"The Geneva Convention was a series of international diplomatic meetings that produced a number of agreements, in particular the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, a group of international laws for the humane treatment of wounded or captured military personnel, medical personnel and non-military civilians during war or armed conflicts. The agreements originated in 1864 and were significantly updated in 1949 after World War II."
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/geneva-convention
Tweety Trump asks why USA cannot commit war crimes like terrorists. Earlier he pardoned several navy war criminals. With the drone attack on the Iranian General that as only known by the inside CIA people as a major terrorist, Tweety wants the worst urges of Americans to be legalized.
DoD has publicly rejected Trump's WAR CRIMES idea to bomb cultural sits, which is an unlawful order. No soldier need obey an unlawful order! In fact all soldiers are bound by an oath to disobey unlawful orders!
"1984" War is peace, peace is war! Friends are enemies, enemies are friends!
It looks like Tweety Trump will bomb Iran, and Iraq will be unwilling human shields if Congress cannot stop him! All this crap to get re-elected!
"Iraq’s prime minister says ‘urgent measures’ should be taken to remove foreign forces"
Erin Cunningham 5 Jan 2020
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iraqs-prime-minister-says-urgent-measures-should-be-taken-to-remove-foreign-forces/ar-BBYCQ7D
"BAGHDAD —Iraq's prime minister urged parliament on Sunday to take "urgent measures" to force the withdrawal of foreign forces following a U.S. drone strike that killed a senior Iranian commander and key Iraqi militia leader in Baghdad last week.
In an address to the legislature, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi recommended that the government establish a timetable for the departure of foreign troops, including the members of the U.S.-led coalition to fight the Islamic State, "for the sake of our national sovereignty.""
Is Tweety insane? No, really, beyond political whoring, is Tweety nuts? This is a serious question, not a hate question. There are facts behind the question.
Will the President go to war to distract the country from the fact he has been impeached? Tweety has been impeached. The war can only distract Americans, perhaps even get them to vote for him, but a war with Iran in 2020 will destroy our country. Tweety said Obama would go to war for re-election. How did that work out? Oh, Obama did NOT go to war with Iran, he had no choice about managing the wars Bush Jr. put him in though.
Is Tweety Trump prepared to kill the Iraqis we started a war with to save them? Or is he saving himself from a Senate trail?
Trump was impeached, now a Senate trial is planned. Will he kill innocent people before the trial? Tweety said in 2011 that Obama would go to war with Iran to get re-elected! Now Tweety is going to war in 2020 with Iran with elections in Nov 2020!
Look what Trevor Noah found - Tweety talking trach about Obama not being able to negotiate peace! Of course Obama got it done, negotiated peace and nuke limits, which Tweety trashed!
"Trevor Noah Consults 2011 Trump to Learn Why 2020 Trump Attacked Iranian General (Video)"
What a time to be alive
Ross A. Lincoln | Updated: January 6, 2020
"
“The question on everyone’s mind is, why would Donald Trump even bring everybody to this point? Why do something so risky? Why now?” Noah continued. “Nobody knows. If only there was some wise man in 2011 who could have predicted why this would be happening today.”
At this point, he rolled actual footage of Donald Trump from 2011, in which Trump repeatedly claimed that Barack Obama would attack Iran in 2012 in order to secure reelection — something Trump also did several times on Twitter.
“Isn’t it pathetic,” 2011 Trump asks at the end of the video. “He’s right,” Noah responded."
Yes, Trevor Noah found a pathetic Tweety talking trach about Obama not being able to negotiate peace, which Tweety dumped early in his Presidency, you know, the nukes deal! And Tweety was unable to negotiate anything with Iran.
I guess Tweety got pissed off at Iran's refusal to negotiate on HIS terms, so he decided to drone one of their Generals.
Of course Obama got a peace deal done. Obama negotiated peace with help of Allies. Oh, Tweety has no Allies. Nuke limits were in place, Tweety trashed the deal and now nukes are back on the front row!
'If Iranian general can be droned for terrorism, why not a Pakistani general?"
Chidanand Rajghatta | TNN | Updated: Jan 5, 2020
The General was not on any global list, so Tweety's people are a little late making a case that he is a major terrorist and war criminal.
" . . . the Trump administration is belatedly making the case (that the General was a terrorist) . . . "
Evangelicals, Jerry Falwell Jr. the GOP, the cult-like base followers like Gaetz, Nunes, and Graham continue to excuse Trump behavior, "admire" him, and support Tweety Trump as he announces America will, not maybe, WE WILL commit WAR CRIMES TO BOMB SITES IN IRAN, they must know this makes the United States the initiator of WWIII, it makes the USA a rogue state,
Pompeo happily does the dirty work. Will our American military comply with an unlawful order?
