It is a little off the topic of UK law, but since this group possesses expertise in interpreting legal documents I wonder if anyone can tell me if
the NATO agreements have anything to say about an unprovoked attack on one
NATO member (or its dependent territories) by another?

Casual googling has not really answered this question to my satisfaction.


--

Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28/01/2025 19:45, Roger Hayter wrote:

It is a little off the topic of UK law, but since this group possesses expertise in interpreting legal documents I wonder if anyone can tell me if the NATO agreements have anything to say about an unprovoked attack on one NATO member (or its dependent territories) by another?

I doubt it was even considered as a possibility when NATO was created.

Casual googling has not really answered this question to my satisfaction.

Under present circumstances if the USA really decided invade Greenland
or attack Denmark then I doubt if any NATO ally would do more than tut.

US has previous in this area. ISTR that when former UK dependency
Grenada democratically voted in a communist government the US didn't
like in 1984 the US invaded to restore a more pliable puppet government.

Two different takes on it Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_invasion_of_Grenada

And a much more critical academic review from professor at Yale:

https://sociology.yale.edu/sites/default/files/invasion_of_grenada_foresight.pdf

It seems the post truth world started earlier than you might think...

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

It is a little off the topic of UK law, but since this group possesses expertise in interpreting legal documents I wonder if anyone can tell me if the NATO agreements have anything to say about an unprovoked attack on one NATO member (or its dependent territories) by another?

The treaty is here:

https://www.nato.int/cps/eu/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

It does not really contemplate the possibility of one member party
attacking another member party, and *especially* not if the aggressor
party is the United States.

The aggressor party would be in breach of multiple articles of the
treaty, and in theory all the other parties should take up arms against
it.

I suspect in practice it is not a compelling enough document to cause
any of the parties to effectively declare war on the United States,
or perhaps even to station troops where they might be inconveniently
in the way of US soldiers, especially if that place were far away.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 28 Jan 2025 19:45:08 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

It is a little off the topic of UK law, but since this group possesses >expertise in interpreting legal documents I wonder if anyone can tell me if >the NATO agreements have anything to say about an unprovoked attack on one >NATO member (or its dependent territories) by another?

Casual googling has not really answered this question to my satisfaction.

It may not be a matter for UK law right now but there's (at least)
another four years to go yet and plenty could change.

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 22:06:42 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 28/01/2025 19:45, Roger Hayter wrote:

It is a little off the topic of UK law, but since this group possesses
expertise in interpreting legal documents I wonder if anyone can tell me if >> the NATO agreements have anything to say about an unprovoked attack on one >> NATO member (or its dependent territories) by another?

I doubt it was even considered as a possibility when NATO was created.

Casual googling has not really answered this question to my satisfaction.

Under present circumstances if the USA really decided invade Greenland
or attack Denmark then I doubt if any NATO ally would do more than tut.

US has previous in this area. ISTR that when former UK dependency
Grenada democratically voted in a communist government the US didn't
like in 1984 the US invaded to restore a more pliable puppet government.

That's not really true. Grenada wasn't invaded in response to electing a communist government, it was invaded when that government in turn was overthrown by a military coup. And Grenada wasn't invaded in order to incorporate its territory into that of the USA, it was invaded in order to restore democratic independence.

It is arguable that the military coup was merely a convenient opportunity
for the invasion of Grenada, and that getting rid of communism on the island was the real goal. But, nonetheless, the US didn't invade until there was a supportable justification for doing so in international law, and Grenada's independence was subsequently fully restored under a new administration.

Either way, it's not at all equivalent to a potential annexation of
Greenland. Greenland, despite having a great deal of autonomy, isn't an independent nation and is not under the control of a military dictatorship.

Possibly a little counterintuitively, it would suit the US more if Greenland was independent, because then they could argue that it was none of Denmark's business. And an independent Greenland would need to negotiate membership of NATO, which the US could then block. That would enable annexation without
being in breach of the NATO treaties. But getting to that point would
require playing a long game, and the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
When you think there's no hope left remember the lobsters in the tank in
the Titanic's restaurant.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-29, Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

That is one of the major issues it seems in the US - a Supreme Court
that doesn't seem remotely concerned by whether its judgements are
supportable by the actual law or logic.

