A top military adviser to Donald Trump expressed qualified support for Trump’s proposal to kill terrorists’ families on Thursday, telling Al Jazeera that it would depend on the “circumstances of the situation.”
The statement from Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014, reignited a debate about whether the military in a Trump presidency could be counted on to refuse blatantly illegal orders.
CIA directors past and present have asserted that Trump’s proposal to bring back torture methods “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding” was meaningless, because CIA officers would refuse to carry out such orders.
Trump insisted during a Republican debate in March that “they won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.”
Flynn, who was appointed by President Obama, is one of the few credentialed military officials in Trump’s inner circle. But when Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan asked Flynn directly “Would you kill the family of a terror suspect, yes or no?” Flynn replied that he would have to “see what the circumstances of that situation was.” Watch an excerpt and the entire interview.
Hasan responded, astonished: “Are you kidding me? What circumstances would justify the killing of a family – a wife and a child?”
Flynn answered by weaving a hypothetical about a former ISIS commander using human shields: “The circumstances could be – it could be something like an Omar Al-Bagdadi, let’s say he’s still alive, and we find him in a place where its very difficult to get into, and he is actually using children to protect himself, what do we do? How do we actually go get him if killing him is better than capturing him?
Hasan pointed out that Flynn was describing “collateral damage,” not intentionally targeting children.
Flynn acknowledged that troops have a duty to disobey illegal orders, but refused to say whether he would, remarking only that “these are difficult political decisions…” and that “he would advise differently.”
During the interview, Flynn also defended his tweet that “fear of Muslims is rational:”
Flynn said “I’m not saying to be fearful of all Muslims,” telling Hasan, “otherwise you and I would be wrestling right now.”
Hasan cheekily responded “and you’d probably win, which is why I should be afraid of you.”
Top Photo: Al Jazeera’s Medhi Hasan interviews former DIA head, Gen. Michael Flynn.
It seems to be no problem when Israel kills families. They do this all the time in schools, hospitals and Mosques’ and when they are not killing the families of “Suspects” they are bulldozing their homes and leaving them homeless. Furthermore, American’s are paying for the construction of an “Israeli Wall” to keep Palestinians out. How is that any different then what Trump wants to do?……Oh yah, the Israeli’s get the Americans to pay for their wall. Where is the f%#@*(g outrage???
Funny how I don’t see Al Jazeera making the same connection when Hamas starts lobbing unguided rockets into civilian neighborhoods in Israel. You can’t have it both ways – if you target civilians and soft targets deliberately for the maximum political effect (which terrorism tactics are all about), then you can’t hide behind civilians when the bombs start falling.
If you put a rocket launcher next to a school or hospital it is a valid target. The choice of where to put it was yours. YOU are the ones that put the civilians at risk (in violation of international law, but they only seem to care about that when they can get press from it).
“Funny how I don’t see Al Jazeera making the same connection . . .”
And Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency*
from 2012 to 2014, isn’t “Al Jazeera,” now is he?
*United States Defense Intelligence Agency
So, using your logic, the American Police, ( or Military), should be bombing churches when a Bank Robbery Suspects runs in for asylum? Or, maybe a person being chased by the Police should crash his car into a pre-school building and run in to hide, take hostages and then the military is brought in to bomb the hell out of the building, knowing there are children and women inside?
Preposterous argument.
We have been doing exactly this since the 80s when we blew up
Col Ks daughter?When we executed Saddams sons and grandson?When we let them kill Col Ks son?Awlakis kid?The list is probably endless.
If an anti-imperialist said this, it would rightly be taken as a threat against the Obama family and the families of thousands of other United Snakes officials. As an anti-imperialist myself, I would not endorse such a threat.
Its one thing to know that the product you’re being sold has some serious faults, its something else to witness a potential person in charge advertise it as the badass hot trend for America.
Advertising exists to reach a larger audience and influence decisions. Who knows how advertising ruthlessness, rage and despair as the gift of America will affect life on the inside of this country or the opinions of our allies (business)
It could ultimately help bring what we’re doing to the Middle East out of the shadows so I suppose that could be a start to something possibly productive.
New to the Intercept… this post is pants.
For those of us whose vocabulary isn’t rooted in one or another version of the Urban Dictionary, would you condescend to explain what you mean?
This is a distortion of the truth, or lie. Terrorist hiding among family members on battle field become a target. They should not be hiding among their family, if they do they and their family can be a target. It is simple as that. No one wants innocent people hurt, or killed. We are at war; terrorist have no problem killing everyone. They need to be stop.
Yeah? According to what law or treaty?
And what international law or treaty allows for, or even contemplates that “the battlefield” is anywhere in the whole fucking world we decide it is, on any given day?
“No one wants innocent people hurt, or killed.”
1. That’s a lie.
2. Many who claim they don’t want innocents hurt or killed nevertheless are quick to make endless and lame excuses for killing them. Many just like you, Carl.
You write as if Terrorism was something new. Should one have bombed neighbourhoods in Belfast because IRA might be present? Would it have been kosher to bomb the block on which Yitzak Shamir or Menachem Begin lived, taking out their families?
The death toll to “terrorism” in the West is a tiny fraction of the children’s death toll in the East courtesy of Wars, initiated in the West (contrary to International Law), now known to be based on lies. Millions of lives destroyed.
