond that is groping to make a straw man.
(3)
(0)
CSM William Payne
I'm not sure that I ever heard of anyone in the military that was actually conducting these enhanced interrogations. Instead it was members of the spook community in general and the CIA in specific. Most of the pushback has been that if anyone was to be prosecuted for this that good CIA operatives would be outed and thrown under the bus for following orders. I'm not sure if the CIA is bound by the same standards of disobeying an unlawful order as the military. Remember Abu Ghraib? Those soldiers were prosecuted for torturing prisoners. And there argument that they did that with the tacit approvals of civilians in the prison thought to be CIA.
(2)
(0)
Capt Tom Brown
CSM William Payne - You're right on both counts. The MPs at AG had been ordered to 'set the conditions' for interrogation. This means 'soften them up' so they will be more susceptible to interrogation. Since there was no specific guidebook or manual on just how to soften people up the soldiers took it upon themselves. What the MPs did was not interrogation which was done by CIA & their contractors. There were 'strict guidelines' for CIA interrogation methods which were dreamed up by shrinks. Bush & lawyers were only CYA by blessing off on CIA interrogation methods (IMO), leaving the MPs/soldiers free to be thrown under the bus in grand style for their roles in softening up the terrorist types. Another shameful example of American gvt stabbing it's soldiers in the back instead of supporting them.
(1)
(0)
Capt Tom Brown
SSG (Join to see) - The famous PC 'rules of engagement' tied the hands of troops in RVN even then. In all out war the only way to win is to be harder on the enemy than they are on you. Just like WWII where allies fire-bombed civilian cities and dropped Atom bombs on them. The terrorist-types are not restrained by any moral standards such as promoted in this great country and have proven so many times already. Fighting them from any 'moral high ground' only ties the hands of troops on the ground and in the air.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google