When the 22nd Amendmnent says "No person shall be elected to the office
of the President more than twice", it seems quite possible that they
could decide that the election is merely a precursor process and the
person actually *becomes* president through a process of *inauguration*
and therefore nobody is ever "elected to the office of the President"
and therefore Trump can be President as many times as he likes. Or,
frankly, they could decide that "three times" is not "more than twice".

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:50:45 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can
be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

There is already an amendment to the 22nd being tabled.

However, if running for POTUS a 3rd time (or taking office a 3rd term,
which is the prohibition) is illegal, then surely the presidential
immunity makes it un-illegal.

Considering the ballyhoo the colonials made about getting rid of their
King, it seems a bit rich they have not only recreated one, but given
them more powers than King George ever had.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

He can still be impeached. A president doesn't have automatic immunity for everything.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:17:30 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:48:47 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:50:45 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those >>>>>terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms
can be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

There is already an amendment to the 22nd being tabled.

The prospects of it being successful are pretty slim.

However, if running for POTUS a 3rd time (or taking office a 3rd term, >>which is the prohibition) is illegal, then surely the presidential
immunity makes it un-illegal.

It's not illegal in the sense of being a criminal offence. It's illegal
in the sense of being legally impossible.

To use an analogy, it's not like lying on your nomination form when
standing for election in the UK (a criminal offence), it's like
submitting your nomination form a week after the deadline. You wouldn't
be prosecuted for doing that, you'd just be ignored.

Best wait and see how SCOTUS interpret it (if they so choose). I have a sneaking suspicion that - aided by a supine congress - this will be
Trumps enabling act. Already I am hearing ICE agents acting without
warrants, on informant complaints, and racially profiling people selected
for deportation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:48:47 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:50:45 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those >>>>terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can
be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

There is already an amendment to the 22nd being tabled.

The prospects of it being successful are pretty slim.

However, if running for POTUS a 3rd time (or taking office a 3rd term,
which is the prohibition) is illegal, then surely the presidential
immunity makes it un-illegal.

It's not illegal in the sense of being a criminal offence. It's illegal in
the sense of being legally impossible.

To use an analogy, it's not like lying on your nomination form when standing for election in the UK (a criminal offence), it's like submitting your nomination form a week after the deadline. You wouldn't be prosecuted for
doing that, you'd just be ignored.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:10:31 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

He can still be impeached. A president doesn't have automatic immunity
for everything.

Has SCOTUS actually ruled that ? Also, what if congress is partisan and declines to impeach ?

And impeachment is a political not criminal process.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:10:31 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>would you ?

He can still be impeached. A president doesn't have automatic immunity
for everything.

Has SCOTUS actually ruled that ?

Has SCOTUS ruled that a President can be impeached? I doubt it has ever
been asked.

Also, what if congress is partisan and declines to impeach ?

We already know the answer to that, since it has happened to Trump twice before.

And impeachment is a political not criminal process.

It's kind've both. It's a criminal process where the judges are
politicians.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 29 Jan 2025 12:50:45 GMT, Jeff Gaines wrote:

On 29/01/2025 in message <vnd54u$1sc4r$8@dont-email.me> Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can
be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

The New York Times is already reporting that Trump has booked Nuremberg
for a series of rallies next year to celebrate the annexation of Canada.

Moreover, last night, DC saw widespread devastation on a scale comparable
with Krystallnacht, with hundreds of shopkeepers having their windows
smashed in, and running battles in the streets between heavily armed
thugs. However, later reports suggested this was just a normal evening in
U Street.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-29, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 12:50:45 +0000, Jeff Gaines wrote:

Next step presumably will be to remove any limit on how many terms can
be served, perhaps followed by president for life?

There is already an amendment to the 22nd being tabled.

That's one thing I don't think he will be able to achieve, even with
the entirety of the federal system controlled by Trump thralls. Amending
the constitution requires approval by three-quarters of the states.
I don't see how that would happen. I don't really see three quarters of
the states formally agreeing that water is wet or the sky is blue, let
alone amending the constitution to make the Trump Dynasty "Presidents
for Eternity".

However, if running for POTUS a 3rd time (or taking office a 3rd term,
which is the prohibition) is illegal, then surely the presidential
immunity makes it un-illegal.