Terrorism is warfare. Warfare is Terrorism.
Can you distinguish between the two?
Carl, what if it is your own government who harbors, funds, trains, and arms terrorists like what Obama is doing in Syria with Al Nusra? I know he and others call them free syrian army or whatever lame marketing term they use to describe what they really are: terrorists.
Well,as most of these alleged terrorists are residing in their own nation,in their own homes,its quite likely their families are with them.Very simple.
Syria is another story,as those mercenaries are mostly non Syrian AlCIAda,Al nUSrA,or IsUS people.
This is called kin liability. Was quite popular with the Nazis.
The IDF is fond of it, also.
Link?
Rights groups say IDF response to kidnapping is collective punishment
‘War crime’: Amnesty Intl says IDF destroyed Gaza blocks as ‘collective punishment’
Collective punishment or deterrent? IDF demolishes, seals off attackers’ homes in Jerusalem
Immoral, Ineffective: Destroying Terrorists’ Homes Is Nothing but Empty Revenge
So, an adviser to Trump supports the same thing as
what has been supported by the Clintons, the Bushes,
Obama, and the majority of the voters in the faking U$A.
How exceptional!
Correct.
I thought this story’s headline was as manipulative and misleading as it gets. It’s obvious to me that both the headline and most of the story were shaped to insinuate that the general was advocating the wanton killing of terrorist’s families, and the insinuation continues through most of the article. It wasn’t until the story was nearly through that the writer credits Hasan with revealing that the general was talking about “collateral damage.” This is a bush-league omission, and a cynical one at that.
I still would have read the article had it a different headline. The Intercept doesn’t have to bait me into reading any of its articles. It’s insulting – and misleading – when they do. In this instance, shame on the Intercept.
In point of fact, Flynn was talking about attacking locations where families and/or children are known to be present.
Is there a meaningful difference between that and the wanton killing of innocents?
I thought the tone of the headline was leading to something along the lines of people being overheard saying things like, “Hey, this it, this is our chance to slaughter civilians!”, or, “It just came down from the general: Kill ’em all!”
Your distinction doesn’t make a bit of difference:
“advocating the wanton killing of terrorist’s families”
vs.
“The circumstances could be – it could be something like an Omar Al-Bagdadi, let’s say he’s still alive, and we find him in a place where its very difficult to get into, and he is actually using children to protect himself, what do we do? How do we actually go get him if killing him is better than capturing him?”
No, those circumstances are so very unspecial. Three different judgment calls grant easy killing:
1) if it is difficult to get to (such as one of the countries we’ve invaded)
2) if he is using children to protect him (very handy phrase). You could live in a house with children, which in kill speak, means using children as a shield.
3) if killing him is better than capturing him — can’t even figure out when that is or who got to decide that either……..of all the bullshit metrics. Guy is so important he has to be stopped now, but not important enough to talk to.
Those parameters are so wide they could be — and have been — used to justify wanton killing.
“Your distinction doesn’t make a bit of difference . . .”
Correct. A “distinction without a difference.”
Collateral Damage is a modern euphemism for murdering targets families,its probably an Israeli invention,or their ZioMSM.
This is controversial,those facts?
Do you live under a mushroom?
Ah, yes, our beloved leader, Constitutional Scholar that he is, has apparently forgotten about the words of the Declaration of Independence that struck at the British royal prerogative to punish the families of its enemies, and about the words of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution that forbid Bills of Attainder (prosecution without trial). I suppose he had some hack in the Justice [sic] department write a memo saying it was OK to ignore the fundamental principles on which our Republic was built because we are at war [sort of] or because the people being murdered are not US citizens [some, anyway, though the Constitution does not distinguish]. In any event, what he and his minions are doing is perfectly legal, just as the Nürnberg laws were perfectly legal, just as slavery was legal in the US, and so on.
From the beginning it was apparent – to some of us at least – that Barack Obama is an amoral person. George W Bush is not amoral, it’s just that his particular set of moral principles is totally fucked. And the Clintons, well, my assessment is that they are cut from the same cloth as Obama.
“From the beginning it was apparent – to some of us at least – that Barack Obama is an amoral person.”
Yes, and millions of stubborn Obamabots still hate us for pointing it out.
Obomba,a political gumby,ready to make all psychopaths happy.
Gotta be the most teflon POTUS in history,with a track record of shite,war and economic disaster,totally unreported by the MSM.
His one positive,the Iran agreement,he undermines by hostility for a nation totally demonized by Zion,who haven’t attacked others in centuries.
Absurdity.
And we continue to grow terrorist that want to attack us. Gee I don’t understand why that sand ni**er what to kill me. Could it be that the US dropped a Hellfire missile in his front door mistaking him for someone else and killing his wife and child?
And for you assholes that want to rip me here is this.
How would you feel if lets say Russia was an occupying force in our country and during this occupation they killed your wife and child. Are you going to sit there and let them get away with this? If you had any balls you wouldn’t, you would see how many of them you could kill to avenge your wife and child.
So let keep killing innocent women and children and see how long this war on terror goes on.
