What did you think of that meeting with Trump and Putin?

[mark46]

We forget that we have lots of troops in Germany and Japan precisely because we do NOT want them to be military powers. This is indeed considered to be in the best interests of the US, well until now.

And, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to you because history started BEFORE Trump was elected, but NATO was in part formed so America could keep some degree of control in Europe. To keep a resurgent military from developing in Germany AND to act as a bulwark against Soviet Russia.

NATO isn't some charity that Trump takes care of. It is OUR DEFENSIVE POSITION.

 

[mark46]

Russia has interfered in many, many elections, in many, many countries. It has used cyber and social media to try to affect the stability of many countries, in addition to NATO and the EU.

Trump wants to reduce our military presence in Europe and in the Middle East (as did Obama, BTW).

IMHO, it is proper policy is to have significant increases in sanctions on Russia. Congress agrees. The president has refused to impose the sanctions, and strongly disagrees with treating Russia as an enemy.

There is no explaining necessary to the 35%-40% of Trump's base, including the evangelical right. The entire intelligence community has many times testified under oath that Russia interfered in our elections and tried to defeat Clinton. There is no explaining necessary. And yes, the public will continue to get more and more information, which will have little effect unless the Republican congressional leaders change their positions and willingness to act.

Either Trump and Putin are correct that the alleged Russian meddling is a hoax perpetrated by the US intelligence community, or

Russia has committed a hostile act against the sovereignty of the United States and Trump has a lot of 'splainin to do, despite the fact that you think he has unilateral authority to nominate our allies.

 

[super animator]

In large part that is indeed the case.

In other words you have no personal convictions here. Gee I never know that mark do not have any personal opinions on this matter.

 

[NotreDame]

Aid and Comfort, there's no denying it.

Aid and Comfort, there's no denying it.

adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
​

The qualifying words to the phrase "give them Aid and Comfort" is "adhering" and "Enemies." Russia is not an "enemy." Neither do Trump's comments constitute as "adhering" to Russia, or to provide a non-existent enemy "Aid and Comfort."

The Constitutional language draws its inspiration from a 1351 English statute defining treason. The statute read, in relevant part:

if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort.
​

The word "Enemies" rationally does not contemplate a foreign power in a mere tense relationship with the U.S., or what could be characterized as an adversarial relationship. The word "enemy" refers to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S., or perhaps something akin to an armed conflict. See https://www.jstor.org/stable/787437?seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

There is no need to expound upon the meaning of "adhering" or "aid and comfort" since Russia is not an "enemy."

 

[theQuincunx5]

The qualifying words to the phrase "give them Aid and Comfort" is "adhering" and "Enemies." Russia is not an "enemy."

How are "enemies" determined for the purposes of this statute? (Editted to add: I note it requires ARMED CONFLICT. See my point below about cyberattacks, etc).

Neither do Trump's comments constitute as "adhering" to Russia, or to provide a non-existent enemy "Aid and Comfort."

How does Trump's action not qualify as adhering or providing aid and comfort? Regardless of the other attributes of the statute, if those things were in effect, how would Trump's actions fail to be adherence or aid and comfort?

The word "Enemies" rationally does not contemplate a foreign power in a mere tense relationship with the U.S.,

But there is almost no one who thinks that Russia merely has a "tense relationship" with us. Arguably they have interfered with our government by meddling in our election (regardless of how egregious you may feel it to be in this case). It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.

or what could be characterized as an adversarial relationship. The word "enemy" refers to a foreign power engaged in an armed conflict against the U.S.

So it requires ARMS? Cyberattacks do not count because they do not use gunpowder? Just curious because this could be very important. If cyberattacks are not accounted for in the Constitution then clearly no one can ever attack America using cyberattacks. Is that how we are to interpret the Constitution?

There is no need to expound upon the meaning of "adhering" or "aid and comfort" since Russia is not an "enemy."

I traverse this. Clearly we can disagree on whether Russia is an enemy or not (by your definition it seems to require GUNPOWDER be involved, and I think that is debatable). If that prong of the test is solved for then can we agree that Trump's activities WOULD qualify as adherence and aid-and-comfort? ("Enemy" is critical to the overall conclusion, but it does NOT define adherence or aid-and-comfort. In that it would technically be possible to provide aid-and-comfort or adhere to someone who is not an enemy it just wouldn't rise to the level of the statute.)

 

[Albion]

I rather assume you are unfamiliar with history.

I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.

 

[szechuan]

I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.

Trump University has a no refund policy.

 

[Speedwell]

But there is almost no one who thinks that Russia merely has a "tense relationship" with us. Arguably they have interfered with our government by meddling in our election (regardless of how egregious you may feel it to be in this case). It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.



So it requires ARMS? Cyberattacks do not count because they do not use gunpowder? Just curious because this could be very important. If cyberattacks are not accounted for in the Constitution then clearly no one can ever attack America using cyberattacks. Is that how we are to interpret the Constitution?

Almost no one? Isn't it the position of Trump's base that the cyber attacks are a hoax concocted by US intelligence as part of the deep state conspiracy to "get Trump?"

 

[Albion]

Trump University has a no refund policy.

I think it also has a no admission policy.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I'll mail my degrees back to the university. Some unknown person on the internet says he thinks I am unfamiliar with history.

Perhaps you could demonstrate such familiarity. Degree or not, if one has a degree in history but one espouses positions that don't seem to be informed by history in the slightest I would have no way to know if you have a history degree or not.

