US Republican front-runner Donald Trump has softened his stance on torture, saying he would not order the military to break worldwide law.
Advertisement
But Trump was put on the spot when he was asked what he would do if the USA military failed to carry out his unlawful orders.
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 that people who participate in torture-as well as their superiors and even the U.S. government-could face war-crimes charges for such behavior.
He has also stated that he would do a “hell of a lot worse” than waterboarding terrorist suspects if he were elected president.
“Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Gen. Patton are in their graves right now spinning in their graves”, Trump told ABC News on Thursday.
Trump’s performance last night reminded me of Richard Nixon’s infamous answer to David Frost about Watergate: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal”.
Trump’s past policy reversals were also a topic at the debate, with moderators and his Republican rivals questioning whether that showed indecision or ignorance of the issues.
‘It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities’. I’ve never had any problem leading people.
“It’s murder”, Eugene Fidell, a prominent expert in military justice at Yale Law School, told AFP.
The letter stated “we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency” and adding that the authors were “obligated to state our core objections clearly”.
John B. Bellinger, an adjunct senior fellow for worldwide and national security law at the Council on Foreign Relations, echoed those sentiments.
“Any democracy has to be concerned about the kind of civil-military crisis that could arise if its armed forces comes to doubt the lawfulness of the orders its being given”, says Charlie Dunlap, a retired Air Force judge advocate general now teaching at Duke Law School.
Two of Trump’s military pledges highlight the limits of a commander-in-chief’s power. “He is not fit to be Commander in Chief”. “I make allowance for that”, Harmer said. So, ironically, is its legality: “Any order to specifically target civilian family members who are not directly participating in hostilities is simply a nonstarter for today’s military”, says Dunlap, who says he has no public opinion on any candidate.
I’m sure this about-face will hugely disappoint Trump’s bloodthirsty supporters who think we should bring back the rack to interrogate terrorists.
Advertisement
The statement continued: “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”. “These grant him moral autonomy and obligate him to disobey an order he deems immoral”.
