Browse By

Trump Speaks The Dirty Republican Belief: We Need More War Crimes

It was an astonishingly ugly thing to say, even by the low, low standards of Donald Trump. At a campaign rally yesterday afternoon, Trump told his supporters that America needs to stop obeying international laws prohibiting battlefield atrocities.

Trump declared to the crowd, “The problem is we have the Geneva Conventions, all sorts of rules and regulations, so the soldiers are afraid to fight!”

The crowd applauded in response.

The Geneva Conventions:
– Ban torture
– Prohibit inhumane treatment of prisoners of war
– Outlaw violence against civilians

The Geneva Conventions have saved huge numbers of lives, and reduced the number of atrocities during wartime. Donald Trump, however, doesn’t think that’s important. He lumps the Geneva Conventions into the category of Big Government regulation.

If Donald Trump wouldn’t observe the Geneva Conventions as President of the United States, would he allow any moral or legal standards to restrain his pursuit of power?

To be fair, Donald Trump isn’t the first prominent Republican politician to express disdain for the Geneva Conventions. George W. Bush unilaterally declared that certain territories, and certain categories of warfare, can’t be regulated by the Geneva Conventions. Bush set up brutal prison systems, such as Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, where torture against prisoners was encouraged.

So, Donald Trump’s declaration that the Geneva Conventions are a problem, rather than an achievement that should be expanded upon, isn’t just an indication of his poor individual moral character. It’s just the latest indication of widespread depravity throughout the Republican Party, from top to bottom.

48 thoughts on “Trump Speaks The Dirty Republican Belief: We Need More War Crimes”

  1. ella says:

    I read a Newsmax article and thought back to where all of the negative comments about Donald Trump came from. If you have the time, please read, or re-read this:

    It is time for all media to stop discriminating against Donald Trump because of his New York City heritage [or as Cruz put it: Trumps New York values]. “The Donald’s” way of speaking, or introducing ideas, his mannerisms. It is apparent that a lot of people do understand what he says and approve of them. Being from New York City, he certainly has an understanding of a lot of different cultures. Trump is not a practiced, “politician”, which makes him that much more valuable to the majority of people in America. If you have actually heard Donald Trump out on any issue he has brought forward, and honestly disagree with his view of the issue, then by all means that is a legitimate argument against a view. It is time to stop the attacks on the person, they started with a callous, well planned attack by a practiced politician. Thank you.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Okay, I finally get it. You’re writing satire, right, Ella?

      That’s the only explanation I can come up with for someone saying that being against the Geneva Conventions is a part of “New York City heritage.”

      Actually hearing Donald Trump includes actually hearing him when he says that the Geneva Conventions are a problem that prevent America from being “great again”.

      1. ella says:

        Donald Trump has never spoken that he is “against” the Geneva Convention.

        1. J Clifford says:

          Load of bull, Ella. He’s not only called the Geneva Conventions a “mistake”, but repeatedly said that he wants to violate specific provisions of the Geneva Conventions, such as the bans on

          – torture
          – extrajudicial mass executions of prisoners of war

          Yes, Ella, Trump is on the record about this.


    2. Jim Cook says:

      Supporting war crimes is not a mannerism. It is an abominable position.

  2. ella says:

    What Donald Trump said is that our military is hindered in their missions by Geneva Conventions which prevent them from certain actions that would shorten their mission, and in some cases allow the successful conclusion of some missions. There are conventions that do not directly effect combat situations,

    1. J Clifford says:

      Well, Ella, I suppose you could say that committing war crimes certainly would “shorten” some military missions.

      Do you really support that?

      1. ella says:

        There was a reason those conventions were painfully deliberated, developed (worded), and agreed to by many nations. Unfortunately, they are not always followed by opponents in active war conditions. Under those circumstances, that leaves our troops not only at a disadvantage, but in a precarious position. They have the alternatives of committing atrocities as outlined in the conventions or be slaughtered, or worse captured and brutally tortured. Even though I do, personally, believe in the spirit of the Geneva Convention, and in a perfect world where everyone did abide by them consistently, find that is the way it should be – if there has to be war. But that is not always the case. In those circumstances, I believe that our own troops should have freedom to defend and protect themselves. Of course were are talking about on the ground fighting. The way war is technologically fought today, that is not as much a concern, is it? Would I blanket say that only our troops have the right to ignore some of the conventions? No, absolutely not. But would you, for instance, expect ISIS fighters to adhere to the conventions? And shouldn’t any forces arrayed against them not only be aware of that fact, but be prepared to combat in a successful manner?

