SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Donald Trump's Anti-Terror Policies Sound a Lot Like War Crimes
Many thought the GOP nominee would become more centrist for the general election, but he keeps advocating cruel and brutal tactics
Jul 01, 2016
Instead of tacking to the center like a lot of pundits thought he would when he became the Republican nominee, Donald Trump seems intent to double down on his moral depravity, calling for outright war crimes in his quest to become US president.
On Wednesday he told a crowd of supporters that to defeat Isis, the US needs to "fight fire with fire". As NBC News put it, this "seemingly [made] the case for using similarly brutal tactics as terror groups like Isis have in the past." He once again declared the US should return to waterboarding terror suspects, a tactic that is obviously torture (and was once prosecuted as such after the second world war). And he has repeated his calls for inventing "interrogation" techniques that are "worse" than waterboarding as well.
Trump, as you will remember, spent much of the GOP primary spouting all sorts of nonsense about how waterboarding "works" (even though we know it doesn't), that he would happily bring back torture in the "war on terror" fight (even though it's blatantly illegal) and that he would kill the family members of suspected terrorists (despite the general agreement across the political spectrum that that is a war crime as well).
He shows no signs of stopping his increasing descent into unhinged lunacy since the Orlando terrorist attacks, after which he immediately said he "appreciate[s] the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism" after 49 people were brutally murdered, even though there's little evidence the shooter was radicalized, and then he went on to absurdly suggest that Barack Obama was secretly working with Isis.
Trump's attempts at qualifying his proposals might be considered hilarious if they weren't so appalling. In March, he attempted to "clarify" his calls for more torture by saying that the US needed to "broaden" the laws on the books that make it illegal instead of just immediately violating them. (He could also just radically "re-interpret" the laws on the books just like the Bush administration did.) Last week, he claimed that his "ban all Muslims" policy proposal really only meant that he wanted to ban all Muslims that come from Muslim majority countries, as though that wasn't just as bigoted and offensive as his original proposal.
The amount of damage an unchecked Trump could do with the national security infrastructure in place - the CIA drone program, NSA warrantless spying, the ability to conduct unilateral war with no congressional approval, etc - is truly extraordinary. We learned Thursday from BuzzFeed that Trump allegedly listened secretly to the phone calls of employees at his Florida resort Mar-A-Lago. And this headline from a month ago should send chills down the spine of anyone worried about constitutional rights and the separation of powers: "Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists."
All of this once again points to the extreme dangers of the incredible expansion of executive power under the Bush and Obama administrations, and the failure to prosecute those who engaged in torture a decade ago. It has now turned into political football and a policy dispute rather than what it actually is: a clear crime.
But instead of "Trump proofing" our national security apparatus, Congress is in the midst of attempting to expand it. Democrats want to expand and entrench the secret and due process-free terror watch list, and Republicans are attempting to dramatically expand the FBI's ability to to conduct electronic surveillance completely free of any court oversight.
Trump's statements should be yet another reminder of the terrifying powers of the US president, and we should be doing everything we can to curtail that power, rather than expand it.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Guardian
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm is a co-founder and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is a writer, activist, and legal analyst who specializes in free speech and government transparency issues. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian and has also contributed to The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Harvard Law and Policy Review, PBS MediaShift, and Politico.
Instead of tacking to the center like a lot of pundits thought he would when he became the Republican nominee, Donald Trump seems intent to double down on his moral depravity, calling for outright war crimes in his quest to become US president.
On Wednesday he told a crowd of supporters that to defeat Isis, the US needs to "fight fire with fire". As NBC News put it, this "seemingly [made] the case for using similarly brutal tactics as terror groups like Isis have in the past." He once again declared the US should return to waterboarding terror suspects, a tactic that is obviously torture (and was once prosecuted as such after the second world war). And he has repeated his calls for inventing "interrogation" techniques that are "worse" than waterboarding as well.
Trump, as you will remember, spent much of the GOP primary spouting all sorts of nonsense about how waterboarding "works" (even though we know it doesn't), that he would happily bring back torture in the "war on terror" fight (even though it's blatantly illegal) and that he would kill the family members of suspected terrorists (despite the general agreement across the political spectrum that that is a war crime as well).
He shows no signs of stopping his increasing descent into unhinged lunacy since the Orlando terrorist attacks, after which he immediately said he "appreciate[s] the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism" after 49 people were brutally murdered, even though there's little evidence the shooter was radicalized, and then he went on to absurdly suggest that Barack Obama was secretly working with Isis.
