Trump Reverses His Stance on Torture

[randomname]

By Damian Paletta

WASHINGTON—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.

Mr. Trump, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, said he would “use every legal power that I have to stop these terrorist enemies. I do, however, understand that the United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters. I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”

This appears to be a reversal from Thursday night’s GOP debate in Detroit, when Mr. Trump stood by earlier proposals to do things that were a “hell of a lot worse” than waterboarding terrorist suspects and also authorize the military to kill family members of terrorists.

“I’ve always been a leader,” he said Thursday night. “I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”

Former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, said last week that the military would flatly refuse to obey orders to commit torture or kill family members of terrorists, which would break international laws.

Michael Schmitt, director of the Stockton Center for the Study of International Law at the U.S. Naval War College, said in an interview that ordering the military to torture terror suspects would violate Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention, and people who participate in torture—as well as their superiors and even the U.S. government—could face war crime charges for such behavior.

Ordering the military to kill the family members of terrorists is a legal term known as “collective punishment,” which is prohibited under in the laws of war.

“You may punish an individual for his or her violations of the laws of war, but you may not in any way harm others,” Mr. Schmitt said. He said it has been “universally agreed that it is unlawful.”

“We are bound by treaties and then we are bound by the customs of war, they have legal significance,” Mr. Schmitt said. “You can be prosecuted for violations of the customary laws of war.”

Mr. Trump’s new position comes after months of insisting that he wouldn’t back down.

On Dec. 2, Mr. Trump said in an interview on Fox News that killing the family members of terrorists was a necessary deterrent.

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families,” Mr. Trump said. “They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.”

[francisco]

Trump knows that his die-hard supporters don’t care what his actual positions / policy prescriptions are, and therefore don’t care when he changes them.

This is the beginning of Trump’s pivot to the center for the General Election, so he can assuage the sensibilities of more mainstream voters, so they can say to themselves “oh he really isn’t that bad”

[misterx]

Trump knows that his die-hard supporters don’t care what his actual positions / policy prescriptions are, and therefore don’t care when he changes them.

This is the beginning of Trump’s pivot to the center for the General Election, so he can assuage the sensibilities of more mainstream voters, so they can say to themselves “oh he really isn’t that bad”

We knew it was coming. I think he started too soon though. He should've waited to pivot until after the primaries on the 15th. He should have the nomination all but wrapped up at that point, or at least he would have.

[francisco]

We knew it was coming. I think he started too soon though. He should've waited to pivot until after the primaries on the 15th. He should have the nomination all but wrapped up at that point, or at least he would have.

Well some of us knew from the get-go that Trump was just a bloviating bag of hot air with no coherent principle except that he should be in charge. How any self-respecting Liberty person could support such a candidate is beyond me. Supporting someone because he's so bad that he would cause the system to implode is stupid and shortsighted, and no excuse.

If Trump's pivot is early and a tactical error, we can be thankful for that. But I suspect that he knows his audience--the same one that watches his "reality" shows and gambles away their rent money in his casinos--all too well, and the pivot is perfectly timed.

[timosman]

“I’ve always been a leader,” he said Thursday night. “I’ve never had any problem leading people. If I say do it, they’re going to do it. That’s what leadership is all about.”

He needs to read one of his own leadership books. More carrot, less stick.

[P3ter_Griffin]

Wow. More caving to the PC comity. Rules of war is as dumb as rules of self defense. 'But be nice' smfh and dsff

[sdsubball23]

If he is legitimately changing his stance, I think it's a great thing.

Now if he changes some more things, he might be someone I might want as President or maybe even vote for.

[Origanalist]

If he is legitimately changing his stance, I think it's a great thing.

Now if he changes some more things, he might be someone I might want as President or maybe even vote for.

Me too, in fact you've convinced me to vote for him.

[timosman]

Me too, in fact you've convinced me to vote for him.

If you do not like him now, wait a day when he changes his mind, you might like him then. Carpe diem!

[presence]

“I’ve always been a leader,” he said Thursday night.
“I’ve never had any problem leading people.

If I say do it, they’re going to do it.

That’s what leadership is all about.”

