THE ERA OF TRUMP

[SuburbanFarmer]

If you join an enemy power, or take up arms against the United States, then no, you don't have constitutional rights. You have Geneva Convention rights (see: unlawful combatant), but those rights don't exclude the possibility of us bombing you with a drone.

Uh huh, but did that guy "take up arms against the US", or just join an exceptionally violent gang?

Also, I'm reasonably certain that the Geneva convention prohibits air strikes against anyone not engaged in a battle against your troops... could be wrong.

I also recall some sort of prohibition against torture and detainment without charge, but that was so long ago.

When you join Al Qaeda, you lose those rights. You become an enemy combatant, or more technically, an unlawful enemy combatant.

If he cared about his constitutional rights, then all he had to do was turn himself in to the marine detachment at any US embassy or consulate so that the FBI could collect him and bring him back to the US. He didn't do that.

...so then we are officially recognizing Al Qaeda as a "foreign power"? If I join the Hells Angels, or equivalent in Germany, does that open me up to air strike justice? What about if I just hang out with an African warlord too much?

[Montegriffo]

When you had Obama willing to go to a war stance, and Hillary doubling down on said stance, don't you think anyone not wanting to go to war would be celebrating that Trump won?

The alternative to a willing to go to war stance is a not willing to go to war stance or CND.
Trump's promises to expand the military and increase spending don't appear to be consistent with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
It is naive to think any President would not take a willing to go to war stance as it would be an extremely dangerous position to take.
Knowing about Trumps links to Russian oligarchs and big business would be a more likely reason to celebrate.

[Speaker to Animals]

Uh huh, but did that guy "take up arms against the US", or just join an exceptionally violent gang?

Also, I'm reasonably certain that the Geneva convention prohibits air strikes against anyone not engaged in a battle against your troops... could be wrong.

I also recall some sort of prohibition against torture and detainment without charge, but that was so long ago.

When you join Al Qaeda, you lose those rights. You become an enemy combatant, or more technically, an unlawful enemy combatant.

If he cared about his constitutional rights, then all he had to do was turn himself in to the marine detachment at any US embassy or consulate so that the FBI could collect him and bring him back to the US. He didn't do that.

...so then we are officially recognizing Al Qaeda as a "foreign power"? If I join the Hells Angels, or equivalent in Germany, does that open me up to air strike justice? What about if I just hang out with an African warlord too much?

As used in this subchapter:
(a) “Foreign power” means—
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons;
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments; or
(7) an entity not substantially composed of United States persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1801

[SuburbanFarmer]

(c) “International terrorism” means activities that—
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;

Welp, looks like we can drone-strike pretty much anybody that commits a crime anywhere... all perfectly legal, of course.

[Dand]

[SuburbanFarmer]

What a glorious and benevolent leader.

[ssu]

No, it's not a vast, sweeping CIA hoax to frame up some "totally innocent victimized Russia."

But I could see the Russian DNC Hack as a cooked-up pretense to start digging into the Trump administration, especially in light of this Vault 7 release showing that they can make it look like someone else.

Very likely they have those capabilities. But think they have been used here? What simply is the idea? Would the idea be that the CIA hacked the DNC and made it to look like a Russian hack... yet it hacked the DNC? Why? Or people believe in the 400 pound hacker on bed, and then CIA staged it to be Russia? Look, if the CIA/NSA spies on it's allies, let's say France, then it would be logical to make it look like it's someone else (which usually isn't going to work as Washington leaks all the time). Why on Earth an institution that has to be in good terms with the US president will meddle in such way as it strains the relationship with both candidates?

And it simply just isn't the hacking. It's also the appeasement policies (which now are out). It's the Russian media's stance (that is controlled By the Kremlin). Add those all up and then you can get the whole picture.

Every time Trump associates are lambasted in the media for Russians, it's always prefaced by bringing up the Russians hacking the DNC to make this look like some kind of grandiose conspiracy, making it look like it's worse than it is. This hack is where it all started.

It's US politics. If Trump would be a democratic president now, the Republicans likely would have had him already impeached and thrown out in a frenzy of patriotic fervour. Democrats are simply aren't so aggressive as the GOP, but are simply clueless and very lame. But naturally they will not let this go away and try their best to make matter worse for Trump.

It certainly has me calling into question the "intelligence community's" conclusion, here. You start pulling on this thread of distrust, where do you end up?

Usually it's good to follow the money and be a bit critical on every player and understand what their agenda is. Once you understand their agenda, you can filter away the worst bias.

First of all, Wikipedia naturally has an desire to clean it's image here, but the truth is that an independent whistleblower in this World isn't going to happen, as much as we would like it. Once the US went after Assange, he had to put his money on the Russians (or basically the Russians put the money on him). There is an obvious reason that Assange is in a denial that it wasn't the Russians is obvious: the actual information gotten from the hacks was even now sidelined, and would have been even more if he would have admitted it could have been the Russians. An Assange type of guy can publish data given by whistleblowers or activists, but if it's something spoonfed from a government, he loses all credibility. The thing simply is that a guy like Assange has to play the game. And let's remember that he got a) a visa to Russia, b) financial backing from Russia and an opening for a media program in Russian media. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Just like Snowden, I'm sure that Assange likely didn't want to have such a close tie to Russia, but what could you do else? You can see this clearly from the simple fact that Wikileaks has never said anything really bad or produced any leaks from Russia, even if it says it has been critical about the country. The closest that I can find is that Wikileaks has published hackings from the Syrian government done by anonymous. And even that wasn't hugely embarrasing for Russia or Syria. The emphasis was on the links of the Syrian regime with Western corporations.

[Martin Hash]

Damn, ssu, you trust the CIA over Julian. We live in different worlds.

[The Conservative]

When you had Obama willing to go to a war stance, and Hillary doubling down on said stance, don't you think anyone not wanting to go to war would be celebrating that Trump won?

The alternative to a willing to go to war stance is a not willing to go to war stance or CND.
Trump's promises to expand the military and increase spending don't appear to be consistent with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
It is naive to think any President would not take a willing to go to war stance as it would be an extremely dangerous position to take.
Knowing about Trumps links to Russian oligarchs and big business would be a more likely reason to celebrate.

Let's put it this way, a strong military does not mean we will go to war. Actions do, and right now Trump has shown no actions to do so, but Obama did and Hillary was promising to...

The lesser of two evils won by his unwillingness to go to war for something that doesn't affect us.

[Speaker to Animals]

A super strong military is a guarantee you will be going to war. A large standing army is a war magnet, especially in any republic whose power is somehow based on votes.