Trump's attempts at qualifying his proposals might be considered hilarious if they weren't so appalling. In March, he attempted to "clarify" his calls for more torture by saying that the US needed to "broaden" the laws on the books that make it illegal instead of just immediately violating them. (He could also just radically "re-interpret" the laws on the books just like the Bush administration did.) Last week, he claimed that his "ban all Muslims" policy proposal really only meant that he wanted to ban all Muslims that come from Muslim majority countries, as though that wasn't just as bigoted and offensive as his original proposal.
The amount of damage an unchecked Trump could do with the national security infrastructure in place - the CIA drone program, NSA warrantless spying, the ability to conduct unilateral war with no congressional approval, etc - is truly extraordinary. We learned Thursday from BuzzFeed that Trump allegedly listened secretly to the phone calls of employees at his Florida resort Mar-A-Lago. And this headline from a month ago should send chills down the spine of anyone worried about constitutional rights and the separation of powers: "Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists."
All of this once again points to the extreme dangers of the incredible expansion of executive power under the Bush and Obama administrations, and the failure to prosecute those who engaged in torture a decade ago. It has now turned into political football and a policy dispute rather than what it actually is: a clear crime.
But instead of "Trump proofing" our national security apparatus, Congress is in the midst of attempting to expand it. Democrats want to expand and entrench the secret and due process-free terror watch list, and Republicans are attempting to dramatically expand the FBI's ability to to conduct electronic surveillance completely free of any court oversight.
Trump's statements should be yet another reminder of the terrifying powers of the US president, and we should be doing everything we can to curtail that power, rather than expand it.
Trevor Timm
Trevor Timm is a co-founder and the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. He is a writer, activist, and legal analyst who specializes in free speech and government transparency issues. He writes a weekly column for The Guardian and has also contributed to The Atlantic, Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Harvard Law and Policy Review, PBS MediaShift, and Politico.
Instead of tacking to the center like a lot of pundits thought he would when he became the Republican nominee, Donald Trump seems intent to double down on his moral depravity, calling for outright war crimes in his quest to become US president.
On Wednesday he told a crowd of supporters that to defeat Isis, the US needs to "fight fire with fire". As NBC News put it, this "seemingly [made] the case for using similarly brutal tactics as terror groups like Isis have in the past." He once again declared the US should return to waterboarding terror suspects, a tactic that is obviously torture (and was once prosecuted as such after the second world war). And he has repeated his calls for inventing "interrogation" techniques that are "worse" than waterboarding as well.
Trump, as you will remember, spent much of the GOP primary spouting all sorts of nonsense about how waterboarding "works" (even though we know it doesn't), that he would happily bring back torture in the "war on terror" fight (even though it's blatantly illegal) and that he would kill the family members of suspected terrorists (despite the general agreement across the political spectrum that that is a war crime as well).
He shows no signs of stopping his increasing descent into unhinged lunacy since the Orlando terrorist attacks, after which he immediately said he "appreciate[s] the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism" after 49 people were brutally murdered, even though there's little evidence the shooter was radicalized, and then he went on to absurdly suggest that Barack Obama was secretly working with Isis.
Trump's attempts at qualifying his proposals might be considered hilarious if they weren't so appalling. In March, he attempted to "clarify" his calls for more torture by saying that the US needed to "broaden" the laws on the books that make it illegal instead of just immediately violating them. (He could also just radically "re-interpret" the laws on the books just like the Bush administration did.) Last week, he claimed that his "ban all Muslims" policy proposal really only meant that he wanted to ban all Muslims that come from Muslim majority countries, as though that wasn't just as bigoted and offensive as his original proposal.
The amount of damage an unchecked Trump could do with the national security infrastructure in place - the CIA drone program, NSA warrantless spying, the ability to conduct unilateral war with no congressional approval, etc - is truly extraordinary. We learned Thursday from BuzzFeed that Trump allegedly listened secretly to the phone calls of employees at his Florida resort Mar-A-Lago. And this headline from a month ago should send chills down the spine of anyone worried about constitutional rights and the separation of powers: "Trump Orders Surrogates to Intensify Criticism of Judge and Journalists."
All of this once again points to the extreme dangers of the incredible expansion of executive power under the Bush and Obama administrations, and the failure to prosecute those who engaged in torture a decade ago. It has now turned into political football and a policy dispute rather than what it actually is: a clear crime.
But instead of "Trump proofing" our national security apparatus, Congress is in the midst of attempting to expand it. Democrats want to expand and entrench the secret and due process-free terror watch list, and Republicans are attempting to dramatically expand the FBI's ability to to conduct electronic surveillance completely free of any court oversight.
Trump's statements should be yet another reminder of the terrifying powers of the US president, and we should be doing everything we can to curtail that power, rather than expand it.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.