Asking the difficult questions of presidential candidates....

Here are some questions to ask any presidential candidate- and President Trump. Because they aren't expecting this:

Do you know what murder is?

Can you define it? (the answer is the unlawful killing of a human being, including causing the death of a human being while committing a felony)

Do you know what it means to be a party to a crime? (it's when a person in conjunction with one or more people commits a crime).

Do you think that if a person commits murder, and that person is within the jurisdiction of the United States, that we should charge that person? Put that person on trial? Punish that person if he or she is convicted? (I expect the answer will be "yes" from everybody except Trump, who may not understand the word "jurisdiction.")

In determining whether or not to charge a person who commits murder, either directly or as party to a crime, do you think that it should matter how important the person is or what office the person holds who commits murder?

What if the person is president? Should he or she be held accountable if that person commits murder?

What is the statute of limitations under federal law for prosecutions for murder? (answer: none)

President Bush and Vice President Cheney were directly responsible for making decisions to kidnap, torture, and murder, numerous human beings. Here are just a few of the reports from the Pentagon of the deaths of persons in U.S. custody while they were in office, based on orders given by them for the forcible kidnapping, detention, and torture of persons suspected of participating in terror attacks or being members of the organization that caused them:

"Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.

(From autopsy report of detainee killed by United States uniformed armed forces and/or CIA agents while in custody in Bagram, Afghanistan, December 3, 2002.)

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease. Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

(Autopsy report of second detainee killed by United States uniformed armed forces and/or CIA agents while in custody in Bagram, Afghanistan, December 10, 2002.)

Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "strangulation, found outside isolation unit."

(Report of homicide of Iraqi in United States custody at Whitehorse Detention Facility, Al Nasiriyah, Iraq, June 6, 2003.)


Two Iraqi male detainees in U.S custody were killed (one by a shotgun wound to the head, the other by shotgun wound to the chest). The shots were delivered by coalition force guards. DOD 003290 -3292.

(Report of two homicides of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison, August 18, 2004.)"

Given your answers to the previous questions, given your statement that no one should be above the law, including the president, will you pledge to direct your Attorney General to institute the prosecution of each and every person responsible for each murder committed by former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney, including the President, the Vice President, and each person who swung a club, fired the lethal shot, or caused the death of the person in captivity?

President Barack Obama is also directly responsible for the deliberate, premeditated deaths of two American citizens, a father and his 16 year old son. Their father/grandfather filed a federal lawsuit in the District of Columbia to obtain an injunction against the killing of his son before it occurred, but had the lawsuit dismissed. Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F.Supp.2d 1 Civil Action No. 10-1469 (JDB) (D. D.C., 2010). Here is how the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia charactized the lawsuit and the Obama Justice Department's rationale for dismissing the lawsuit and allowing Anwar Al-Aulaqi to be murdered:

"Plaintiff seeks an injunction prohibiting defendants from intentionally killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi "unless he presents a concrete, specific, and imminent threat to life or physical safety, and there are no means other than lethal force that could reasonably be employed to neutralize the threat." .... Defendants have responded with a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint on five threshold grounds: standing, the political question doctrine, the Court's exercise of its "equitable discretion," the absence of a cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), and the state secrets privilege."

The District judge dismissed the lawsuit, holding that:

"Rather, the Court only concludes that it lacks the capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an "operational" member of AQAP, see Clapper Decl. ¶ 15, presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him. This Court readily acknowledges that it is a "drastic measure" for the United States to employ lethal force against one of its own citizens abroad, even if that citizen is currently playing an operational role in a "terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks against Saudi, Korean, Yemeni, and U.S. targets since January 2009," id. ¶ 13. But as the D.C. Circuit explained in Schneider, a determination as to whether "drastic measures should be taken in matters of foreign policy and national security is not the stuff of adjudication, but of policymaking." 412 F.3d at 197. Because decision-making in the realm of military and foreign affairs is textually committed to the political branches, and because courts are functionally ill-equipped to make the types of complex policy judgments that would be required to adjudicate the merits of plaintiff's claims, the Court finds that the political question doctrine bars judicial resolution of this case Al-Aulaqi v. Obama, 727 F.Supp.2d 1 (D. D.C., 2010)"

In essence, the District Court ruled that if a high official of the United States government deems an American citizen to be "an operational member" of a terrorist group, then that American citizen may be targeted for assassination and killed, regardless of the facts, without any charges being offered, without a trial,, without any chance to assert innocence. At the time the decision was made to murder Anwar al Aulaqi, there was not even a warrant for his arrest.

As a result, under the direct order of President Obama, not only was Anwar al Aulaqi killed, his 16 year old son was also killed. Neither was on a battlefield. Neither had a weapon in his hands. Neither was threatening to kill an American soldier or an American civilian- or any other human being- at the time he or she was killed. https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/awlaki-family-protests-us-killing-anwar-awlakis-teen/story?id=14765076

Knowing all of that, would you support the prosecution of former President Obama and every other person responsible, including the person(s) who pushed the buttons to fire the missiles that killed them for the murders of Anwar al Aulaqui and of his 16 year old son?