But Sman88, didn’t you get the word? Amerikuns subscribe to exceptionalism, which means that we can do whatever we want and the golden rule is out the window. That’s why we have to keep a military strong enough to defeat the entire rest of the world, because at the rate we are going we are going to succeed in uniting the rest of the world against us. The only surprise for most is that when that happens, no amount of military force will save us. cf., Roman Empire, Napoleonic France, British Empire, Third Reich, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
What goes up, must come down.
If we didn’t have the strongest military in the world. Some other country would be occupying the US.
“You can’t handle the truth!!”
A boorish comment, at best, thoughtless and untrue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
Why and how could an enemy occupy the USA?Maybe China,if they denuded half their population to cover the whole shebang.And why?What the f*ck do we have that they would want?Collapsed infrastructure?No manufacturing?Empty malls,wiped out Mainstreet?A population of a bunch of whiny yuppie scum to mollify?sheesh.
The Israelis already occupy US,too late.
We don’t even have enough people to occupy this country, in the sense of a military occupation. As noted, China could, if they could get them here, which they can’t logistically. The US is usually pretty careful about which small country we “throw up against the wall every ten years”. With Iraq, the Bush Administration very much miscalculated.
The present eurocentric attitude displayed by not only the US, but NATO countries, demands that the next criminal proceeding for crimes against humanity must take place in another part of the world. The moral depravity of NATO is painfully on display.
This terrifies me.
“Flynn, who was appointed by President Obama”
and yet more proof that trump at his rhetorical worst is roughly the same as obama at his facual best. this same type of casually racist talk has also been heard in the knesset several times. that has yet to enrage any democrats as far as i can tell.
and technically, trump could fire and replace any appointed official once he’s president. he might face the usual fake and/or sanctimonious outrage from congress but that never really goes anywhere (see also: obama’s banal, mainstream supreme court suggestions).
All in all, this is another example of just how tweaked American foreign policy has become – and the foreign policy issue has largely been locked out of the campaign debate.
Fact: current U.S. policy is to kill the families of people on the ‘kill list’ if they happen to be anywhere near the targeted individual when the missiles are fired.
If the Al Jazeera interviewer is ‘astonished’ when he asks “Are you kidding me? What circumstances would justify the killing of a family – a wife and a child?” – well, what does he think goes on in a war? How many wives and children have been killed by air bombardment in the Middle East and Central Asia since 2003? A great many, all justified by ‘the war on terror’ (for oil). Note also that the alternative plan for killing bin Laden if the raid failed was to bomb his compound, killing all the women and children at the same time. Astonishing! Or not.
Obama uses the drone program because it avoids the messiness of Guantanamo, where many innocent people have been locked up on false charges, much to the embarrassment of the U.S. It’s less problematic to just kill people without having to worry about courts and lawsuits and so on. You want cynical hypocrisy for domestic political purposes, there it is. Obama gets to claim he’s ‘fighting terror'; the neoliberals and neocons are pleased; he gets his headlines; end of story.
Clinton supports this program, although the corporate media never ask her about it. She goes on and on about gun violence – playing to the base – but has been a cheerleader for the drone program in the past. Even Bernie Sanders said (in 2015) that he would continue with drone strikes, but ‘very selectively’. This is pure idiocy; all the drone strikes do is help recruit new terrorists for the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.
I really think that the liberals who voted for Obama just don’t want to admit how war-crazy he’s become over the years; it’s the exact opposite of what he claimed he’d do in the election, isn’t it? And you have Trump, Clinton and Sanders all on the same page on the drone strike program.
One of the very few people talking about how things really stand is John Pilger: the following article and others on his web site are must-reads:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/a-world-war-has-begun-break-the-silence-
people abide and succeed by the mandates of their operating environment. The overriding or directive producing protocol in the US is the currency system. It demands growth that does not exist. So it demands expansion. It will cause conficts then decisions for war to rekindle the loan game.
If we outlaw the current currency system and replace it with a new model – all that other stuff loses power, dries up, blows away. Guaranteed.
You know, when I was a kid the Berlin Wall came down, and it was one of the great moments – ‘hurray,’ we thought, ‘now we aren’t all going to get torched with nuclear weapons.’
Now the f***ing bastards are trying to restart the whole program, whip up the Cold War again to boost military spending and keep their fat cat contracts rolling in, while bringing the world back to brink of nuclear war – they need to be shut down. The world can’t afford it, no matter what kind of currency is being used.
True! And when they draw a blank it’s filled with, at best, an endless currency of BS. Either way the worlds populace is screwed
Obama didn’t become war crazy! He lied before he was elected just like all the puppets. He’s not the commander in chief! He’s a paid actor. He’ll be paid after he’s president just like the clintons. Sanders is also an actor. There is always a fringe senator or two out there in the pocket of the real rulers just in case there needs to be the appearance of a challenge to the status quo or give the appearance of another option. Bernies revolution is a repeat of Obamas ‘Hope’ routine. Eight years from now it will be a repeat. Michelle Obama 2024 first lgbt black president perhaps? Nothing the Americans fall for surprises me!
Hollywood made the mafia look much better than the thieving, extortionists and murders they actually where. Movies like the “God Father” actually glorified them rather than do what would have been the moral thing to do, which would have been to show them for the monsters and brutes they really were.
Even the mafia monsters did not kill innocent family members, but our political leaders feel free to do so, and then talk about the need to bring American values to the rest of the world.