Perhaps you should send it back to the university.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Almost no one? Isn't it the position of Trump's base that the cyber attacks are a hoax concocted by US intelligence as part of the deep state conspiracy to "get Trump?"

Perhaps I should have said "almost no unbiased, educated observer..."

These days I don't take any Trump Supporters' positions seriously or as requiring thought or reason.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nah, he is what you called a "sucker". The dude is a open book in predictably.

I was referring to Vladimir, not Donald.

 

[NotreDame]

How are "enemies" determined for the purposes of this statute? (Editted to add: I note it requires ARMED CONFLICT. See my point below about cyberattacks, etc).



How does Trump's action not qualify as adhering or providing aid and comfort? Regardless of the other attributes of the statute, if those things were in effect, how would Trump's actions fail to be adherence or aid and comfort?



But there is almost no one who thinks that Russia merely has a "tense relationship" with us. Arguably they have interfered with our government by meddling in our election (regardless of how egregious you may feel it to be in this case). It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.



So it requires ARMS? Cyberattacks do not count because they do not use gunpowder? Just curious because this could be very important. If cyberattacks are not accounted for in the Constitution then clearly no one can ever attack America using cyberattacks. Is that how we are to interpret the Constitution?



I traverse this. Clearly we can disagree on whether Russia is an enemy or not (by your definition it seems to require GUNPOWDER be involved, and I think that is debatable). If that prong of the test is solved for then can we agree that Trump's activities WOULD qualify as adherence and aid-and-comfort? ("Enemy" is critical to the overall conclusion, but it does NOT define adherence or aid-and-comfort. In that it would technically be possible to provide aid-and-comfort or adhere to someone who is not an enemy it just wouldn't rise to the level of the statute.)

It is irrational to look at Russia and classify them as merely a tense acquaintance.

Not really...but I did hedged my bets and used the word "adversarial."

How does Trump's action not qualify as adhering or providing aid and comfort? Regardless of the other attributes of the statute, if those things were in effect, how would Trump's actions fail to be adherence or aid and comfort?

The "other attributes" are part of the constitutional provision and form the scope and extent of "aid and comfort." They cannot rationally be ignored in addressing "aid and comfort."

("Enemy" is critical to the overall conclusion, but it does NOT define adherence or aid-and-comfort.

It is a relationship, whether some conduct constitutes as "aid and comfort" requires analysis of A.) an enemy, a foreign power engaged in armed conflict against the U.S. and B.) the action undertaken by a person is analyzed and considered in relation to A.)

Clearly we can disagree on whether Russia is an enemy or not (by your definition it seems to require GUNPOWDER be involved, and I think that is debatable).

I said "armed conflict" and the article I cited to an article supporting the notion of "armed conflict." You can of course disagree but on what basis? What is the evidence you have for a different meaning of the word "enemy" in the constitutional provision under discussion?

 

[theQuincunx5]

It is a relationship, whether some conduct constitutes as "aid and comfort" requires analysis of A.) an enemy, a foreign power engaged in armed conflict against the U.S. and B.) the action undertaken by a person is analyzed and considered in relation to A.)

Perhaps I am confused but it seems that we have three aspects that need to be present:

1. Enemy
2. Adherence to enemy
3. Aid and comfort to enemy

Presumably each of these can be assessed separately.

My question was that if we, for the moment, ignore the "enemy" prong, can we agree that if Russia was an enemy that Trump's actions rise to the level of "adherence" and "aid-and-comfort"?

That leaves only to figure out if Russia is an enemy.

I said "armed conflict" and the article I cited to an article supporting the notion of "armed conflict." You can of course disagree but on what basis?

My question was whether cyberattacks would qualify as an armed attack (or conflict, if you will).

If a country were to attack us with weapons (bombs and guns) clearly that would be an armed conflict.

Is a CYBERATTACK in that same category? If not, why not?

What is the evidence you have for a different meaning of the word "enemy" in the constitutional provision under discussion?

I have already asked it. If an enemy is classified as one in armed conflict with us, then the burden shifts to you to define for me what counts as "armed conflict".

Doess a cyberattack qualify?

 

[mark46]

In other words you have no personal convictions here. Gee I never know that mark do not have any personal opinions on this matter.

Are you asking what my personal view is? That was;t the discussion. The discussion was about whether the president and commander-in-chief were largely responsible deciding who our allies should be.

Personally, I support our traditional foreign policy, the policy of every president and party since WWII. Our most important allies are Canada, the European countries, Israel, Jordan, and Australia. I would LIKE us to add Mexico and some of the Latin American countries, as has been our wish since the 1700's. Finally, we should also be adding India and some the African countries.

And yes, we must almost always have an ally or either Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

[Go Braves]

 

[AirPo]

 

[AirPo]

https://www.ajc.com/rf/image_lowres/Pub/p9/AJC/2018/07/12/Images/mike0715_20180712200233.jpg

 

[DaisyDay]

Meanwhile a group is fine with killing their own unborn but acting up in arms about putting illegally-entered children in detention away from their parents. Do they really care about children, or about votes??

Perhaps they care about born children and former children but not so much about embryos. That's a possibility, too.

 

[DaisyDay]

Well at least it was not an Obama apology tour.

M-Bob

It was worse - the so-called apology tour was Obama meeting and greeting our allies, practicing diplomacy and promoting good-will between friendly nation-states while this! this was Donald being obsequious before our enemy and loudly denigrating his own people. Truly disgraceful.