        1. Jim Cook says:

          You seem to have no awareness that every country that commits horrific war crimes claims they had to do it because of the other guy. Stop placing yourself on the side of history’s cruelest.

          1. ella says:

            What would be nice is if the present times cruelest would alter their habits – which are historical. For thousands of years those habits have been driven into them. We are trying to change that, but it sure is hard. I am not siding with it, just recognizing the facts as they exist today. It would be foolish to deny the facts.

            By the way, while looking for something to add here, this ad pooped out:
            Now that is something.

            And since April Fools Day is over, real poll numbers are out again: Trump 84.3 % nationally. Ted Cruz: 15%

          2. Jim Cook says:

            The facts as they exist today are that violence is a variable in human society, not a constant, and something that humanity can control:


  3. Charles Manning says:

    Thanks for the incisive reporting on this issue, which again I didn’t notice in the mainstream media. It’s no longer surprising that Trump’s lack of conscience will lead him to make outrageous claims. What’s surprising is that his moral depravity appears to mirror that of millions of Americans. I think about that every time I’m in a group that salutes our flag. “With liberty and justice for all” — really?

    1. ella says:

      “Liberty and Justice for All”

      For all Americans citizens who live and follow the Constitution of the United States of America. The American Constitution has no effect on the citizens of another nation unless that person is within the political boundaries of the United States of America. And then only if that person is not extradited back to his/her nation of origin. And then you wonder where is Trumps’ liberty to hold rallies free of violent protesters. Where is Trumps’ right to speak without badgering, and those comments be presented on media, not just nit picked negative statements, related in an inflammatory manner. Before he clarified them, which clarifications are avoided like a plague. You should be ashamed of yourself for only finding the bad and never relating the good and positive comments. There have been many.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        Ella, I’ve noticed that Trump sometimes says things that make sense. On abortion, for example, he said inartfully that if abortion caused by the pregnant woman was illegal (which evidently it already is in some instances), the woman should be punished for violating the law. It’s only logical that IF it was illegal to cause any abortion, the woman causing abortion of her own fetus logically would be punished. I agree that no one in the mass media, and none of Trump’s critics, were able or willing to try to make sense of that thought of Trump’s. I’m the last one who would want to make causing all abortions, or even some, illegal, so I wouldn’t favor punishing women who make the choice. But Trump should at least be given some credit for thinking somewhat logically. Then too, he’s been strongly against the Bush wars in the Middle East, which I agree with. But Trump’s embrace of immorality in many other ways disqualifies him in my eyes from being elected dogcatcher, let alone president.

        1. ella says:

          “But Trump’s embrace of immorality in many other ways disqualifies him in my eyes from being elected dogcatcher, let alone president.” Charles Manning

          Please explain for me what embrace of immorality do you refer to? That is not something that I have seen or heard in any of Trumps appearances. If you refer to the immoral use of a photo by the Cruz campaign to gain votes, then I say that has nothing to do with an immoral stand on the part of Trump. For one thing, although the photo shoot is considered immoral in “better society”, mostly by women, it is still vastly accepted world wide. Hypocrisy in the extreme denounces it. However, that is a forgivable sin, and it involves a married couple – family – children and grandchildren. Do you believe that was an acceptable act on the part of the Cruz campaign, to expose the another candidates’ children and families to such derision for his selfish, personal aggrandizement? To make himself look “better”, for votes, so he could say childishly “I beat Donald Trump”? There is excessive immorality among the candidates in this cycle. Trump and his family are the least immoral among them.

          1. Charles Manning says:

            Ella, I don’t have time to search out all the cites, but Irregular Times has listed virtually every Trump statement that I view as contrary to morality. To mention just a few: his idea of tearing families apart by deporting family members who weren’t admitted to the U.S. legally; torturing people he doesn’t like, such as ISIS followers, because he enjoys seeing his enemies tortured; advocating military action against enemies regardless of the inevitable deaths and injuries of innocent men, women, and born or unborn children that would result; expanding international ownership of nuclear weapons; denying sanctuary to innocent victims of the Middle East conflicts because of their religious affiliation; ignoring the human cost of global warming so that wealthy carbon polluters can continue amassing vast fortunes; and condoning or encouraging violence by his supporters against persons who oppose his candidacy. The absurd personal attacks on people like Ted Cruz and his spouse that you refer to don’t rise to the level of immorality, but certainly give rise to doubts about how he would treat major issues if he had the power of the presidency.

