Trump says he'd try U.S. citizens in Gitmo military tribunals

[Anti-Neocon]

What a liberty position

During an interview with the Miami Herald on Thursday, Trump was asked if he would push to get U.S. citizens accused of terrorism tried by military commissions at the U.S. military base in Cuba, a change that would require action from Congress.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...-in-guantanamo

I'd love to see the resident Trumpkins try to defend this one.

[jmdrake]

Oh but Trump is the liberty candidate because he's against the TPP. Trump can grab your property (eminent domain), grab your guns (if you're on the no fly list), and stick you in Gitmo but as he long as he doesn't sign the TPP it's all gravy.

[CPUd]

[r3volution 3.0]

[AuH20]

If you're primarily voting on GITMO or trangender bathrooms, then you have some real issues.

The big ticket items are where a shrewd individual bases his or her vote on. Relations with Russia, Trade, Illegal Immigration.................. Things that will decide the future of the country in 20 years.

[CPUd]

If you're primarily voting on GITMO or trangender bathrooms, then you have some real issues.

The big ticket items are where a shrewd individual bases his or her vote on. Relations with Russia, Trade, Illegal Immigration.................. Things that will decide the future of the country in 20 years.

[William Tell]

Trump hates the Constitution!

[AuH20]

ICBMs and russian sub missiles >>>>> GITMO. Sorry but GITMO is a nonissue these days.

Withhold support for Trump and don't be surprised what transpires in Eastern Europe. The Ukrainians are already massing at the Crimean border and Hillary hasn't even been sworn in.

[Dr.3D]

Trump hates the Constitution!

Of course, if followed, it limits his power.

[CPUd]

ICBMs and russian sub missiles >>>>> GITMO. Sorry but GITMO is a nonissue these days.

Withhold support for Trump and don't be surprised what transpires in Eastern Europe. The Ukrainians are already massing at the Crimean border and Hillary hasn't even been sworn in.

Quoted for posterity.

[AuH20]

Quoted for posterity.

It's the truth. The Doomsday clock is 3 minutes to midnight. As crazy as it sounds, Donald Trump may be the lone obstacle to World War.

Hillary and the Neocons will be left unopposed to force Russia into a first strike position if she triumphs in November. The Never Trump people can enjoy their subterranean existence arguing about Gitmo and Emminent Domain.

http://thebulletin.org/timeline

"Last year, the Science and Security Board moved the Doomsday Clock forward to three minutes to midnight, noting: 'The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon.' That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately." See the full statement from the Science and Security Board on the 2016 time of the Doomsday Clock.

http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-peace-candidate-125499

Rather, they were realists who recognized that, though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war, or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period.

In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration of independence from Moscow would be an act of “suicidal nationalism.”

Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as “suicidal.”

Have we lost our minds?

http://fredoneverything.org/hillary-...in-washington/

A point that the tofu ferocities of New York might bear in mind is that wars seldom turn out as expected, usually with godawful results. We do not know what would happen in a war with Russia. Permit me a tedious catalog to make this point. It is very worth making.

When Washington pushed the South into the Civil War, it expected a conflict that might be over in twenty-four hours, not four years with as least 650,000 dead. When Germany began WWI, it expected a swift lunge into Paris, not four years of hideously bloody static war followed by unconditional surrender. When the Japanese Army pushed for attacking Pearl, it did not foresee GIs marching in Tokyo and a couple of cities glowing at night. When Hitler invaded Poland, utter defeat and occupation of Germany was not among his war aims. When the US invaded Vietnam, it did not expect to be outfought and outsmarted by a bush-world country. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it did not expect…nor when America invaded Afghanistan, nor when it attacked Iraq, nor….

Is there a pattern here?

The standard American approach to war is to underestimate the enemy, overestimate American capacities, and misunderstand the kind of war it enters. This is particularly true when the war is a manhood ritual for masculine inadequates–think Kristol, Podhoretz, Sanders, the whole Neocon milk bar, and that mendacious wreck, Hillary, who has the military grasp of a Shetland pony. If you don’t think weak egos and perpetual adolescence have a part in deciding policy, read up on Kaiser Wilhelm.

Now, if Washington accidentally or otherwise provoked a war with Russia in, say, the Baltics or the Ukraine, and actually used its own forces, where might this lead, given the Pentagon’s customary delusional optimism? A very serious possibility is a humiliating American defeat. The US has not faced a real enemy in a long time. In that time the armed forces have been feminized and social-justice warriorified, with countless officials having been appointed by Obama for reasons of race and sex. Training has been watered down to benefit girl soldiers, physical standards lowered, and the ranks of general officers filled with perfumed political princes. Russia is right there at the Baltic borders: location, location, location. Somebody said, “Amateurs think strategy, professionals think logistics.” Uh-huh. The Russians are not pansies and they are not primitive.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is highly troubling, regardless of which party you support.
It would be especially problematic considering his recent statements about SWCs Obama and Hillary.

BTW, did he say if there would be any difference in housing arrangements/rights afforded under his "unconstitutional plans" for Americans he sees as having real vs fake birther certificates?

