Posted on 03/04/2016 10:51:27 AM PST by GIdget2004
Leading GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday he wouldn't order the U.S. military to break international laws, addressing criticism from military and legal experts that his policies regarding torture and killing the family members of terrorists would violate the Geneva Convention.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
While some see flip-flopping others see http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140272615821/strategic-ambiguity-master-persuasion-series
I don’t know if you’re being serious or just willfully ignorant because you support another candidate but this is obviously a case of the media trying to make someone look foolish. Waterboarding is not torture so when Trump says he wouldn’t instruct people to break international law of COURSE he’s going to say that. It’s not a referral because his policy has never been to break international law. The media lies, what else is new
Continual lies about Donald Trump do not necessarily a flip flopper make out of Donald Trump.
Nice try, though.
Well, that isn’t good. I didn’t know he said that. Kind of reckless IMO. Maybe under certain circumstances terrorist families should be detained. But “taking them out” is a reckless statement.
Started in December. Repeated it last night.
Who gives a crap about a silly civil lawsuit.
Holy mackerel. I missed that reference, until now.
Up to this point, I'd thought Trump was just vulgar, shallow, arrogant, and blowhard-ish; but this certifies him as a full-blooded lunatic.
...and loads of people are still voting for him, and cheerleading. Wow. Just... sad. America is morally burning to the ground, before our eyes.
We should know by now he’s going to push the edges.
In a lot of cases of Islamoterrorism the families were in fact in on it. We might allow Donald the implied parenthetical qualifier “(if due battlefield surveillance finds them to be involved in active warfare).” Before getting our hair totally on napalm fire.
Have we suddenly turned into screaming gutless liberals? I thought Donald was too un-conservative, can we make up our minds?
We Trump people are smart enough to know that Trump would gather the military leaders and discuss what he expects. Lord he has been a leader for decades. He knows how this works. Lord you Cruz guys are so gullible.
Seems like some in FR are using the RAT ‘no torture’ playbook when it suits their interests.
I think it’s best just to kill the terrorists because water boarding would be too harsh.
No I didn’t hear him say “take out the families” last night but apparently said it before which I consider to be a reckless statement. We don’t intentionally kill innocent people but we should accept collateral death in wartime although we should always try to minimize that.
“Take out” doesn’t necessarily mean summarily bomb them, in fact no common sense person would take it that way. If these are civilians, investigate and follow up via appropriate enforcement channels. If they are found on battlefield, address them as such. Known dedicated public enemies on a nomadic warpath can be sniped/hellfired/etc. Israel does it already.
If you really believe that you should lead an effort to try both President Obama and President Bush, as well as whoever did the target planning for many of the missile and bomb attacks launched during their terms in office.
There are plenty of instances where bombs were dropped or missiles fired at targets where family members of the target were known to be present. In some cases the drone operators saw them before they pressed the fire button.
Plenty of innocent people die during wars, which is one of the many reasons to try to avoid them.
Name a conservative and/or limited government policy stance that Trump holds, that he has also not held the opposite view some time in the past.
E.G. Supports the assault weapons ban in the past, but now says he supports the 2nd Amendment.
The fact there wasn’t a mongo fuss before might mean that people are understanding some implied context.
If there was less automatic gotcha towards Trump and more attempt to find out if he means something reasonable, we would have a lot less cases of our own hair on fire (if not also our pants).
If Ronald Reagan could “trust but verify” the USSR maybe we could do so to Trump?
Nothing you have attributed to me is correct, nothing.
I have no interest in or attraction to Trump fame.
Politics has nothing to do with emotional release. It has everything to do with genuine accomplishment.
Your third point has no meaning. Clearly the president makes deals. That much is well within his Constitutional authority.
Your response to me is clearly emotional and certainly hysterical. I have no idea from your comments what you look for in a president.
Opposition to Trump seems to be based completely on emotional reactions to hysterical perceptions.
Googled it.
The Fourht Geneva Convention explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention.
Since these “nationals” are not members of a state bound by the convention, they are pirates with no protection under internation treaties.
Many of these lies you are repeating from other sources without due diligence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.