[erowe1]

Looks like Trump is pretty easily manipulated.

[timosman]

Looks like Trump is pretty easily manipulated.

Short attention span?

[puppetmaster]

Looks like Trump is pretty easily manipulated.

or may even he contemplates his words and actually think things through....or maybe he just guesses. I think he think things through

[jmdrake]

Looks like Trump is pretty easily manipulated.

More like tRump is great at manipulating. He get's the benefit of sounding like a hard ass....but then his supporters can turn around and say "See? He's not so bad afterall." It's interesting that apparently the only thing he has against killing innocent people is that it might violate international law. A moral person would ba against killing innocent people regardless. And "They kill us but we can't kill them" doesn't mean "They kill our innocents so we can kill their innocents."

[Origanalist]

or may even he contemplates his words and actually think things through....or maybe he just guesses. I think he think things through

After he opens his piehole and spews out the hot air de jour.

[69360]

Who cares? Trump would reverse his stance on anything.

[euphemia]

I thought we wanted Trump to have a change of heart on this issue.

[susano]

or may even he contemplates his words and actually think things through....or maybe he just guesses. I think he think things through

My take is that he shoots his mouth off, in a knee jerk fashion. His reactions to the crimes of terrorists (like the ISIS and Al Nusra videos) are emotional. He says stuff without thinking it through and when he is called out or becomes more informed, he changes his position. I think he did that with late term abortion.

I find this indignation from the national security & military sector to be very disingenuous. You'd think Abu Ghraib and some of the $#@! at Gitmo never happened and that these $#@!ers knew nothing about it. And, since when aren't these people all about following orders? How many soldiers can refuse an order and not get a court martial? Wasn't there some soldier who refused to obey UN command and got in big trouble for it?

Trump is certainly full of $#@! with the torture and killing families of terrorists BS but these people criticizing him make their livings on mass killing.

[CPUd]

Let's judge a candidate less on his words and more on his actions. Unless his last name is Paul, then do the opposite.

[P3ter_Griffin]

I thought we wanted Trump to have a change of heart on this issue.

You have captive an accomplice to the kidnapping of your family members with the whereabouts of his accomplices and your family. By what means would you use to gain that information?

Do you:

A. Use any means necessary

B. Use only polite means

?

[Danke]

I knew Trump wasn't serious.

[AZJoe]

Trump Reverses His Stance on Torture

Well that is something positive.

[FindLiberty]

He is a master at getting extended media attention and free air time...

It works every time for him, and apparently on everybody else too. Like magic.

I should stock up 4 years worth of popcorn now, for the "show" to come.

And also, soon there may not be any other food to eat on this side of the wall...

[misterx]

You have captive an accomplice to the kidnapping of your family members with the whereabouts of his accomplices and your family. By what means would you use to gain that information?

Do you:

A. Use any means necessary

B. Use only polite means

?

When you put it like that, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. Sometimes we need people like Colonel Jessup on that wall, but as a matter of policy we should oppose inhumane acts.

[P3ter_Griffin]

When you put it like that, I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. Sometimes we need people like Colonel Jessup on that wall, but as a matter of policy we should oppose inhumane acts.

Tying your arm behind your back is not a good defensive strategy. Utilizing such acts while broadcasting that you wont only serves to get you into positions where they are needed (ie knowing that you'll use inhumane acts against aggressors serves as a deterrent to aggressors), and secondly when put into practice would draw into question whether you were right to do it or not in the first place, ie it is just a capitulation to PC at that point that may be used against you.

[charrob]

My take is that he shoots his mouth off, in a knee jerk fashion. His reactions to the crimes of terrorists (like the ISIS and Al Nusra videos) are emotional. He says stuff without thinking it through and when he is called out or becomes more informed, he changes his position. I think he did that with late term abortion.

I find this indignation from the national security & military sector to be very disingenuous. You'd think Abu Ghraib and some of the $#@! at Gitmo never happened and that these $#@!ers knew nothing about it. And, since when aren't these people all about following orders? How many soldiers can refuse an order and not get a court martial? Wasn't there some soldier who refused to obey UN command and got in big trouble for it?