            That being said, I certainly agree the Ted Cruz isn’t much better. In fact, he’s a far greater threat to freedom and justice than Trump because he appears to have what it takes politically to get elected. But that doesn’t mean Trump would be an acceptable alternative to Cruz — far from it.

  4. Korky Day says:

    Peregrin Wood still seems blinded by partisanship to look at reason.
    Trump doesn’t want to torture for the fun of it, but because the enemy won’t agree (so far) to respect the Geneva Conventions.
    If THEY would, I’m sure that HE would. Maybe, being a good negotiator, he’ll actually bring that about, unlike his predecessors.

    1. Jim Cook says:


      You need to look at yourself in the mirror. When you write “Trump doesn’t want to torture for the fun of it, but because…,” you need to stop right there.
      What are you doing supporting a presidential candidate who wants to torture people? That is not an American value. I mean that literally. Torture is a federal crime.

      Goodness gracious.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        I agree, but I would go further. The plain truth is that torture, like rape and murder, is immoral. Maybe some people are confused by the fact that Trump claims to be deeply religious. His religiosity reminds me of Hitler’s, which Irregular Times recently publicized. It didn’t stop Hitler from torturing and murdering millions of innocent people. Torture is illegal because an essential role of lawmakers is to make immoral acts illegal.

        Trump constantly says, without any rebuttal from the mainstream media and Republicans, that torture “works” – it allows torturers to obtain information that will stop terrorists from committing acts of terror. The way Trump continually stresses this point leads me to believe he actually derives satisfaction from the torture of people he doesn’t like. For such a person to hold public office at any level is deplorable.

        1. J Clifford says:

          You’re right, Charles. Donald Trump has actually said that he would like to torture people, even if there wasn’t any national security benefit, just because he thinks people deserve torturing.

          1. Charles Manning says:

            J Clifford, thanks for repeating something that needs repeating until Trump finally goes down in the polls and quits.

          2. ella says:

            ” His religiosity reminds me of Hitler’s, which Irregular Times recently publicized. It didn’t stop Hitler from torturing and murdering millions of […]” J Clifford

            On Friday March 4 2016, Donald Trump did reverse his stance on torture. Why is this subject being worn into the carpet? And I would not be proud of claiming that Donald Trump is like Hitler. That comparison is about as accurate as comparing Micky Mouse to Frankenstein. Other than being fictional characters, they have nothing in common. If you said the sky is blue, does that make you like an airline pilot?


          3. Charles Manning says:

            Ella, thanks for the citation. The article actually shows the underlying mind-set of Trump, notwithstanding his concession that the law against torture should be obeyed — at least until he has the chance to change the law. Here’s a key quotation from the article:

            “Speaking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper Friday night, Hayden applauded Trump’s reversal but was still left with nagging questions. ‘I was quite heartened to see it,’ Hayden said before asking, ‘What was the worldview that prompted those statements in the first place?'”

        2. ella says:

          “Trump constantly says, without any rebuttal from the mainstream media and Republicans, that torture “works” – it allows torturers to obtain information that will stop terrorists from committing acts of terror. ” Charles Manning

          He makes an issue out of it because it raises eyebrows and debate. The fact is that governments from many other countries still do teach and train operatives and soldiers in torture techniques and to resist torture much worse than any civilized nation uses today. That is because they must face torture from within their own sphere of nations.

          Forgive me for interrupting the flow to make this comment, but it is relevant.

      2. ella says:

        “What are you doing supporting a presidential candidate who wants to torture people? That is not an American value. I mean that literally. Torture is a federal crime.”

        Actually, the definition of torture is a Federal crime, yet tormenting is not. It is a matter of wording. Trump is well known for saying things in a more plainly spoken manner. Do you believe that war prisoners with known intelligence are given luxury rooms, with room service, and movies. Look what they do in American prisons!

        1. Jim Cook says:

          The act of torture is, indeed, a federal crime. So is conspiracy to commit the act of torture. It is a matter of wording. Look it up:

          1. ella says:

            “The act of torture is, indeed, a federal crime. So is conspiracy to commit the act of torture. It is a matter of wording. ” Jim Cook

            There is a clause where a fine is applied for torturing and extensive definitions of torture. However “tormenting” is allowed as a lesser pain and suffering, as long as mind altering drugs are not used. Also, prisoners may be handed over the countries/locations where torture is allowed, for the purpose of obtaining information. Then the prisoner is turned over the “the victim” status under the law.

