4 ms·

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war This should be fun.

by helaoban 7mo ago

antonvs 7mo ago
[flagged]
- Applejinx 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- SllX 7mo ago
  There’s a reason every POTUS has a Secret Service detail. So yeah, it’s been imagined. Presidents have been shot and killed before, and Trump himself was shot during the lead up to the most recent election.
  - lukan 7mo ago
    Yes, by one lone shooter without support in the background. If there is a determined team of assassins .. all it takes is one well placed shot.
    - SllX 7mo ago
      Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats and the US Military there for every single other threat above the Secret Service’s pay grade and scale. It’s the most dangerous and most protected job in America no matter what the POTUS is actively doing at any and every single moment.
      - antonvs 7mo ago
        > Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.
        SllX 7mo ago
        I think y’all are so quick to try and criticize everything around the President that you’re kinda missing my point: Of course there are people that would love to target the POTUS. The Secret Service detail exists for a reason. That reason being that yeah, it’s an unsafe job, and having them there is how we prevent a foreign adversary from just walking right into the White House and doing what we did to Maduro.
        cindyllm 7mo ago
        [dead]
  - antonvs 7mo ago
    It seems more likely that a piece of glass nicked his ear. But both attempts on Trump so far have been amateur, as far as anyone knows.
7e 7mo ago
Israel does not need a declaration of war to kill heads of state. Their targeted killing policy has been upheld by their own Supreme Court. Whether international law agrees is another matter. The US has also done this since 1945 (at least) although executive orders have, at times, placed some restraint on the practice.
tokyobreakfast 7mo ago
Generally when you murder 30k of your own people the civilized world doesn't let you get away with it.
- epolanski 7mo ago
  It actually does, or even supports this based on the narratives it sees fit and the interests at hand.
- gambiting 7mo ago
  I just wish we'd apply this rule slightly more widely and didn't let countries get away with say - just as example - killing 20k children in Gaza. I guess you did say "generally".
- croes 7mo ago
  Unless it’s our dictator like Pinochet
- krapp 7mo ago
  Generally it does, actually. Neither the US nor Europe would have cared about Hitler's mass murder as long as he kept it in Germany and didn't disrupt business, his antisemitism was not unusual, and he was generally popular in the US. Stalin got away with it. Mao Zedong got away with it, and his authoritarian regime is a nascent superpower. Pol Pot more or less got away with it. He was deposed by his own people and died in his sleep. Israel has killed tens of thousands Palestinians and the world did nothing to stop it, America funded it. Idi Amin murdered hundreds of thousands of people and died in luxury. How many Russians and Ukrainians has Putin and his invasion of Ukraine sent to the slaughterhouse? Do you think anything is going to happen to him? How many North Koreans have the Kims starved to death or executed? Repercussions for the Armenian genocide? None. History is replete leaders whom the "civilized world" let "get away with it."
- UncleMeat 7mo ago
  More than 30k dead palestinians.
- nullocator 7mo ago
libertine 7mo ago
What's the time window of "now"? For example in 2022 Russia tried to take out the Ukrainian president with a "3 day special military operation", that is still going on.
vixen99 7mo ago
Do you think the estimated 6,221 men and women protesting against the regime who were killed on orders from that head of state should get a vote here?
dralley 7mo ago
Did you miss that time Russia sent multiple kill squads after Zelensky? Seems like it's been on the table for a few years now.
beloch 7mo ago
The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. The U.S. constitution allocates the authority to declare war to congress but, in practice, it's been under the sole authority of the POTUS since long before Trump. This reallocation of authority hasn't been a huge problem until now. Now you have a POTUS whose motives for starting a war are entirely suspect. It's true that negotiations between Iran and the U.S. would have had significant trust hurdles to overcome. The U.S. and Iran had a deal that granted Iran relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a halt to Iran's nuclear program. It was working, but Trump is the president who unilaterally broke that agreement in his previous term[1]. Trump has also repeatedly broken his own agreements in his current term. Even his own signature is now completely worthless. What would it have taken to assure Iran the U.S. could be trusted to honour its word with Trump in power? Moreover, the timing of this war makes it hard to view as anything other than the bloodiest case of "Wag the Dog" of the modern era. Americans need to put this "president of peace" behind bars or he'll just keep starting wars. Once that's done, serious consideration should be given to restoring many of the powers the constitution allocates to congress, including the authority to declare war. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. (1) A declaration of war is not necessary for a war to legally exist, except in the context of specific US laws that might rely on a declared state of war, (2) Congress constitutional power to declare war is not dependent on the use of special words; every (conditional or unconditional) “authorization for the use of military force” (including the broad but time limited authorization in the War Powers Act) and similar is an application of the Constitutional power to declare war.
chewz 7mo ago
Ursula is next? US doesn't like European leadership either... Would be fun to see Ursula before judge in NY soon.

