“I think the election will hinge on whether there is another terrorist attack in this country. If there is — especially close to the election — it is President Trump,” said Bill Maher last week in a discussion with former head of the NSA and the CIA Michael Hayden.
One segment of the conversation focused on candidate Donald Trump and the statements he has made throughout the election process thus far — statements that have given him a substantial foothold in the race for the Republican nomination.
An important moment occurred when Hayden suggested that if Trump were to order — once in government — the murdering of the families of terrorists (as he has claimed he would during the campaign), American armed forces would refuse to act.
This statement marks a turning point in the campaign and ought to be heard by those supporting Trump. It is no longer a matter of disagreeing with Trump on certain viewpoints; the Daily Iowan Editorial Board believes that Trump must retract, officially, any campaign promises he has made that are overtly illegal according to national and international law.
Campaign promises are broken nearly every year, across the country, and at every level of government. However, when those promises explicitly disobey an assortment of laws and would begin a codification of illegal actions by the most powerful government in the world, there has to be a process for eliminating them. The responsibility falls on three groups: the Republican National Committee, the Trump campaign, and those who plan to vote for Trump.
When Hayden first expressed his opinion, Maher was taken aback. He said, “You have to follow orders,” referencing the universally understood actions of the U.S. armed forces and the well-documented respect for authority.
Hayden responded by saying, “You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” and Trump’s orders “would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”
Hayden’s comments are eerily pertinent to the three aforementioned groups. It is the duty of these three groups to lawfully put forward the best candidate they can — to select the individual they feel will lead the country in the best way legally possible.
Without a retraction of these statements; without an admission that he said something that was flat-out wrong (an admission Trump has so fervently refused to make), these three groups are committing a great disservice to this country.
This is no longer a matter of suggesting U.S. citizens not vote for Trump. If people believe that Trump is the individual who will solve problems in this country and “Make America Great Again,” they are free to do so. However, it is not fair to these people for the Trump campaign to gain their votes through making promises that cannot be legally kept.
Many Trump supporters are attracted to his brash, antiestablishment, take-on-government campaign that can seem like a breath of fresh air for those sick of politics as usual. Therefore, if Trump were to commit one of the cardinal sins he is claiming to fight against — failing to follow through on campaign commitments — these supporters are not getting what they voted for.
As Hayden puts it, “I would be incredibly concerned if a President Trump governed in a way that was consistent with the language that candidate Trump expressed during the campaign.” Ignoring party alignment for just a moment, Hayden’s depiction of a president who shows neither understanding nor acceptance of international law is concerning.