Totally agree! Using pretty boy actors to play ugly thugs has been going on in Hollywood for far too long. Ray Liotta playing the pock-marked, chinless punk Henry Hill in “Goodfellas”? Please!
and just for fun, ask a military person if they look forward to a – any – fair fight…
Wasn’t the theme, after every World War so far, to date “Never Again” ? Apparently, it’s open season on everyone, everywhere – including you, even as a perfectly decent, kind, innocent, HUMAN being. And, also apparently, it’s not up to the fates, or God, or karma just when you and your family may be Kill Listed… just… ’cause… someone else can… decide who’s havin’ a blast in yer neighborhood…
Let’s be clear, folks. We are totally fucked when one of these unqualified, undeserving individuals is inevitably elected. I have voted in every election since LBJ, but will sit this one out.
The choice of abstaining is a choice in itself. Chances are if you don’t vote you are casting a vote by apathy- more likely for the least favorite of your choices.
Eric: Please tell me which candidate I would supporting in this case. As much as I detest HRC, I see no improvement in Trump. I see lots of commenters on this site indicating they plan to vote for Trump. IMO he is just as dangerous as Clinton. BTW i will be voting, just not for a presidential candidate. I will be definitely voting for Tammy Duckworth, as she is getting the Max Cleland treatment here in Illinois.
Australia has compulsory elections, nationally at least. Recently they elected the hard-right scumbag Tony Abbott as Prime Minister. So, to me, a large turnout guarantees absolutely nothing.
Eurocentric nations like the USA and Britain love their fascism. HUAC and the McCarthy witch hunts were simply fascists chasing communists.
i mean, ah what the Hell.
America has crossed the line so often and so far, what makes anyone think that American ingenuity isn’t ready to cross the next line?
Leading by example was never one of America’s hallmarks.
And this is new? The Obama administration has been doing this for years. In fact Obama has been killing people, some of them US citizens, without their having been suspected of terrorism and of course without their legally guaranteed due process rights as if he were judge, jury and executioner (I guess he is). It is odiously disingenuous to feign outrage when Trump or those associated with him say astonishingly stupid things while giving a pass to the Obamas and Clintons of the world. The last time I checked Trump does not have the blood of a single soul on his hands (yet) while Obama and Clinton are responsible for the deaths of literally thousands. What a dangerously misguided public we have.
This shows why I think that narcissistic nutjob is so dangerous. I certainly am outraged at most of the things he and his hencpeople say. That doesn’t mean I give a free pass to anyone else. I have been fairly outspoken about opposing drone strikes, period.
I still can’t believe ANYONE would support this nutjob and the hateful, divisive policies that are driving his campaign. It concerns me very much that there are so many who ARE misguided enough to support him.
There is nothing wrong with killing the families of terrorists. Their wives are as guilty as they are, and their children are bad seeds.
Israel makes that claim. America is following israel, to the gallows.
The pharmaceutical company that comes up with the drug that cures this type of thinking: “Their wives are as guilty as they are, and their children are bad seeds” will achieve what is most sought after in all of the world’s divine books and each soul’s private aspired level of sanctity.
Ummmmm – are you really a member of something called the HUMAN RACE?
I am afraid he/she is , the outlook for the human species , negative
So…apply that reasoning to Americans.
Well, maybe they can start with you. After all they make up their deck of cards without any proof. Be careful of what you wish for, it may find its way back.
the same mentality that believes it constitutes a clever internet comment to announce:
“Why Is Anyone Surprised By This?”
about, like, EVERY story, ever,
believes that official statements of policy and law, at least as applied to power do NOT matter, on the alleged grounds that because “they” (you know, “them”) will “really” do what they want anyway.
well, maybe they do, but it makes zero sense to be smug about it
& it’s worse to cheerlead the rhetorical normalization of semi-indiscriminate killing on some kind of “since we knew they were doing this anyway, it’s better if at least they are honest about it” grounds. And yet a half dozen commenters here have done that already, and we’re only about 25 comments in now.
Come on. Do you not believe that rhetorically normalizing these actions encourages ever more of them, and makes them easier to do? I agree with coram that complications based on law arise no matter what. I see no advantage to simply shrugging and saying “it’s happening anyway so it doesn’t matter what they say about it.” This general is trying to normalize these actions. Do you think he maybe has an agenda in wanting to do that?
What kind of response would not caring about words used make to combating police brutality, for example? The argument could go: “Ah, there’s no reason to try to combat police union rhetoric, because cops will do what they want anyway…..” Does anybody support that approach here? How about around any other attempts to reign in authoritarian overreach? Why bother, you might well conclude.
Your cynicism is corrosive. And reactionary, in every effect. You’ve given up far too much when you don’t take words as well as actions seriously.
Prosecute American war crimes! Down with fascism! Just because it’s “normal” doesn’t mean they won’t rot in a prison cell next to their Palestinian counterparts.
What do you think Hillary Clinton would say about killing the families of members of Obama’s ‘kill list’, then?
Do you yourself support the drone strikes? You must be aware that they are carried out even if family members of the target or innocent bystanders are present, correct?
This ‘rhetorical’ stance of yours justifies every kind of hypocrisy. For example, take Bush waging a war of aggression for economic purposes in Iraq, while claiming it was ‘preemptive defense’ based on Saddam the madman having a nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program. Notice how that’s the same ‘self-defense’ argument Hitler used to invade Poland?
