Cuba vs Trump

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

No, sanctions against Cuba are not justified at all.  They're the product of rabid, irrational anti-Communism.  My point, though, was about effect (and how some people labeled that effect), not justification.

There were (and are) many who consider the Iraq sanctions a crime against humanity as well.  For those who believe that, justification is irrelevant because crimes against humanity are never justified.  Several consecutive American administrations have believed this wasn't the case.  This dovetails into my other point that no US administration is ever going to submit to non-US judgement on "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" without being forced to at gunpoint.

Personally, I think the Iraq sanctions were overly harsh, but not a crime.  It was a difficult situation where there were limited options to deal with a recalcitrant government.  This blockade (even if the Trump regime refuses to call it that), though, does rise to that level.  I really hope some Democrats will grow a spine and call it that openly, but I'm not holding my breath.  That said, I still don't think anybody is going to The Hague over this.

[crazy canuck]

All that we need to assume is that the United States will continue doing what it has always done.

If we made that assumption in 2014, we'd never be where we are today.

Your hope that the United States is going to return to some form of normality with strong liberal democratic institutions seems overly optimistic in the near future.

????

I'm not expressing any hope at all.  I'm simply observing that Trump has pushed the Overton Window sufficiently to open the door to all sorts of possibilities, from a Qanon nationalist-fascist dictatorship, to left wing show trials of Trumpian officials, to everything in between.

It seems that you are making the same mistake that some MAGA boosters, including Alito and Thomas are making, that the precedent shattering that Trump is accomplishing, and the immunity rulings of the Court, can only be exploited by him, and not repurposed by others.  There are substantial numbers of people in America today that are OK with the idea that murdering insurance company executives is a viable, perhaps optimal route for health care reform.  There is no telling how things may develop.

We are now talking at cross purposes.

The overton window does not need to shift at all for the United States to refuse to order the extradition of one of its citizens to face allegations of war crimes.

That is the status quo position of the United States. You are the one arguing that sometime has changed to make the US reconsider that position.  I doubt that claim, and I think you are ignoring that any court order to extradite will almost certainly be set aside by the United States Supreme Court.

You seem to be making the mistake of sticking your head in the sand and wishing all the changes that have occurred in your country away.

[The Minsky Moment]

The USA would never extradite its own officials carrying out long-standing national policy.  Thus we wouldn't have extradited Kissinger for Vietnam because that would have implicated multiple presidents and Congressional leaders.  For the same reason, we would never extradite anyone over Cuba.

But if hearings resulted in Hegseth being directly implicated for the Caribbean murders or other similar acts he may carry out?  That only impacts him and Trump and it contradicts existing national policy. If hypothetically Trump gave him a last minute pardon in 29 to immunize him from prosecution in the US, could I see a hypothetical post-Trump president clearing an extradition?  Yes that would present circumstances we've never seen before and I think that is within the realm of possible outcomes.  And it doesn't require making any assumptions about the state of the domestic legal system at all.  Just what will may exist to impose consequences after 3 more years of Trump and the past experience of the Merrick Garland fiasco.

[HVC]

Has a president ever reversed a previous pardon? Can a president even do legally?

[The Minsky Moment]

No and no.
The Trump people have been working overtime to figure how to do it, but it seems their autopen theory was DOA.

[HVC]

Thanks.

How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.

[Tonitrus]

I know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?

[Valmy]

Thanks.

How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.

It was intended to provide mercy not as the corrupt tool of patronage it has evolved into.

[Valmy]

I know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?

I don't think Biden's pardon would count for anything done after the pardon.

[Tonitrus]

I know that it seems Trump is respecting Biden's preemptive pardons (likely selfishly)...but if I am not mistaken, preemptive pardons haven't been tested by the courts, have they?

I don't think Biden's pardon would count for anything done after the pardon.

Sure...but that is not the point. 

[Valmy]

Presumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person. 

The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.

[Tonitrus]

Thanks.

How did the pardon even come about? For a country whose historical mythos revolves around the notion of a country created for the people by the people giving one guy power above the law seems weird.

An argument on it (from Alexander Hamilton) is in Federalist #74.

https://ballotpedia.org/Federalist_No._74_by_Alexander_Hamilton_(1788)

[Tonitrus]

Presumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person. 

The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.

Perhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. 

[Valmy]

Presumably, the founders/authors assumed that the President would typically be a wise and judicious person. 

The Founders had some pretty significant failings and blind spots...which wouldn't be such a big deal if they weren't held up as practically super human wizards.

Perhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. 

The guy who would prove that wrong, Andrew Jackson, was already an adult when they made that assumption 

[The Minsky Moment]

Perhaps the biggest blind spot being that they thought the President would almost unfailingly be a wise and judicious person. 

The blind spot was assuming the Senate could be counted on to remove a President who proved to be foolish and wicked.