Trumps Very Friendly Talk With Duterte Stuns Aides and Critics Alike

[womanofthehills]

During their “very friendly conversation,” the administration said in a late-night statement, Mr. Trump invited Mr. Duterte, an authoritarian leader accused of ordering extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in the Philippines, to visit him at the White House.

Now, administration officials are bracing for an avalanche of criticism from human rights groups. Two officials said they expected the State Department and the National Security Council, both of which were caught off guard by the invitation, to raise objections internally.

The White House disclosed the news on a day when Mr. Trump whipped up ardent backers at a campaign-style rally in Harrisburg, Pa. The timing of the announcement — after a speech that was an angry, grievance-filled jeremiad — encapsulated this president after 100 days in office: still ready to say and do things that leave people, even on his staff, slack-jawed.

“By essentially endorsing Duterte’s murderous war on drugs, Trump is now morally complicit in future killings,” said John Sifton, the Asia director of Human Rights Watch. “Although the traits of his personality likely make it impossible, Trump should be ashamed of himself.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/politics/trump-duterte.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share

[womanofthehills]

1. Did not notify State Dept

Keith Boykin@keithboykin
Trump set up a meeting with Duterte without even notifying his own State Department or National Security Council. nytimes.com/2017/04/30/us/…

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. Would it have made any difference?

Tillerson is as freaking worthless in his position as... well, as all the rest of Rump's Secretaries. (Except maybe Mattis.)

[OnDoutside]

15. Tillerson is only there to further Exxon's interests. He never even met Trump before being appointed

[Enoki33]

18. It is an appointment that begs the question:

How much control does Putin have over trump and the Whitehouse?

[OnDoutside]

19. There's a suggestion that Trump would be cut into this

90 billion barrel oil field that Exxon have the drilling rights to, in Siberia, IF he can get sanctions overturned, or at least an exemption for this Exxon deal.

There's lots of scope for investigating this appointment.

[tblue37]

9. He always cuts STate out of the process when he makes statements and phone calls

that affect our foreign policy and international standing. He also doesn't consult with State Department experts before making sweeping statements about and accusations against other countries and their leaders.

Thus you have him admitting, though with no sense of embarrassment at all, that he actually had no idea of what NATO was for or how it worked, and no idea about the relationship between China and North Korea. He didn't know anything about NAFTA, or about the Import-Export Bank, or about how tariffs might affect American businesses and consumers. He also didn't know how the FISA court worked or what role, if any, a president could play in getting the IC to initiate surveillance against anyone, especially a US citizen.

He is so comfortably smug in his total ignorance of pretty much everything that he never asks the experts for information--he just swings wildly, making statements, threats, and accusations on subjects he knows less about than Jon Snow--who, as everyone is aware, knows nothing.

[Snarkoleptic]

2. Maybe now we won't have to hear how Ivanka and Jared will

help Trump moderate on social issues.

[pbmus]

3. SAD...just so embarrassing...

[SHRED]

4. Stunned?

Then they are idiots who aren't paying attention IMHO.

[elleng]

8. Unfortunately there are many such.

[Sculpin Beauregard]

5. Compromised Pres 1000% off the rails. Danger danger.

[womanofthehills]

6. Preet Bharara tweet

Preet Bharara@PreetBharara

On Duterte visit: DJT is "still ready to say and do things that leave people, even on his staff, slack-jawed."

[ancianita]

10. 45 is probably asking the guy about his uses of legal loopholes and judiciary control.

[tenorly]

12. Bingo.

And probably for a building permit or two in Manila.

[JudyM]

11. I worry now: if he starts to really lose it, and the process of impeaching him starts, could he go

seriously rogue in a last ditch attempt to achieve some superlative stature? Like "the first president to start a nuclear war?" Or something...?

[ancianita]

14. HE is already rogue. The question is whether he will drag the U.S. into rogue status with him. I

can't believe that the military would allow a nuclear fight with another nuclear power. It's never been done in human history.

We have NO idea what the outcome would be for the planet. But the military does.

I'm worried with you.

But there are brakes that can be applied to him, even if there are no checks and balances across governmental branches.

[JudyM]

21. I don't know of any brakes that would allow the generals to delay a C-in-Chief order... do you?

[ancianita]

22. Any military command head or general or Joint Chief can refuse an order from the president

or superior that breaks the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

That's the brake I had in mind. We could and should, as civilians, familiarize ourselves with the UMCJ.

[JudyM]

23. Are you familiar enough with it to know of a provision in it that would apply? I don't...

[ancianita]

24. No more familiar with the UMCJ than other civilians; I will bet JAGs can find what you want.

Overall, military law states that there is a RIGHT way to use military force that not even a civilian commander-in-chief may not abuse.

This is a definition of a brake by the right level of command.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/02/27/a-duty-to-disobey-all-unlawful-orders/

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

This is about eight international brakes that support the U.S. military's brake:

Among the international laws and treaties that a U.S. pre-emptive attack on Iraq may violate are: ?

-- The Hague Convention on Land Warfare of 1899, which was reaffirmed by the U.S. at the 1946
-- Nuremberg International Military Tribunals; ?
-- Resolution on the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War, adopted UN General Assembly, Dec 12, 1980; ?
-- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; December 9, 1948, Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the UN General Assembly; ?
-- Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Adopted on August 12, 1949 by the Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War; ?
-- Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, 1108 U.N.T.S. 151, Oct. 5, 1978; ?
-- The Charter of the United Nations; ?
-- The Nuremberg Principles, which define as a crime against peace, “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for accomplishment of any of the forgoing.”

I'm also willing to familiarize myself with a general read in the UMCJ here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/subtitle-A/part-II/chapter-47

and here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Advocate_General%27s_Corps#United_States

The intermingling of the president's input into civilian appointments within the military's judicial/court system is pretty interesting.

[JudyM]

25. Thanks for that. Not seeing anything that would afford them that authority here, though.

There wouldn't be anything inherently unlawful or in opposition to the Constitution if tRump ordered an attack on NKorea. "Exceptionally unwise" isn't a permissible basis for disobeying.

[ancianita]

28. I added international and UCMJ stuff, so please reread my post. Who is the "them" that you refer to?

[Honeycombe8]

13. OMG. This man has no idea what he's doing.

At least I hope that's the case, and not intentional.

[The Wielding Truth]

17. He is a traitor to the Constitution and is a liar to democracy. He is working to destroy it.

Prove me wrong.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I can't. That's scary. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

16. They need to stop the "slack-jawing" and start the grand juries

in order to end this madness.

[underpants]

26. He didn't invite Andrew Jackson?

[dalton99a]

27. Birds of a feather

[heaven05]

29. bannon stamp here

"sure DT, go ahead talk to him, can't hurt. And by the way your rally the other night, GREAT!!!! All those fucking nazis there made me wet my pants"....ha ha ha...,.,.this BS about RW surprise is for public consumption with no substance behind it. The duplicity and hypocrisy is so very obvious, it's disgusting.

[Retrograde]

30. Doesn't T have business interests in the Philippines?

Isn't there a Trump eyesore in Manilla, or plans for one? What would the State Department know about building yuuuge hotels or golf courses or whatever Trump has/wants there? The Lord High Dealmaker has to negotiate directly with foreign powers on important things like that.

Do you really expect Trump to take important time away from self-aggrandizement to try to run the country in a way that benefits the majority of Americans?