Being honest about it means that it’s much harder to get away with it. In contrast, two-faced lying hypocrisy – which you seem to be supporting here – facilitates such actions.
Can you remember what you read for, like, 20 seconds at a time? Or do you just not bother. Please never ever paraphrase anything I have ever said again, you have demonstrated the most unbelievable level of incompetence.
You said: “Do you not believe that rhetorically normalizing these actions encourages ever more of them, and makes them easier to do?”
Calm down and think about it. It actually makes it much harder to do.
Obama kills the families of terrorists and gets away with it; he doesn’t face much opposition because he claims (dishonestly) that only ‘a few’ civilians are killed. Leaks by whistleblowers have exposed his lies on this issue.
Trump mentions that he has no problem killing the families of terrorists, and faces immediate opposition. Maybe that kind of public opposition will force cancellation of the drone program, and instead, real terrorists will be treated like the common criminals they are – tracked down, captured, put on trial and incarcerated.
Seriously, you are engaging in sloppy misguided thinking on this one.
Lo and behold, you arrive at the exact position I have been saying from post one: “…and faces immediate opposition. Maybe that kind of public opposition will force cancellation of the drone programand faces immediate opposition.”
This is the very same resistance to rhetorical normalization I spoke of. The Al Jazeera reporter engaged in it. I’m engaging in it. Meanwhile, the general there is trying to rhetorically normalize it. And I’m resisting it. Because the practice is bad. And now you are saying this resistance is a good thing. That’s terrific.
YES. I have posted several times advocated for that very opposition you speak of. And somehow, you managed to miss that basic point in my argument every single time, and now write me suggesting the exact same point as a positive thing.
my typo in the quoted section 1st paragraph above to correct, should read:
“…..and faces immediate opposition. Maybe that kind of public opposition will force cancellation of the drone program,”
No, the general is NOT engaging in rhetorical normalization – he’s just honestly describing the actual policy as it exists today.
Please, allow me to show you what ‘rhetorical normalization’ actually looks like, courtesy of Hillary Clinton comments on drone strikes:
“In doing so, we will comply with the applicable law, including the laws of war, and go to extraordinary lengths to ensure precision and avoid the loss of innocent life.”
“The numbers about potential civilian casualties I take with a somewhat big grain of salt because there has been other studies which have proven there not to have been the number of civilian casualties.”
“But of course anyone who is an innocent bystander, especially a child, who’s caught up in any operation against terrorists, that is a cause of great concern and it is a cause of real disappointment and regret on our part.”
Now, that’s some choice two-faced hypocritical BS that she’s spewing, and that’s what rhetorical normalization actually looks like. She’s said all the correct things, her liberal followers believe her, they don’t protest, and she goes on to slaughter many more ‘wives and children’ than she could have if she’d honestly admitted she could care less if some terrorist’s brat gets slaughtered (which is how the neocons and neolibs talk in private, you know).
http://dronecenter.bard.edu/presidential-candidates-on-drones/
That’s why the neocons & neolibs hate Trump so much – he just blurts it out in public, he’s like a bull in their carefully constructed china shop charade of ‘good intentions’ and ‘minimal damage’ that Hillary’s brainwashed ‘liberal’ supporters eagerly lap up. His approach is to rip farts in the halls of power (also seen with his attack on Bush’s Iraq war), which plays well to his base, while infuriating the elites.
But all in all, Hillary seems far more likely to expand military interventionism than Trump is – and her neocon allies agree.
She’s not rhetorically normalizing droning, she’s just lying about what it is. She’s hateful. You likely overestimate the sensitivity of her followers; they would probably be thrilled to hear her go bloodthirsty in her rhetoric. (She already did, man. Remember what she said about Qaddafi’s death?) I imagine her more horrible followers would find a way to celebrate it, after somebody like Amanda Marcotte or Jessica Valenti wrote a column about how it’s empowering to have a woman openly endorsing bloodshed.
I resist all of them with their indifference to foreign lives (to name just one issue to resist them about). The general is hateful. Trump is hateful. Hillary is hateful. Obama is hateful. I see no reason to prefer one of them. They have different ways of advocating for bad things.
Oh, bullshit. Trump is a carnival barker – his job is to get ’em through the door. He doesn’t run the rides, and can’t order around the ones that do. He’s an actor like Reagan, a seat filler like George W. He’s already met with Kissinger, presumably just to kiss the ring since nothing he actually says means anything. He’ll manage more violence than even Hillary. I wouldn’t be surprised if people see their daughters hauled off to the draft before it’s done. We can only hope that the draftees realize more quickly than in Vietnam that if they must kill to defend themselves, then surely those who pose the threat to them are those who forced them into the army. Let them practice the ethics of their profession!
It’s something of an open question as to who would push for more foreign military interventions, Clinton or Trump, but I think Clinton wins first place based on her past actions; Trump is more of an unknown. Here’s a good read on the issue by John Pilger:
http://johnpilger.com/articles/trump-and-clinton-censoring-the-unpalatable
“A virulent if familiar censorship is about to descend on the US election campaign. As the cartoon brute, Donald Trump, seems almost certain to win the Republican Party’s nomination, Hillary Clinton is being ordained both as the “women’s candidate” and the champion of American liberalism in its heroic struggle with the Evil One.”