"What constitutes an unlawful order?
Insubordination. ... Insubordination is the act of willfully disobeying an order of one's superior. Refusing to perform an action that is unethical or illegal is not insubordination; neither is refusing to perform an action that is not within the scope of authority of the person issuing the order.
"How do you define an unlawful order in the military?"
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-define-an-unlawful-order-in-the-military
"Sean Sanders, Military History Enthusiast
Answered Feb 21 2016 · Author has 8.6k answers and 16.8m answer views
Obviously any order that would require breaking existing law would be an unlawful order. For example, being ordered to go off post and steal someone's car would be breaking the law.
In the US, this also includes orders that violate the Constitutional rights of the person carrying out the order. So a soldier cannot be ordered to confess to a crime or convert to a particular religion.
Finally, again specific to the US military, is that the order must relate to military duties. Being ordered to wash the commander's personal vehicle wouldn't violate the soldier's rights or any laws, but it isn't …
Obviously any order that would require breaking existing law would be an unlawful order. For example, being ordered to go off post and steal someone's car would be breaking the law.
In the US, this also includes orders that violate the Constitutional rights of the person carrying out the order. So a soldier cannot be ordered to confess to a crime or convert to a particular religion.
Finally, again specific to the US military, is that the order must relate to military duties. Being ordered to wash the commander's personal vehicle wouldn't violate the soldier's rights or any laws, but it isn't for a military purpose, it would just be an officer abusing his power."
It appears Tweety supporters will allow the Mad President to start a war, and Congress cannot or will not stop him. This is not going to end well by any stretch of the imagination.
"Trump threatens to strike Iranian cultural sites and impose ‘very big’ sanctions on Iraq as tensions rise"
By Seung Min Kim - White House reporter and Philip Rucker - White House Bureau Chief
January 5 at 10:47 PM
BOMBING CULTURAL SITES IS A WAR CRIME. HOW FAR WE'VE COME, FROM "SAVING" A FREEING IRAQ FOR "DEMOCRACY" IRAQ TO THREATENTING IRAQ WITH SANCTONS AND TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THE DAMAGE WE CAUSED AND THE AIRPORT WE BUILT SO WE COULD FIGHT ISIS, A TERROR GROUP THE USA/GEORGE BUSH CREATED BY FIRIGN THE IRAQI ARMY, ALL SUNNI!
"President Trump served a bellicose brew of threats, rebukes and contempt on Sunday as he escalated tensions in the Middle East and awaited Iran's possible retaliation for the U.S. killing of one of its top generals.Trump projected a wartime posture as he wrapped up his holiday vacation here, reiterating that if Iran took military action against the United States he may order attacks on Iranian cultural sites, which could constitute a war crime under international law. He vowed on Twitter to "quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner."
Trump threatened Iraq as well. He countered the Iraqi parliament's move Sunday to try to expel foreign troops, including U.S. forces, by telling reporters that he would respond by imposing "very big sanctions" on the nation and demanding that Iraq reimburse the United States for the billions of dollars it had invested in a major air base there."
Tweety supporters continue to defend him despite his criminal behavior as he takes us into war!
"Should Iraq force out the Americans, Trump said, "We will charge them sanctions like they've never seen before, ever. It'll make Iranian sanctions look somewhat tame."
He added that he would impose "very big sanctions" on Iraq "if there's any hostility, that they do anything we think is inappropriate."
Trump also flouted protocols at home, making a mockery of his necessity to advise Congress of military action by writing on Twitter that his tweets would serve as official notification of strikes."
WAR! WAR! WAR!
The next hurdle, as we hear Trump say why can't we commit war crimes like terrorists do, is for Trump to order CBP and ICE to round up all Iranian-Americans to put them in "protective custody" against their will, like we did during WWII to Japanese-Americans?
"CBP’s Detention of Iranian Americans Was Probably Illegal"
The agency is out of control.
By Mark Joseph Stern 6 Jan 2020
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/cbp-illegal-detention-iran-canada-washington-border.html
"Over the weekend, Customs and Border Protection agents detained more than 60 American citizens and green card holders at a border crossing in Blaine, Washington, because they were of Iranian heritage. Agents allegedly held these individuals for up to 11 hours, questioning them about their families, politics, and allegiance to Iran. CBP insisted that it did not detain anyone “because of their country of origin,” a claim contradicted by firsthand accounts from travelers and attorneys in Blaine.
