By Samuel Miller
Impunity Watch Reporter, North America and Oceania
WASHINGTON, D.C., United States of America — During last Thursday’s Republican Primary Presidential Debate, front-runner Donald Trump suggested under his command, activities which have been classified by the international community as war crimes could be ordered under his presidency. Since that time, the Republican candidate has since retracted his position; however, Mr. Trump still vowed to use every legal power available to the president, raising the issue of what actions would be considered legal.
The president can never tell or encourage an officer to blatantly violate clear-cut law.
Among the indicated actions Mr. Trump originally suggested were waterboarding, torture, and the killing of the families of terrorists. Following the debate, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Trump acknowledged there would have to be limits to the actions he could order.
“The United States is bound by laws and treaties and I will not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters,” Trump told the WSJ. “I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities.”
Mr. Trump’s original position had drawn sharp criticism from military and legal experts, suggesting that his policies on the treatment of terrorism suspects and the killing of families would violate the Geneva Convention. The U.S. military has been trained for decades that torture and retaliatory executions both constitute war crimes under international law.
Former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden dismissed the remarks originally made by Mr. Trump, stating that: “The armed forces of the United States will not carry out orders that are so obviously illegal and in violation of the laws of armed conflict. Their oath to themselves, their families, their country and their God would prevent them from doing that.”
The Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it clear that no member of the military is to knowingly break the law, and that they cannot be prosecuted for failing to follow through on an unlawful order. In addition, the trials at Nuremberg and the judicial proceedings following the My Lai massacre in Vietnam set a clear standard for complicity, namely that soldiers cannot rely on ‘following orders’ as a defense for their actions.
Given the inherent complexities which have arisen between the three branches of government, what constitutes unlawful orders and clear violations remains as complicated as the actions themselves. However, the overwhelming sentiment has been that the actions suggested by Mr. Trump would not be carried out by members of the Armed Forces.
As indicated in his interview, Michael Hayden said that “if he were to order that [the actions suggested in his GOP Debate speech] once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”
For more information, please see:
CBS Philadelphia – General Michael Hayden: Military Will Not Commit War Crimes – 4 March 2015
Military Times – Trump says he won’t make troops commit war crimes – 4 March 2016
Reason.com – Donald Trump Walks Back His Pro-War Crimes Stance – 4 March 2016
US News & World Report – Could Trump Legally Order War Crimes? Maybe – 4 March 2016