“This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.”
Soldiers who call their lawyer for a legal opinion every time they receive an order, are generally weeded out of the system fairly quickly.
The US military thoughtfully provides a staff judge-advocate section to each general staff, and, while not available to the average soldier, might advise the commanding general whether something is a good idea, say, if certain language comes up in an operations order. So, it’s not like they can claim ignorantia juris.
There’s a catch. Catch-22. To find out if the order was illegal, the soldier has to be court-martialed.
Ah, but the general giving the order had but to consult his/her SJA, who in any event would be copied on any operations orders or doctrinal material. They ought to, since under the Yamashita doctrine they’re strictly liable for war crimes even if they didn’t order it in so many words. Pvt. Jones might not know this stuff but Maj. Gen. Miles Gloriosus had better.
…..thank you for your insightful, knowledgeable response…..
Which is why Pvt Jones is sitting in a jail cell for the next 30 years, and Maj. Gen. Gloriosus, who relayed President Trump’s order is lying on the beach and eating caviar, surrounded by a bevy of beautiful biographers.
It can happen, just as Lt. “Breaker” Morant got punished for the atrocity and not Lord Kitchener. That kind of injustice can happen now.
But it depends on the beach, Duce, and in what jurisdiction those white sands lie. The Croatian Gen. Ante Gotovina made the mistake of going on a beach vacation to the Canary Islands; the Spanish police found an arrest warrant with his name on it and flew him, all expenses paid, to The Hague and an ICC trial.
QED.
sure. Then it’s up to the soldier to decide if he wants to follow the order or not.
Breaker Morant
This is part of the contingency plan if Trump is elected.
1. He will be allowed to surround himself with idiots
2. Articles of Impeachment are already drafted (just fill in the blank for the first convenient stupid/illegal thing he does)
3. He get’s impeached in the first 100 days…
Meanwhile his #2 (who may be just as unqualified) also does something stupid.. (GOTO STEP 1)
Which leads back to the Speaker of the House becoming the next president.
It’s too early to pass judgment on the Brazil template, but I see it as a bit risky. The whole purpose of a representative democracy is to fool people into believing they control the system, thus motivating them to work harder. Believe it or not, this is important. The Soviet system collapsed simply because people stopped believing in it. This is known as the Tinkerbell Effect.
VERY interesting ideas, kj.
If this should happen (and I am praying VERY hard it doesn’t!) —– maybe those who find him odious can secede from the U. S.?
Of course, a deliberate order of this sort would expose the person giving the order, and the ones carrying it out, to prosecution for war crimes or crimes against humanity. Here’s the latest wording, in the Statute of Rome. (see esp. parts 2 and 3)
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/romefra.htm
While they might not get prosecuted right away, it’s still out there. The big difference is that carelessness with peoples’ lives on the battlefield is itself borderline — see the wording — the deliberate, particularlized intent makes the prosecution easier. Mens rea and all that. If Trump is elected, they can look back and say the chain of guilt starts about now.
According to Wikipedia:
How then do you envision an American politician or General being successfully prosecuted and sentenced?
If the person winds up under the jurisdiction of a court that can prosecute, or a country that can enforce an arrest warrant, then it’s whoever has gotten hold of them. A person like Pinochet, or that Croatian general, who turn up in another country that is a party, then that’s what matters. International law does not confer immunity simply because a nation denies it, any more than it confers immunity on grounds of state sovereignty or following orders.
Simply put: a war crime is a war crime; the only question is when and how the suspect is arrested. The Statute of Rome states that the court has jurisdiction over the crimes. Further, much of the customary law on this originated with the Nuremberg and Geneva treaties, to which the U.S. is still a party, so is hardly in a position to object.
But such war crimes are of a minor nature. After all, starting and fighting a war of choice is about the worst, and we all know hard hard it was to get Bush, Cheney, and a whole bunch of others convicted. Oh, wait…
“…war crimes…”
——–
The term, War Crime, is redundant.
Modern warfare IS a crime in itself!
It ALWAYS kills the innocents!
That we humans can’t settle things without violence is a clear indication that we have not evolved inwardly.
We continue to develop technologically (outwardly), but what about progress in inner technologies?
I’m talking about the exact legal definition of war crimes, which, along with crimes against peace and humanity, and genocide, carry specific definitions and for which a person convicted might face the maximum penalty, that is to say, life imprisonment under the Statue, or, traditionally, death by hanging. It’s not just a turn of rhetorical phrase.
as i recall, this actually happened.
It’s pretty clear that US forces of one sort or another have been routinely engaged in the killing of family members and other innocents for a very long time — and quite routinely.
The discussion here seems to revolve around effectively meaningless distinctions: do we openly decide to and admit to killing them deliberately or do we continue to (1) attack knowing we will almost certainly kill them, (2) at first, deny they were killed, (3) when incontrovertible evidence of the killing emerges (e.g., full-color glossy photos of baby body parts), reluctantly admit the killings, but insist that they were the result of tragic error or blame the “terrorists” for using those innocents as human shields?
Distinctions without differences.