Trump is certainly full of $#@! with the torture and killing families of terrorists BS but these people criticizing him make their livings on mass killing.

Exactly. Regarding Trump, that is what my gut tells me too. Additionally I agree with you about the recent letter written by the security and military sector about Trump. Several years ago several U.S. servicemen that served in Iraq came forward on film and stated that they were ordered to look the other way at the U.S. prisons in Iraq where there was endemic, and daily, Iraqi-on-Iraqi horrific torture from the U.S. backed prison guards. Many of them were ordered to stand outside the prisons but not allowed to do anything to stop it. Bradley Manning was ordered to take Iraqis to the prison where he, and everyone else around, knew these people would be tortured; he also knew, and stated that, they were not terrorists but rather nonviolent political activists. He told his superiors who then told him to look the other way. He repeated this going up the chain of command several times and was told each time to look the other way. This is not a military that gives a damn about international law.

There's other examples. How about Bagram in Afghanistan? What about Colonel Steele: he was involved in the outrageous torture in El Salvador years ago and after the U.S. went into Iraq in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld told him to repeat "the Salvador option":

James Steele: America's mystery man in Iraq. A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic revealed how retired US colonel James Steele, a veteran of American proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played a key role in training and overseeing US-funded special police commandos who ran a network of torture centres in Iraq:

How about the School of the Americas in Fort Benning Georgia? The actual torture techniques that were taught there by the U.S. military were in their handbook! And this was way more than waterboarding! Robert Kennedy Jr. tried to shut down that piece of crap a few years back to no avail. He put forward the bill to shut it down when he was in congress but unfortunately was short by just a few votes. Catholic Priests and others still hold a vigil outside of the School every Thanksgiving for several days in their efforts to bring attention to that House of Horrors. The U.S. miitary has renamed it, but everybody knows their history. And just because they renamed it does not convince me they are on the up and up.

And then of course in the letter the military talks about Trump's idea of killing the families of terrorists and how illegal this "war crime" would be! Where are they on American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an innocent American teenager sitting having lunch with his cousins at an outdoor café in Yemen who, along with his innocent cousins, were drone bombed and murdered at the cafe!? I haven't heard of anyone going to war crimes trials over that; least of all Obama who personally ordered that drone bombing. Shouldn't the drone pilot have stated that he was unable to fulfill Obama's illegal orders? That's what these "military officials" in this letter said: http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/ope...urity-leaders/ How about the recent young drone pilots who came forward: they stated they all knew, and everyone involved knows, that most of these drone bombings kill a majority of innocent civilians. Why did the military say they should be reprimanded for coming forward with this information? According to that letter to Trump these young drone pilots were supposed to refuse orders that kill innocent civilians. Yet I hear pin drops from these oh so sanctimonious security and military "officials".

Ohhhhh the hypocrisy and lies that come out of these military and security "experts"! Trillions of dollars are stake in the incredibly corrupt and bloated Pentagon budget and these snakes know Trump has repeatedly stated that he will not increase the Pentagon Budget but rather get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse to pay for making his military stronger. They know their gravy train is coming to an end under a Trump administration and they will stop at nothing to end Trumps chances at this nomination. As far as i'm concerned, THEY are my enemy... not people in other countries and it will be sweet music to my soul to finally see these neocons crushed if Trump becomes potus.

[misterx]

Tying your arm behind your back is not a good defensive strategy. Utilizing such acts while broadcasting that you wont only serves to get you into positions where they are needed (ie knowing that you'll use inhumane acts against aggressors serves as a deterrent to aggressors), and secondly when put into practice would draw into question whether you were right to do it or not in the first place, ie it is just a capitulation to PC at that point that may be used against you.

I think you misunderstood my comment because I used the wrong word. I should've said as a matter of practice instead of policy. I'm open to having options like waterboarding legal under extreme circumstances, but it shouldn't be general practice to use them.