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war This should be fun.

antonvs 7mo ago

[flagged]

Applejinx 7mo ago
[flagged]
SllX 7mo ago
There’s a reason every POTUS has a Secret Service detail. So yeah, it’s been imagined. Presidents have been shot and killed before, and Trump himself was shot during the lead up to the most recent election.
- lukan 7mo ago
  Yes, by one lone shooter without support in the background. If there is a determined team of assassins .. all it takes is one well placed shot.
  - SllX 7mo ago
    Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats and the US Military there for every single other threat above the Secret Service’s pay grade and scale. It’s the most dangerous and most protected job in America no matter what the POTUS is actively doing at any and every single moment.
    - antonvs 7mo ago
      > Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.
      - SllX 7mo ago
        I think y’all are so quick to try and criticize everything around the President that you’re kinda missing my point: Of course there are people that would love to target the POTUS. The Secret Service detail exists for a reason. That reason being that yeah, it’s an unsafe job, and having them there is how we prevent a foreign adversary from just walking right into the White House and doing what we did to Maduro.
        cindyllm 7mo ago
        [dead]
- antonvs 7mo ago
  It seems more likely that a piece of glass nicked his ear. But both attempts on Trump so far have been amateur, as far as anyone knows.

7e 7mo ago

Israel does not need a declaration of war to kill heads of state. Their targeted killing policy has been upheld by their own Supreme Court. Whether international law agrees is another matter. The US has also done this since 1945 (at least) although executive orders have, at times, placed some restraint on the practice.

tokyobreakfast 7mo ago

Generally when you murder 30k of your own people the civilized world doesn't let you get away with it.

epolanski 7mo ago
It actually does, or even supports this based on the narratives it sees fit and the interests at hand.
gambiting 7mo ago
I just wish we'd apply this rule slightly more widely and didn't let countries get away with say - just as example - killing 20k children in Gaza. I guess you did say "generally".
croes 7mo ago
Unless it’s our dictator like Pinochet
krapp 7mo ago
Generally it does, actually. Neither the US nor Europe would have cared about Hitler's mass murder as long as he kept it in Germany and didn't disrupt business, his antisemitism was not unusual, and he was generally popular in the US. Stalin got away with it. Mao Zedong got away with it, and his authoritarian regime is a nascent superpower. Pol Pot more or less got away with it. He was deposed by his own people and died in his sleep. Israel has killed tens of thousands Palestinians and the world did nothing to stop it, America funded it. Idi Amin murdered hundreds of thousands of people and died in luxury. How many Russians and Ukrainians has Putin and his invasion of Ukraine sent to the slaughterhouse? Do you think anything is going to happen to him? How many North Koreans have the Kims starved to death or executed? Repercussions for the Armenian genocide? None. History is replete leaders whom the "civilized world" let "get away with it."
UncleMeat 7mo ago
More than 30k dead palestinians.
nullocator 7mo ago

libertine 7mo ago

What's the time window of "now"? For example in 2022 Russia tried to take out the Ukrainian president with a "3 day special military operation", that is still going on.

vixen99 7mo ago

Do you think the estimated 6,221 men and women protesting against the regime who were killed on orders from that head of state should get a vote here?

dralley 7mo ago

Did you miss that time Russia sent multiple kill squads after Zelensky? Seems like it's been on the table for a few years now.

beloch 7mo ago

The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. The U.S. constitution allocates the authority to declare war to congress but, in practice, it's been under the sole authority of the POTUS since long before Trump. This reallocation of authority hasn't been a huge problem until now. Now you have a POTUS whose motives for starting a war are entirely suspect. It's true that negotiations between Iran and the U.S. would have had significant trust hurdles to overcome. The U.S. and Iran had a deal that granted Iran relief from economic sanctions in exchange for a halt to Iran's nuclear program. It was working, but Trump is the president who unilaterally broke that agreement in his previous term[1]. Trump has also repeatedly broken his own agreements in his current term. Even his own signature is now completely worthless. What would it have taken to assure Iran the U.S. could be trusted to honour its word with Trump in power? Moreover, the timing of this war makes it hard to view as anything other than the bloodiest case of "Wag the Dog" of the modern era. Americans need to put this "president of peace" behind bars or he'll just keep starting wars. Once that's done, serious consideration should be given to restoring many of the powers the constitution allocates to congress, including the authority to declare war. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_...

dragonwriter 7mo ago
> Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. (1) A declaration of war is not necessary for a war to legally exist, except in the context of specific US laws that might rely on a declared state of war, (2) Congress constitutional power to declare war is not dependent on the use of special words; every (conditional or unconditional) “authorization for the use of military force” (including the broad but time limited authorization in the War Powers Act) and similar is an application of the Constitutional power to declare war.

chewz 7mo ago

Ursula is next? US doesn't like European leadership either... Would be fun to see Ursula before judge in NY soon.