Donald Trump Again Implicitly Accuses Barack Obama of Treason
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...reason/487034/
Jun 14, 2016

Donald Trump on 'lock her up' chant: 'I'm starting to agree'
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/politi...p-lock-her-up/

Trump calls Hillary Clinton 'founder of ISIS,' crowd cheers 'lock her up'
https://www.rt.com/usa/354562-trump-...-isis-founder/
Aug 4, 2016

Donald Trump: I meant that Obama founded ISIS, literally
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/.../do...a-founder-isis



National leaders teams need to wake up and stop him before this goes too far.

[robert68]

It's the truth. The Doomsday clock is 3 minutes to midnight. As crazy as it sounds, Donald Trump may be the lone obstacle to World War.

Hillary and the Neocons will be left unopposed to force Russia into a first strike position if she triumphs in November. The Never Trump people can enjoy their subterranean existence arguing about Gitmo and Emminent Domain.
...

If Hillary wins what country will you be moving to for safety from the "Doomsay"? Have you got your passport(s) and made all the provisions?

[robert68]

..

[Ender]

If you're primarily voting on GITMO or trangender bathrooms, then you have some real issues.

The big ticket items are where a shrewd individual bases his or her vote on. Relations with Russia, Trade, Illegal Immigration.................. Things that will decide the future of the country in 20 years.

Sorry, but GITMO or trangender bathrooms are not even in the same political universe.

Taking the last of individual rights away leaves us nothing; not caring if your neighbor can be suddenly disappeared to GITMO is completely contrary to everything we believe in and why freedom is so important. The devil's in the details and there is no way to ignore this issue.

It is deadly to every American.

[cindy25]

think long term. Trump can be restrained by Congress, but Hillary could not. the Dems take SCOTUS, bring single payer, and start more wars. and if Trump loses the GOP candidate in 2020 would be a neo-con. if Trump wins, Rand is viable in 2020

[CPUd]

think long term. Trump can be restrained by Congress, but Hillary could not. the Dems take SCOTUS, bring single payer, and start more wars. and if Trump loses the GOP candidate in 2020 would be a neo-con. if Trump wins, Rand is viable in 2020

Trump supports single-payer, too:




And he has no problem with foreign intervention, as long as he can take the oil:

[Anti-Neocon]

think long term. Trump can be restrained by Congress, but Hillary could not. the Dems take SCOTUS, bring single payer, and start more wars. and if Trump loses the GOP candidate in 2020 would be a neo-con. if Trump wins, Rand is viable in 2020

If you want a liberty candidate to be viable, you should probably start by not having an incumbent in the Republican Party. Unless your plan is for Rand, someone who doesn't even show interest in running as it is, to leave his party to run as a Libertarian or something.

[John F Kennedy III]

If you want a real libertarian candidate, RON Paul 2020.

[adissa]

It's true. Whatever happened to "all is fair in war?"

[CaptUSA]

At least he wants to give 'em a trial.

He's really softening his positions. He may have just lost me. We are supposed to KILL Americans who are suspected of terrorism. What's this crap about tribunals?!!

/sarc

[Suzanimal]

Unless Gary Johnson's changed his stance, they're not far off on this issue.

Gary Johnson on Guantanamo
ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Governor, should we close Guantanamo Bay? Should the people there either be tried in federal district courts or returned to their country, or should we keep it open and let them stay there uncharged, untried for the rest of their lives?

GARY JOHNSON: Well, when president Obama didn’t close Guantanamo, and that was one of this promises, I really looked into the issue and I’ve had a really, a lot of prominent libertarians tell me that if it weren’t for Guantanamo, that we would have to create that situation somewhere else. So I kind of been sold on the notion that this is something that we have to have whether its, if it’s not Guantanamo it’s gonna be somewhere else. That these are enemy combatants, so, and uh, and not U.S. citizens. So, I’m on, I’ve been, I’ve been wooed over to the side that there’s a reason for keeping it open.




26 April, 2011: Governor Gary Johnson on Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano, Fox News



DAVID MANSDOERFER: What’s your stance on Guantanamo Bay?

GARY JOHNSON: Well, that we should close Guan—we should close Guantanamo from the stand point of—so, maybe we don’t close Guantanamo, but we should stop the practice of detainment without charge and we should also stop any torturing that’s going on.

MANSDOERFER: Okay.

JOHNSON: That said, the notion of using a military tribunal’s for foreign combatants, you know, that has a real fairness to it. I mean we’re using military tribunals of our own military so using military tribunals—keeping Guantanamo Bay open, from the standpoint from a cross-benefit analysis, it just might be worth it to have an offshore, facility to be able to do, imprison convicted enemy combatants that close to our shores.

8 July, 2011: Interview with David Mansdoerfer, Nevada News & Views



No criminal or terrorist suspect captured by the U.S. should be subject to physical or psychological torture.

Individuals incarcerated unjustly by the U.S. should have the ability to seek compensation through the courts.

