Members of the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol have warned America for three years to take former President Donald Trump at his word.
Now, as Trump is poised to win the Republican presidential nomination, his criminal trials face delays that could stall them past Election Day, and his rhetoric grows increasingly authoritarian, some of those lawmakers find themselves following their own advice.
In mid-March, Trump said on social media that the committee members should be jailed. In December he vowed to be a dictator on “day one.” In August, he said he would “have no choice” but to lock up his political opponents.
“If he intends to eliminate our constitutional system and start arresting his political enemies, I guess I would be on that list,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose). “One thing I did learn on the committee is to pay attention and listen to what Trump says, because he means it.”
Lofgren added that she doesn’t yet have a plan in place to thwart potential retribution by Trump. But Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank), who has long been a burr in Trump’s side, said he’s having “real-time conversations” with his staff about how to make sure he stays safe if Trump follows through on his threats.
“We’re taking this seriously, because we have to,” Schiff said. “We’ve seen this movie before … and how perilous it is to ignore what someone is saying when they say they want to be a dictator.”
Why should American or Western laws or morality apply to a crime that occured overseas? If Pakistani or Iraqi law allows for the death penalty for mass murder, who is anyone to say that they’re not entitled to try and execute an American politician in accordance with their laws?
In fact, who are “we” even in this situation?
The United Nations is to say. See the Declaration of Human Rights. Its a wonderful document.
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
That’s not how jurisdiction or extradition works. Invoking the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to block the death penalty from being applied to the politicians of a State Member that allows and applies the death penalty domestically is also a hilarious thought, even if the UN had any way to intercede to stop the death penalty from being carried out (it does not).
Is this a bit?