    2. ella says:

      Korky Day, I wish I had your ability to say so succinctly what needs saying. Thank you once again.

  5. ella says:

    Here is a site that lists both flattering and unflattering views of Donald Trump. He supports a lot of good things. I just don’t believe he would support letting another country harm Americans any more than he would support scrapping the Geneva Convention. His mouth tends to get away with him, and frankly that is troublesome. He is actually capable of better, that he is just using this ‘talent’ for media attention. I have seen him attempt to sound like an intellectual or say something seriously and a reporter get in his face and badger him. That is wrong as well. He finds being intentionally rude abhorrent apparently. So do I for that matter, but he cannot tell the reporter what I would.

  6. John says:

    I don’t know why you even waste time worrying about anything Donald trump does. Even if he were to be elected president, the Obama regime would just have him assassinated anyway like they did to Scalia. Found in his room with a pillow over his head and no autopsy? When the hell does that happen? Ever? The left has it in the bag. At a recent dinner meeting with some heads of state he thought it was absolutely hilarious that he was going to be given opportunity to elect another progressive socialist before he leaves the white house. Not one condolence. Not one moment of silence. Just laughter. Makes me sick. Oh, and the list goes on and on about mysterious deaths of individuals that had less than nice things to say about the Obama’s. Joan rivers, the reporter that was going to release some of Obama’s gay college days pics, etc…… No I don’t think you have anything to worry about. The left isn’t about to allow any REAL change that might actually be good for America to happen. That might prolong the globalist agenda from becoming a reality.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Did you just insert those wacky no-evidence allegations with a Mad Libs kind of approach? “[Evil Democrat] arranged for the death of [Celebrity Name] in order to hide the [negative adjective] [magic noun] from the [species of space alien]!” You know, like that.

      1. John says:

        Oh I’m sorry. Did I not put the fact that there have been numerous questionable deaths that have occurred to people that could have, or may have had information damaging to Obama into the proper context for you? Typical evasive technique used by the left to avoid dealing directly with important issues. Next you will be calling me a bully. Or racist. Etc………

        1. Jim Cook says:

          Bully. Racist.

          There. Now we can move on to the more relevant question of EVIDENCE, of which you have offered none for these cockamamie theories.

          1. John says:

            You know what? Your right….. I’ve thought it over, and decided all three deaths happening within weeks of each of them saying something derogatory about Obama were entirely coincidental. WOW

          2. Jim Cook says:

            Good… Because you certainly know that hundreds of thousands of people say derogatory things about Barack Obama every single week and yet do not die.

          3. ella says:

            Depends on who you are.

    2. ella says:

      Yes, you have seen some things. A lot of us have. Some of us have paid for saying anything about the sitting President that is not to his liking. You are courageous.

  7. John says:

    a little off topic but I thought since my argument against allowing illegal immigrants into the country is always met with such passionate protest here I would share this headline I saw tonight….

    Illegals, Foreigners, Agitators Call For National Boycott of Wendy’s
    Posted on April 4, 2016 by Rick Wells in Border, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, illegals, Immigration

    Illegals Lead Wendy’s Boycott For Not Surrendering To Extortion

    Picket lines and a demonstration marked a Sunday call for a national boycott of Wendy’s restaurants, as the fast food chain has refused to cave in to the extortion demands of a Florida group called the Coalition of Immokalee Workers. The tomato picker labor organization is kicking off what they describe as their “month of outrage” against “the only holdout” that prevents them from having their demands met. At issue is a demand for a one-cent per pound wage increase.

    I just think it’s so ironic that even people that are here illegally are feeling the pinch of the unhindered flow of countless illegal immigrants willing to work for any amount of money- even less than their already established and working illegal counterparts! Maybe if these people picketing would do things the right way and become legal citizens of this country they would be able to get better jobs and not resort to what is basically extortion of honest American companies. I sincerely hope that this sorry little demonstration has no effect on the operation of the Wendy’s fast food chain.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      Extortion? Wow. Do you have proof of an act of extortion? Or do you just mean people are banding together to exercise their First Amendment rights?