In any event, most Americans really don’t mind torture or extrajudicial killings of “enemies” or their families, just as they are perfectly comfortable with torturous and inhuman treatment of prisoners at home, summary executions of suspects by police, consignment of poor children to lives of hopelessness and despair, etc. We are, largely, a nasty and vicious culture.
But as long as there is at least one culture out there that is worse than we are, we are good; we are great; we are exceptional!
You mean, Exceptional.
And don’t forget Indispensable.
And if there’s any danger of running our of worse cultures, we are more than adequately equipped to create some.
Well shoot, why don’t we just bulldoze their houses too?
Drop a warhead on the house and the bulldozing is moot. I assume that’s what the general had in mind. Not every US special-operations soldier would shoot toddlers at close range if ordered, or at least we might assume that.
This is merely an honest statement about how Obama’s not-so-secret drone war has operated in practice, isn’t it?
The case of Anwar Al-Awlaki is a good example. If you look at the legal memo justifying his assassination, produced by the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (the same outfit that produced the Bush torture memos), you see nothing about ‘collateral damage’ – instead, the plan was for a drone strike that killed the target and anyone within a close radius. Family members, innocent bystanders, who cares? Indeed, Al-Awlaki’s son was killed by another drone strike a few weeks later.
I would suggest reading this article about family members killed by Obama drone strikes – not even the family members of targets on the ‘kill list’ – and then ask yourself if the comments of Trump’s advisor were anything other than an honest assessment of current U.S. policy?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/opinions/drone-victims-relatives-sue-us-opinion/
I’m sure if you listed all the family members of ‘specific targets’ who were killed by drone strikes under Obama, you’d have a very long list. The justification is the same – they were ‘human shields’ or just ‘collateral damage’ and if the target was killed, they probably end up classified as ‘enemy combatants.’
Do you think Hillary Clinton would respond differently? She’d surely continue the drone strike program, killing ‘families of terrorists’ and justifying it as unfortunate but ‘overall, worth it to take out these dangerous targets’, wouldn’t she?
In reality, the only justifiable method of dealing with terrorists is via criminal prosection in a court of law, and every effort should be made to capture them alive so they can stand trial – some ‘kill list’ based on executive privilige is a travesty of justice and a great stain on America’s image, one that Obama has created because he didn’t want to deal with Guantanamo, where it turns out many of the prisoners are entirely innocent of any terrorist activity – instead, he just conveniently kills them, and declares them guilty without trial. That’s the real travesty here.
No it is not merely “an honest statement”, jeeeezus christ get it together people.
Every attempt to justify this stuff verbally as a hypothetical is an attempt to make it easier to kill FOR REAL without ANY hassle of having to justify that later. Take it seriously.
Ah, so it’s better to launch drone strikes against people on some executive ‘kill list’ (with no judicial role or due process) and then claim that any family members killed were “a tragic accident that we’re so so sorry for, really, honest, but we had no choice, it was just one of those things, we had to act on the information to save the children from a possible terrorist attack?”
What if it was your family members killed in one of these drone strikes? What if the ISIS terrorists in Brussels had been targeted with drone strikes instead of police raids, bringing down the buildings they were in, killing their relatives or other bystanders? Right in the middle of Europe? Even better, why not do this with murder suspects in the United States? It would save all the trouble of a trial and the costs of prison; a Hellfire missile only costs $70,000, far cheaper then the cost of incarcerating someone in prison for many decades. Great idea, huh?
Your argument for hypocrisy and two-faced BS is duly noted, but it’s a crap argument that doesn’t stand the test of reason.
Fuck you. I didn’t advocate a single thing you said I advocated. Fuck you for posting here when you can’t be bothered to read carefully. Fuck you for ascribing attitudes to me which I do not hold and have not expressed and do not support.
I shouldn’t have to point out that I do not support:
droning
kill lists
bombing
any American military action after WWII
quite a few American military actions during WWII
okay, you self-righteous slanderer?
You are saying that it’s better for Obama to kill the families of people on his executive ‘kill list’ without being open about it, right? I.e. if he honestly said that he didn’t care if the families of terrorists were killed (which he doesn’t, surely you can agree to that), do you think he’d have as much public support for his drone war?
Your argument is dangerous nonsense of the worst kind. The worst killers and murderers always try to hide behind a ‘positive public image.’ They get away with their actions precisely because they lie about what they’re really doing – until some whistleblower like Manning or Snowden exposes what they’re really up to behind their facade.
Jesus are you stupid. Don’t even talk to me again until you apologize for your unbelievably stupid assumptions about my extremely straightforward argument.
I cannot believe how dense you are. You begin, again, like an idiot determined to drive straight into a tree:
“You are saying that it’s better…” NO NO NO NO NO you fucking moron, I am not say anything was better: I didn’t say anything that implied support for Obama killing families of people, no matter what he says about it. Ever. I quite specifically said the opposite.
I give up. You are beyond help, no lessons in reading comprehension will suffice. Stop telling me what I said, you continue to prove to be far too stupid to even correctly paraphrase my position.
Your wrong, it’s as simple as that. Here’s what you said:
“Every attempt to justify this stuff verbally as a hypothetical is an attempt to make it easier to kill FOR REAL. . .”
