A post that Mr. Trump circulated on Sunday called for Liz Cheney to be prosecuted by a military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.

Included in the list of people to be brought up for war crimes against the United States were Current President Joe Biden, Current VP Kamala Harris, former VP Mike Pence, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Illinois Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson.

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Liz Cheney is not an enemy combatant. If this is Trump’s definition of one, that as an authoritarian any dissent to his will is considered treason, then he’ll still need to change the rules of military tribunals to allow prosecution of non-combatant civilians. In case anyone hasn’t read it, Wikipedia has a page on Military tribunals in the United States - Wikipedia

    It’s curious Trump seems to believe that mere political dissent equates to enemy combat and physical violence. Imagine what he must think about Jan 6 that he has been keeping to himself. Can anyone say “project”?

    He’s saying he must be given a military tribunal as an enemy combatant?

  • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Surely, surely, a significant portion of conservative voters can see that this isn’t what democracy should look like, even if they’re ardent republican supporters.

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      When your neighbor waves a loaded gun in your face, do you whine about how no neighbors should be behaving like that? Is that effective? That’s basically begging for morality.

      Stop preaching morality to your foes. The servatives are too far gone. The billionaires are too far gone.

      No more hopium and copium.

      We need to wake up to what IS, as opposed to what we wish it were.

      If morality could solve any socioeconomic imbalance, billionaires would ban and outlaw morality.

      The fact that morality is always promoted and no one went to prison or was assassinated for promoting morality means one of two things: either a) morality doesn’t exist and can’t work even in principle, and instead we have a bullshit narrative to make people more timid and more self-doubting to make from them more manageable subjects, or b) real actual morality does exist, and when taught WOULD threaten the billionaires and other exploiters, and thus WOULD effectively produce societies centered on broad wellbeing, but we were never exposed to it in religion or in any university level class.

      If it’s b) then such morality isn’t based on begging and pleading with the unwilling and uninterested parties. And also if it’s b) then preaching such morality would be viewed as a threat to today’s trash status quo and a threat to the morbidly wealthy billionaires.

    • fukurthumz420@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      republican allegiance is to the bible, not the constitution. they say a lot of things about the constitution, but in the end, they just want christo-fascism. some of them are true believers in the make believe, others just use to justify their own cruelty.

      either way, their motives don’t matter. it’s all about what we’re going to do about it.

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Whether or not it’s “what democracy should look like” is an opinion often based on whether you’re on (or think you’re on) the giving or receiving end of the oppression.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I get that, but I suppose I’m trying to say that there’s a point at which even if you’re not on the receiving end of the oppression you have to recognise that something’s not right.

  • Deello@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This country went from undecided on the death penalty to openly embracing presidential hit squads seemingly over night. The right is saying who is on their list while the left is saying they should make one. Good times ahead.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Would be a reaaaal shame if someone interpreted this as a threat to the rule of law that necessitated some kind of presidential act. There’s gotta be plenty of realistic ways to fuck with him in an official capacity.

      • b161@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        Can’t wait to see Biden take the “high road” and just sit back and let this play out and get himself executed. 🤦‍♀️

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          Leaving unused options on the table then turning the country over to a fascist is a lot like being the guy who sits at the table with fascists and if Biden loses without trying something Im gonna call him that.

  • Fapper_McFapper@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    He’s literally telling us what he’s going to do with a second term and we’re still not taking this asshat seriously. Like I said, we seem to be asleep at the wheel.

  • Fire Witch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Biden and co will literally get hunted down by Trump’s goons if he doesn’t use his new powers to do what needs to be done

  • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Wonderful.

    The delusional Q Anon ‘secret military tribunals any day now’ belief now stands a reasonable chance of actually happening.

    • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Doubtful that the military would actually do that. Trump while President was reportedly annoyed at basically being told ‘no’ that General Kelly said that:

      The President’s loud complaint to [then-White House chief of staff] John Kelly one day was typical: “You [f------] generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?”

      “Which generals?” Kelly asked.

      “The German generals in World War II,” Trump responded.

      “You do know that they tried to kill Hitler three times and almost pulled it off?” Kelly said.

      But, of course, Trump did not know that. “No, no, no, they were totally loyal to him,” the President replied.

      The President may be Commander-in-Chief but the oath is to the Constitution. Obeying the President and officers are also a part of the oath but with the caveat that it is according to the regulations and UCMJ. You not only don’t have to but you’re taught to explicitly not follow an illegal order in the US military.

      Not that US military members have given illegal orders that were followed but it is a little different to basically order the military to essentially start enforcing essentially a government coup for a politician against the US’ own citizens.

      • sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I mean, I agree with you that most military leaders and soldiers would not do this.

        But your own example kind of shows the likely strategy:

        What did Hitler do? What did Stalin do?

        Fire or banish or kill enough leaders until you get ones that will listen to you, and re orient your troop pools so that you have a decent number of whole units that are ideologically aligned and thus likely to comply.

        Trump’s entire modus operandi, now crystalized in extreme detail with Project 2025, has been figure out a way to replace everyone who is not an ideologically aligned stooge willing to literally break existing laws to carry out the whims of the God Emperor, at literally every level of government.

        I obviously cannot know that this would be successful or in what timeframe.

        I can only look to history for many examples of similar things occuring, and see more and more checked boxes making this more likely.

        I’m sure the militaries of many other coup’d countries are told not to follow illegal orders, and I’m also sure that many in our modern military and time would resist, perhaps even violently as Stauffenberg did.

        But the trend is looking astonishingly bad.

        • experbia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 days ago

          no, the president (whoever it currently is) can do whatever he wants without any explanation needed as long as the Supreme Court (the majority selected by and loyal to trump) deems it an “official presidential action”. unfortunately, all actions Biden can take would obviously fall into the “unofficial” classification because, you know, reasons of some kind and definitely no corruption.

  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,

    Lol, the angry orange wants to punish the turtle man who covered for him. You pick the best allies there turtle boy!