Individuals detained by the U.S., whether it be at Guantanamo Bay or elsewhere, must be given due process via the courts or military tribunals, and must not be held indefinitely without regard to those fundamental processes.


Accessed on 25 June, 2016: Foreign Policy, GaryJohnson2012.com

http://2016.presidential-candidates....?on=guantanamo

[EBounding]

Look guys, Trump just has to say these things to win the presidency. He's going to be a liberty-oriented constitutional president because he's running for president, OK?

[jllundqu]

Folks it doesn't matter... you are all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Trump is down by double digits and will not recover. Even in a year when the Dem candidate should have been EASILY defeated, Trump will lose. He is plummeting in every demographic, women, latinos, blacks. He sure as hell doesn't care about bringing hesitant conservatives into the fold.

The electoral numbers just aren't there. He would have to win so many states (like Pennsylvania) to even have a path to 270....

Like Trump all you want, but Trump defeated Trump.

If he just accepted the nomination and then kept his stupid mouth shut, he would have won! But he insists on taking all the bad press away from Hillary.

As soon as a major Hillary scandal breaks.... he says something horribly stupid. THen all eyes are on him for the cycle and Hillary gets a pass.

This race was over before it began.

[RonPaulMall]

Taking the last of individual rights away leaves us nothing; not caring if your neighbor can be suddenly disappeared to GITMO is completely contrary to everything we believe in and why freedom is so important. The devil's in the details and there is no way to ignore this issue.

It is deadly to every American.

No way to ignore it? Here's one: it's never going to happen. Trump talks out his ass all the time. He's not actually going to expand the tremendous political capital it would require to fight what would ultimately be a losing war against Congress and the Courts on this. Truth be told, will probably even forget he said this by next week.

Hillary on the other hand, is committed to appointing left wing radicals to the Court. If she's elected, there will be a 6-3 Majority on the Supreme Court for doing away with the individual right in the Second Amendment. There already gun prohibitionist majorities in many American states including the largest state which means if Hillary wins, a good portion of the American populace would be disarmed.

So what's more dangerous? A guy who talks out his ass about theoretical threats to liberty that aren't even remotely close to happening or the lady who is going to disarm the population and set the conditions for a realistic achievement of those threats at some point down the line?

Trump is a bozo who doesn't think particularly deeply about political theory and occasionally says dopey things. Hillary is a cold and calculating servant of the New World Order who has a detailed plan for enslaving America.

[Brian4Liberty]

“Well, I know that they want to try them in our regular court systems, and I don’t like that at all. I don’t like that at all,” he said. “I would say they could be tried there, that would be fine.”

Trump is so confused, you never know what he is talking about. Is he referring to people already in Gitmo, or new accusations of terrorism against US citizens? It's hard to tell if his confusion on issues is real, or a clever way to avoid ever being pinned down on anything. Probably a combination of the two.

Geneva Convention applies to captured POWs, US Constitution applies to arrested and accused US citizens. Pretty simple. Now the problem arises with endless war. What do you do with POWs in a war that never ends?

[undergroundrr]

Trump hates the Constitution!

Wrong, cuck. He loves Article XII.

[jllundqu]

I've played with the electoral numbers and I can't find any combo in which Trump comes out on top, electorally.

Even if Trump wins Ohio, Florida, Colorado, and other purple states.

Hillary wins by very large margin... if the election were held today it would be a blowout. Jesus.... Trump is even set to lose ARIZONA! Arizona is a SOLID red state and current polls show Hillary winning that state by 7 points! (Average of ten polls)

Trump has ruined the GOP and republican party for a generation.... not that I was in love with the GOP... but he gave one hell of a coup d grace.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...ecast/arizona/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/...tion-forecast/

[fcreature]

If you're primarily voting on GITMO or trangender bathrooms, then you have some real issues.

The big ticket items are where a shrewd individual bases his or her vote on. Relations with Russia, Trade, Illegal Immigration.................. Things that will decide the future of the country in 20 years.

I agree. The issue isn't GITMO though. It's charging US citizens and then getting them tried there.

Along those same lines, if you are primarily voting on PC, the immigration boogey-man, or "because Hillary", you have some real issues too.

The only issue that really matters is our debt and our spending. An area where both Trump and Hillary are awful.

[RonPaulMall]

I agree. The issue isn't GITMO though. It's charging US citizens and then getting them tried there.

Along those same lines, if you are primarily voting on PC, the immigration boogey-man, or "because Hillary", you have some real issues too.

The only issue that really matters is our debt and our spending. An area where both Trump and Hillary are awful.

Immigration is far more important than debt and spending. Nothing can be done to prevent an eventual financial reckoning at this point. The make up of the country at the time that reckoning takes place determines the trajectory of the recovery. A country like Iceland can go through a total economic collapse and it wouldn't really be that bad at all because the the demographic make up of their country. A country like Venezuela descends in to chaos and violence.

US immigration policy should be more focused on getting the most violent elements of our society to leave (perhaps by bringing back Transportation as a punishment) than bringing new people in. And if we do bring any new people in the priority needs to be on importing the most intelligent and well behaved folks that we can find.