That’s not true. Here’s another example: the slaughter of villagers in Vietnam. If the U.S. had said, we’re going to kill innocent villagers because they might harbor Viet Cong, that would provoke a huge blowback – even though that’s what they were doing. Instead, they said they were protecting the poor villagers from the Vietcong – until My Lai was exposed. “We had to destroy the village in order to save it”, right?
You can understand the argument, I’m sure – and your faux outrage is just nonsense. Stop ducking the question. Explain why the above isn’t true, if you can.
People try to justify hypothetical actions in order to make it easier to do them. The general is trying to justify the hypothetical “circumstances” as he says in order to influence public opinion to support these murders.
It would be absurd to suggest that all the people who kept bringing up the ticking time bomb scenario were trying to make people disapprove of torture. It would be absurd to suggest that all the other attempts to make torture acceptable were actually attempts to make it unacceptable. And of course public support for torture rose. As one would expect, thanks to these programs of rhetorical normalization.
The one thing I would agree with you on is that MAYBE such approaches would backfire. But they only backfire with resistance to them, not because we say “oh it’s good that you are honest about it.” And quite a few people have enthusiastically backed the killing of terrorist families — there’s no guarantee of a backlash just happening. I’m pretty amazed at what has come to be publicly acceptable over the decades.
I think history shows that the most evil actions governments have taken have always been concealed under a shroud of ‘good intentions’. This is also true for the worst criminals in society – they never are honest about what they’re up to. Another example is the child-molesting priest phenomenon – they got away with it for decades, with hundreds of victims, under the cover of being moral religious leaders, that parents could trust with their children.
I would guess that this general has some doubts about the drone strike program himself, and he probably knows (since he was head of the military’s DIA) that it does more to recruit new terrorists than to stop terrorism – he might even want a debate on the issue, or see the drone program replaced entirely. That might have been why he is no longer DIA chief, you know? Too straightforward.
That’s sweet about your guesses about the general. Apparently tweeting that it’s rational to fear Muslims is just his way of riding on the peace train.
As if U.S. is not already doing it !!! Give me a break!
Hillary Clinton adores Netanyahu, whose cabinet members endorse ethnic cleansing and brutality.
Killing innocents that are associated with targets of drone strikes? IT HAPPENS ALREADY. Why is there outrage over a “proposed” tactic when it HAPPENS RIGHT NOW. Shouldn’t we be trying to stop it from happening right now, or does it not matter? The spectacle has consumed all political discussion, now it’s just virtue signaling.
Also no one has been prosecuted yet from previous torture done under US federal orders. But who cares about that, fuck this Trump guy.
Bush Administration Convicted of War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity….step one, extradition (illegal rendition) step two
This election is bizarre….the lessor of the two evil becoming the lessor intelligence, of all those involved
Yes we should stop it from happening now.
And YES, contrary to what you wrote, it matters very very much that we speak out against all arguments that claim it is okay, especially those made by appointed and anointed experts who talk to the media in an attempt to influence public opinion. Please don’t underestimate the importance of this kind of thing. Rhetoric matters.
And note that the second one is something any person can do, not just a person with some kind of direct power over the military.
Exactly what I was thinking as soon as I read this; I was wondering why there was no mention of the fact that slaughtering family members of people on the ‘kill list’ is basically business-as-usual under the Obama regime.
Consider what Glen Greenwald said about Trump’s call for more torture in this interview with Amy Goodman; it certainly applies equally to the Obama drone assassination program and Trump’s statements on ‘killing family members':
“GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah, first of all, I do get a little bit disturbed by this widespread notion on the part of a lot of well-intentioned people that Donald Trump is somehow so far outside of what we regard as what had been previously acceptable within American political discourse. . . .”
“. . . as far as Donald Trump is concerned, you know, when he comes out and says, “I want to do waterboarding and worse,” and we all act so shocked, I mean, as you just said, you know, he almost deserves credit for what he’s saying, in the sense that he’s being more honest. The United States for 10 years did engage in torture. We did use not only waterboarding, but techniques far worse. And the reason why that’s still part of the debate is because the current administration, under President Obama, made the choice not to prosecute any of the people who implemented those techniques and who used to them, despite the fact that we’re parties to treaties requiring their criminal prosecution. And when he did that, he turned torture into nothing more than just a standard partisan political debate. And that’s why people like Donald Trump are able to stand up without much repercussion and advocate that we use those techniques. But we shouldn’t act all that shocked. The U.S. government did exactly what Donald Trump is advocating as recently as seven or eight years ago.”
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/24/glenn_greenwald_cruz_trump_clinton_playing
Agreed. It was really weird to see “liberals” on message boards outraged over Ted Cruz when he said he’d police Muslims in the US and infiltrate their groups etc. Obama is already doing that! Or Trump threatening mass deportations. Obama is already doing that and has deported more people than Bush.
The only good thing from a Trump presidency is that these “liberals” (both citizens and Democratic Congresspeople) will once again fake outrage as they did under Bush and maybe push back a little bit. If Clinton is elected, more years of ignoring abuses. Both suck and I for one won’t vote for either, but it’s hard to say which would be worse in practice considering this.
I just read what the US did in the Philippines after Spanish American war http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/war.crimes/US/U.S.Philippines.htm
Any human not white and/or Christian has reason and an obligation to be wary of the US Political war machine.