      1. J Clifford says:

        Oh, come on, Jim. They’re AGITATORS!

        Don’t you know it’s a felony to get agitated, and to bother the status quo?

        1. John says:

          Ahhhh!!! but what would you call it if it was a bunch of male Caucasians protesting the presidents blatant violation of law allowing illegal immigrants to continue flooding across the boarder unhindered, thereby flooding the skilled labor pool, and lowering wages for American tradesmen? Would you still be as understanding and sympathetic? Doubt it. But hypocrisy is par for the course here

          1. J Clifford says:

            John, can you show me where people are flooding across the “boarder” unhindered?

            You’re aware that the rate of people crossing the border illegally has actually gone down since Barack Obama became President, aren’t you? It’s a simple fact.

            We support protesters when they’re in touch with reality.

            The content of a protest matters.

          2. John says:

            You can paint it anyway you want and justify your world view all you want. But the facts are that Illegal immigration costs the federal government 110 billion a year, and costs the states over 80 billion a year. When 3% of the population is creating a tax burden that’s over 1/4 the amount of our military budget, you’ve got a huge problem. Not to mention the effects of wage depreciation and the displacement of native workers. Or the logistical problems of moving to a socialized healthcare system while having unchecked immigration, when we already don’t have enough GPs and family medicine doctors to treat the current population. It’s a lot more complicated than you’d think, J. This shouldn’t be decided based on bleeding heart liberal humanitarian thinking. It should be thought about logically. I realize your profession, and livelyhood isn’t directly effected by this issue, but mine is.

          3. ella says:

            It really doesn’t matter what profession a person is in, if they pay taxes. The benefits to be paid to amnestied illegal aleins in 2017 is what is so staggering as to cause cuts in Social Security, not the burgeoning retired population of legal citizens. This is not something that happened a long time ago, but something the current administration has proposed.

    2. ella says:

      This is amazing to me. How can illegal aliens have any right to form a protest against an American company? Wendy’s actually buys their tomatoes in Mexico now, in order to cut expenses, according to the video. If they are legal aliens, there is a law requiring farms to pay pickers minimum wage now. So why is the Coalition of Immokalee involved in extorting extra pay? It is like the industrial “by-the-piece” pay. Make an hourly wage, plus” by-the-pound” piece bonus. I guess Immokalee is like a union for farm workers.

      “The Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) is a worker-based human rights organization internationally recognized for its achievements in the fields of social responsibility, human trafficking, and gender-based violence at work. Built on a foundation of farmworker community organizing starting in 1993, and reinforced with the creation of a national consumer network since 2000, CIW’s work has steadily grown over more than twenty years to encompass three broad and overlapping spheres:…”

      “Virtually all employees engaged in agriculture are covered by the Act in that they produce goods for interstate commerce. There are, however, some exemptions which exempt certain employees from the minimum wage provisions, the overtime pay provisions, or both.”

  8. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Stefan Molyneux has a video dissecting all the Donald Trump quotes and what they actually mean versus what the media spins them as meaning.

    It is 1 hour, 13 minutes, and 20 seconds of dispelling untruths about Donald J. Trump. They also digest what the quotes actually say and show how there are other interpretations of his quotes than the media spin circus. Maybe, Donald Trump supports the goals of the Geneva Convetions, but thinks the regulations are overly broad in achieving their goals. It’s basically a means end thing.

    1. J Clifford says:

      No, Trump clearly states he wants lots of torture, even when there isn’t any intelligence to collect, he celebrates mass executions of prisoners of war, and he wants to use the military to kill the families of people he identifies as America’s enemies.

      This isn’t twisting Trump’s words. It isn’t Trump just saying that the Geneva Conventions are overly broad. It is Donald Trump engaging in a thorough repudiation of the spirit and letter of the Geneva Conventions. A guy on YouTube saying differently doesn’t contradict this obvious truth.

      1. Charles Manning says:

        J Clifford, well said.

        Trump boasts about his devotion to U.S. militarism and his interest in removing the moral and legal restrictions of the Geneva Conventions because they limit what the U.S. military can do. As I see it, Trump and his followers propose these things because they think “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is a fundamental moral principle.

        I don’t recall any instance when the the mainstream media asked Trump these questions; do you?

        1. If a group like ISIS engages in atrocities against us or our friends or relatives, does that make it morally right for us to commit atrocities against them and their friends and relatives?

        2. What military experience do you have?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!