[susano]

Exactly. Regarding Trump, that is what my gut tells me too. Additionally I agree with you about the recent letter written by the security and military sector about Trump. Several years ago several U.S. servicemen that served in Iraq came forward on film and stated that they were ordered to look the other way at the U.S. prisons in Iraq where there was endemic, and daily, Iraqi-on-Iraqi horrific torture from the U.S. backed prison guards. Many of them were ordered to stand outside the prisons but not allowed to do anything to stop it. Bradley Manning was ordered to take Iraqis to the prison where he, and everyone else around, knew these people would be tortured; he also knew, and stated that, they were not terrorists but rather nonviolent political activists. He told his superiors who then told him to look the other way. He repeated this going up the chain of command several times and was told each time to look the other way. This is not a military that gives a damn about international law.

There's other examples. How about Bagram in Afghanistan? What about Colonel Steele: he was involved in the outrageous torture in El Salvador years ago and after the U.S. went into Iraq in 2003 Donald Rumsfeld told him to repeat "the Salvador option":

James Steele: America's mystery man in Iraq. A 15-month investigation by the Guardian and BBC Arabic revealed how retired US colonel James Steele, a veteran of American proxy wars in El Salvador and Nicaragua, played a key role in training and overseeing US-funded special police commandos who ran a network of torture centres in Iraq:

How about the School of the Americas in Fort Benning Georgia? The actual torture techniques that were taught there by the U.S. military were in their handbook! And this was way more than waterboarding! Robert Kennedy Jr. tried to shut down that piece of crap a few years back to no avail. He put forward the bill to shut it down when he was in congress but unfortunately was short by just a few votes. Catholic Priests and others still hold a vigil outside of the School every Thanksgiving for several days in their efforts to bring attention to that House of Horrors. The U.S. miitary has renamed it, but everybody knows their history. And just because they renamed it does not convince me they are on the up and up.

And then of course in the letter the military talks about Trump's idea of killing the families of terrorists and how illegal this "war crime" would be! Where are they on American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, an innocent American teenager sitting having lunch with his cousins at an outdoor café in Yemen who, along with his innocent cousins, were drone bombed and murdered at the cafe!? I haven't heard of anyone going to war crimes trials over that; least of all Obama who personally ordered that drone bombing. Shouldn't the drone pilot have stated that he was unable to fulfill Obama's illegal orders? That's what these "military officials" in this letter said: http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/ope...urity-leaders/ How about the recent young drone pilots who came forward: they stated they all knew, and everyone involved knows, that most of these drone bombings kill a majority of innocent civilians. Why did the military say they should be reprimanded for coming forward with this information? According to that letter to Trump these young drone pilots were supposed to refuse orders that kill innocent civilians. Yet I hear pin drops from these oh so sanctimonious security and military "officials".

Ohhhhh the hypocrisy and lies that come out of these military and security "experts"! Trillions of dollars are stake in the incredibly corrupt and bloated Pentagon budget and these snakes know Trump has repeatedly stated that he will not increase the Pentagon Budget but rather get rid of waste, fraud, and abuse to pay for making his military stronger. They know their gravy train is coming to an end under a Trump administration and they will stop at nothing to end Trumps chances at this nomination. As far as i'm concerned, THEY are my enemy... not people in other countries and it will be sweet music to my soul to finally see these neocons crushed if Trump becomes potus.

Thank you for this in depth and thoughtful post. Yes, all of this and more. A big ass book could be written on American war crimes.

I really hope the Donald takes the time to think this through and really understand why a government cannot sanction torture. I doubt if he will but I'm sure he'll comply with the Geneva Convention now that it's been brought to his attention. I wonder if he's even ever seen the photos from Abu Ghraib and knows those were innocent people.

[susano]

You have captive an accomplice to the kidnapping of your family members with the whereabouts of his accomplices and your family. By what means would you use to gain that information?

Do you:

A. Use any means necessary

B. Use only polite means

?

A. But I would be an individual with a direct interest, unlike the state. Same applies with the death penalty. Someone kills your family member then, AFAIC, you would be excused for losing your $#@! and killing the perp. The government, OTOH, does not have that emotional investment and needs to be dispassionate. Somehow humans got this very important point backwards where we allow the state to carry out violence but it's illegal for the genuinely invested parties to do so.

[CPUd]