Given the Trump administration’s previous targeting of religious and ethnic groups, particularly Muslims, the news raised the question of whether this action was part of some new directive from the Department of Homeland Security. It’s quite possible, however, that CBP has not adopted a nationwide policy targeting Iranians—while permitting individual officers to do just that. The agency grants its employees extraordinary discretion to enforce broad directives, a recipe for discrimination and illegality. Under Trump, especially, CBP agents frequently behave as if they are accountable to no one, because they usually are"
Tell me more.
"Iranian-American citizens and green card holders, including families with children, were held for hours awaiting questioning. It does not appear that, in the end, CBP formally turned anyone away. But as Jorge L. Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, has explained, these individuals were subject to troubling treatment. Barón, who visited the Blaine border crossing on Sunday, found that CBP barred Iranian Americans from entering the U.S., their home, and seized their passports, preventing them from returning to Canada.
In short, as Washington Gov. Jay Inslee announced on Monday, CBP likely broke the law by detaining dozens of Iranian Americans because of their national origin. Do not expect the agency to admit error. Although it arguably gets less attention than the lawless Immigration and Customs Enforcement, CBP is equally out of control. Its agents routinely break the law then lie about it. In fact, the ability to conceal official misconduct seems to be a prerequisite for certain higher-level CBP positions. And the incident in Blaine may well be a preview of the agency’s unlawfully aggressive approach to border security as the U.S.-Iran conflict heats up."
How bad is the Customs and Border Protection (CBP)?
"Under Trump, agents have only been emboldened by the president’s violent, dehumanizing rhetoric, which they echoed in a popular secret CBP Facebook group that featured virulently racist and misogynistic commentary. Many officers who flouted the law remain at the agency, wielding extraordinary power over the lives and liberty of everyone they encounter. CBP is more than “a bit of a mess”—it’s a corrupt paramilitary force that answers to no one. And the disturbing events in Blaine suggests that the agency has, at a minimum, freed its agents to treat Iranian Americans as inherently suspicious"
"McCarthy Tries To Spin Soleimani Strike By Blaming Schiff’s Focus On Impeachment"
By Summer Concepcion January 7, 2020
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/mccarthy-schiff-iran-soleimani-impeachment
"After the “Fox and Friends” hosts brought up Schiff’s Monday afternoon tweet in which he took issue with both the Soleimani strike and Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian cultural sites during a Tuesday morning segment, McCarthy was quick to criticize Schiff’s call for more congressional hearings and suggested that if the House intelligence chair didn’t focus so much on impeachment, then Trump wouldn’t have authorized the strike against Soleimani."
What is Kevin talking about? How would not impeaching Tweety Trump stop the drone kill of the general?
"McCarthy then recalled being with Trump the night of the Soleimani strike and repeated the Republican argument that the death of the top Iranian military official was justified because he “had continued to rise throughout the region to create problems not only for us, but the rest of the world.”"
OK, Kevin makes a point about the danger, possibly, but how was this danger an imminent threat? Kevin needs to study the War Powers Act and study how drones are used to better recognize how foolish this connection between impeachment and a drone strike is.
"GOP leader suggests Trump had to strike Iran because of impeachment"
Dan Desai Martin 6 Jan 2020
"Contrary to McCarthy's statement, the Trump administration justified the killing of Soleimani by claiming it would stop imminent future threats. Even that explanation has been questioned by multiple members of Congress who have been briefed on the strike.
"My staff was briefed by a number of people representing a variety of agencies in the United States government and they came away with no feeling that there was evidence of an imminent attack," Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) told CNN."
Lets get clarification.
"Schiff, who has seen some of the intelligence the Trump administration relied on, told the Washington Post on Monday that he is "certainly not satisfied that the intelligence supports the conclusion that the killing of Soleimani was going to either prevent attacks on the United States or reduce the risk to American lives."
Kevin got it wrong. Schiff does not have enough power as one man in the House or in the Intelligence Committee to slow Iran's rise. The Trump administration has not publicly released evidence of such threats.
"While he is correct in that Schiff played a leading role in the impeachment of Trump, only the third U.S. president to be impeached, McCarthy does not explain how one California congressman could have stopped Iranian-backed terror activities, especially when Trump is both commander in chief and has more than a dozen intelligence agencies within the executive branch."
