A top military adviser to Donald Trump expressed qualified support for Trump’s proposal to kill terrorists’ families on Thursday, telling Al Jazeerathat 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.”Maybe Trump would not take the US to war with Russia, at least as fast as HRC would, but he is no pacifist either, and that is putting mildly. We're talking war crimes here.
The Intercept
General Advising Donald Trump Says Killing Terrorists’ Families Might Be OK
Alex Emmons
7 comments:
And what if his "advisors" tell him the US can win a nuclear war against Russia and China would he go for it?
- would he go for it?
Tom he has said in these cases that he would first have to get the laws changed... then do whatever he thought was best for US...
Also, what he stresses in these situations is if the families had knowledge of what the terrorists were doing... he wants people around the terrorists to report them to authorities before they act...
Tom knows better. Facts are subjective, war crimes are all in how you spin and project the collateral damage.
Chemical weapons bad, dropping white phosporous to clear out terrorists good.
IEDs bad, land mines good
Assassinations bad, drone strikes good.
Genocide bad, clearing the land by killing native americans, good.
There is no such thing as war crimes because there is no objective reality, losers commit war crimes, winners protected populations from dangerous threats. Pass a law, write a white paper, boom, action justified. You just have to pretend to be contemplative and cognizant of the damage, minimize avoidable damage and then very sorry for the ill consequences. And then, no crime was committed.
Pick the path of least destruction, but don't stop walking to avoid squishing the worm.
Tom he has said in these cases that he would first have to get the laws changed... then do whatever he thought was best for US...
This is international law. UN, Geneva Convention and other treaties the US has signed onto. The only way out is to withdraw from these, which would profoundly change the world order.
Also Trump is famous for inciting the lowest level of the base and then walking it back later. In political terms walks backs are considered "wink-wink" signals. The man is twisted and he is appealing to a lot of very twisted people.
If Trump is elected, there are going to be a lot of twisted people on the loose thinking that they now have permission.
Obama orders drone strikes everyday where entire families are killed as collateral damage to killing a terrorist. What is the difference? He is literally targeting families. Obama feels bad? He worked hard to minimise the damage? It wasn't intentional?
I'd be surprised if the MIC felt more protected than they do now, where they simply don't acknowledge their policy allows targeting families as part of the goal of destroying a terrorist.
Post a Comment