"Anyone who wants to start a business or trade goods has to show the local boss their obedience—and pay him a bribe." Basically, Trump wants to be the Ferengi Grand Nagus.
Well, the DOJ determined that drone strikes on suspected terrorist outside the country, and who don't appear to pose any immediate threat to the US, is OK. And that was in 2011 when Obama did it to American citizens.
This set the precident that declared terrorist can be hit outside the US. Why are you not trying to get this precident overturned? You should be pushing to get that precident overturned to start the process of ending the process if you are truly taking a principled stand.
By your reasoning you should be calling for Obama to be charged for murder.
Yes. Presidents may act based partially on precedents and rulings made prior to their administrations. Many of these rulings are made by legal opinion by either the President's personal lawyers, or in what may be more controversial matters, by the DOJ itself. Many of these matters may or may not be challenged in the courts.
In this case, if the precedent is that there is immunity for taking actions that are meant to result in the death of terrorists, then by rule of law these deaths are not, in fact, murder. Or, at least, it is not a crime.
There were cases before the 2011 DOJ opinion regarding Presidential immunity and actions taken that result in injury or death, but I believe that the 2011 ruling has set the precedent. Here is a summary of the 2 parts that I believe are most relevant to the discussion:
Imminent Threat
The administration contended that the individuals targeted posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and its citizens. In particular, al-Awlaki was cited as having inspired and incited acts of terrorism, making him a significant target.
Due Process Considerations
The DOJ stated that the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen could occur without a trial if it was deemed necessary to prevent an imminent threat. This was controversial because it raised questions about due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The discussion needs to be 1. How did this president declare that these cartels are terrorists, and was it legal? 2. Should the president be able to then use force against terrorist groups.
Going off to declare Trump a criminal murderer when the legal precedents say he is not is, in my opinion not correct thinking.
I'm not as informed as I should be about Gaza. What is a good end goal for that region?
I think ethnic cleansing is a bad end goal, just on the face of it. At the same time, do I recall correctly that 90% of the Palestinians "voted" for Hamas, a terrorist organization designed to destroy Israel? What do you do with a people that support Hamas by such a large margin?
But, then, I'm not sure how accurate 90% is. What does "voting" look like in Gaza? I have to imagine there are powerful pressure groups at play in the "voting" process. I don't know enough.
Second, assuming you're able to remove "just Hamas" root and stem from Gaza, as long as Gaza is considered its own political entity, can't it just "vote" again for a new Hamas under a different title?
It seems like at some point Israel has to actually take over Gaza under its own military, legal, and police infrastructure, making it a part of Israel. I know that's politically unpalatable, but realistically, that seems like the only end goal that can be achieved and that can last (if handled successfully--yet also as delicately as possible).
So, is the ultimate end goal to subsume "Palestinian territory" under Israel? And keep pressure on that area long enough for Israel to fight infection (terrorism) from within itself using its own legal infrastructure? A complete swap of political structure and rules? Like America brought to Japan after WWII.
But again, I don't know a lot of the complexities involved. I welcome thoughts and comments.
11 strikes in the Caribbean. Over 80 people killed. If they are drug boats, no evidence has been presented. If they are drug boats then our laws required interdiction not death from the sky.
Excellent post, Rob. Thanks again for what you do. I really appreciate "the big picture" from a mind I can trust.
"Anyone who wants to start a business or trade goods has to show the local boss their obedience—and pay him a bribe." Basically, Trump wants to be the Ferengi Grand Nagus.
When and where has this happened?
It's a whole category at Executive Watch, and I'm still loading up more items there.
https://www.theunpopulist.net/t/ew-personal-grift
And stop sealioning in my comments section.
Well, the DOJ determined that drone strikes on suspected terrorist outside the country, and who don't appear to pose any immediate threat to the US, is OK. And that was in 2011 when Obama did it to American citizens.
This set the precident that declared terrorist can be hit outside the US. Why are you not trying to get this precident overturned? You should be pushing to get that precident overturned to start the process of ending the process if you are truly taking a principled stand.
By your reasoning you should be calling for Obama to be charged for murder.
If you have any argument to make other than Tu Quoque, I would be interested to hear it.
Yes. Presidents may act based partially on precedents and rulings made prior to their administrations. Many of these rulings are made by legal opinion by either the President's personal lawyers, or in what may be more controversial matters, by the DOJ itself. Many of these matters may or may not be challenged in the courts.
In this case, if the precedent is that there is immunity for taking actions that are meant to result in the death of terrorists, then by rule of law these deaths are not, in fact, murder. Or, at least, it is not a crime.
There were cases before the 2011 DOJ opinion regarding Presidential immunity and actions taken that result in injury or death, but I believe that the 2011 ruling has set the precedent. Here is a summary of the 2 parts that I believe are most relevant to the discussion:
Imminent Threat
The administration contended that the individuals targeted posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and its citizens. In particular, al-Awlaki was cited as having inspired and incited acts of terrorism, making him a significant target.
Due Process Considerations
The DOJ stated that the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen could occur without a trial if it was deemed necessary to prevent an imminent threat. This was controversial because it raised questions about due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The discussion needs to be 1. How did this president declare that these cartels are terrorists, and was it legal? 2. Should the president be able to then use force against terrorist groups.
Going off to declare Trump a criminal murderer when the legal precedents say he is not is, in my opinion not correct thinking.
I'm not as informed as I should be about Gaza. What is a good end goal for that region?
I think ethnic cleansing is a bad end goal, just on the face of it. At the same time, do I recall correctly that 90% of the Palestinians "voted" for Hamas, a terrorist organization designed to destroy Israel? What do you do with a people that support Hamas by such a large margin?
But, then, I'm not sure how accurate 90% is. What does "voting" look like in Gaza? I have to imagine there are powerful pressure groups at play in the "voting" process. I don't know enough.
Second, assuming you're able to remove "just Hamas" root and stem from Gaza, as long as Gaza is considered its own political entity, can't it just "vote" again for a new Hamas under a different title?
It seems like at some point Israel has to actually take over Gaza under its own military, legal, and police infrastructure, making it a part of Israel. I know that's politically unpalatable, but realistically, that seems like the only end goal that can be achieved and that can last (if handled successfully--yet also as delicately as possible).
So, is the ultimate end goal to subsume "Palestinian territory" under Israel? And keep pressure on that area long enough for Israel to fight infection (terrorism) from within itself using its own legal infrastructure? A complete swap of political structure and rules? Like America brought to Japan after WWII.
But again, I don't know a lot of the complexities involved. I welcome thoughts and comments.
Of course, Trump cannot pardon himself for murder or any of the other crimes he is committing, but he will try.
What murder are you referring to?
11 strikes in the Caribbean. Over 80 people killed. If they are drug boats, no evidence has been presented. If they are drug boats then our laws required interdiction not death from the sky.