That's a bit circular, because if he can run a third time then clearly
it isn't illegal and so he doesn't need immunity, and if he can't then
it is illegal but also he isn't president and so doesn't have immunity.
Not to mention the 22nd Amendment doesn't make someone who purports to
be a third-term president a criminal, it just makes it so they're not
the president.

Considering the ballyhoo the colonials made about getting rid of their
King, it seems a bit rich they have not only recreated one, but given
them more powers than King George ever had.

It would be an error to expect anything about their current situation
to make any kind of sense.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk ><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him. Truss resigned because she was told, in no uncertain terms, that if she
didn't then she would be on the receiving end of a no confidence motion from her Parliamentary colleagues, and would quite probably be the first Prime Minister ever to lose one. Not even a lettuce has ever managed that.

Trump, however, cannot be forcibly removed from power simply because his political party has lost confidence in him. He can be impeached, but that requires him to commit a sufficiently egregious criminal offence. Merely
making bizarre decisions does not cross that threshold.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

It could be worse than Trump emulating Truss - he could emulate the current Labour government, perhaps, and fall as far in popularity as they currently have. But he got off to a far less gloomy start than they did, so at least doesn’t have that particular hill to climb.

--
Spike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump will
do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even his
most ardent fans will turn against him.

Unlikely, based on his first term.

Donald Trump is 78.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31 Jan 2025 at 09:47:23 GMT, "Martin Harran" <martinharran@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

Sadly, I think his fans are a bit more committed, and stupider, than Truss's.
If things go spectacularly bad they will probably blame homosexuals,
atheists, Obama, and the deep state in one or another order, and back him through the chaos.

--

Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:04:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

If things go spectacularly bad they will probably blame homosexuals, atheists, Obama, and the deep state in one or another order, and back
him through the chaos.

They already are.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-31, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 17:04:28 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

If things go spectacularly bad they will probably blame homosexuals,
atheists, Obama, and the deep state in one or another order, and back
him through the chaos.

They already are.

Except they just call it by vague terms like "DEI" or "woke", so they
don't have to feel bad about being prejudiced against any group in
particular, and all the Trump fans can pretend they agree with each
other because they can all agree the enemy is "woke" and just not
mention that they have different ideas as to what it actually means.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-31, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

It could be worse than Trump emulating Truss - he could emulate the current Labour government, perhaps, and fall as far in popularity as they currently have. But he got off to a far less gloomy start than they did, so at least doesn’t have that particular hill to climb.

Well yes, in that he's the insane incompetent one following a vaguely
sane and competent government, whereas Labour are a vaguely sane and
competent following an insane incompetent one. He's causing a mess
while they're trying to fix one.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms. >>>

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Not sure if Prague style defenestration is better or worse...

Truss resigned because she was told, in no uncertain terms, that if she didn't then she would be on the receiving end of a no confidence motion from her Parliamentary colleagues, and would quite probably be the first Prime Minister ever to lose one. Not even a lettuce has ever managed that.

Another historic first that she missed out on!

Trump, however, cannot be forcibly removed from power simply because his political party has lost confidence in him. He can be impeached, but that requires him to commit a sufficiently egregious criminal offence. Merely making bizarre decisions does not cross that threshold.

In a country where they arm bears other options are available.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>> current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms. >>>>

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Not sure if Prague style defenestration is better or worse...

Truss resigned because she was told, in no uncertain terms, that if she
didn't then she would be on the receiving end of a no confidence motion from >> her Parliamentary colleagues, and would quite probably be the first Prime
Minister ever to lose one. Not even a lettuce has ever managed that.

Another historic first that she missed out on!

Trump, however, cannot be forcibly removed from power simply because his
political party has lost confidence in him. He can be impeached, but that
requires him to commit a sufficiently egregious criminal offence. Merely
making bizarre decisions does not cross that threshold.

In a country where they arm bears other options are available.

Impeachment is a political process. Is there anything to stop someone
inventing grounds for impeachment and initiating the process? If enough politicians vote to impeach then how can that be challenged?

We then move on to the issue of how a president is removed from power if impeached. January 6 should alert us to the possibility that an organised
and armed mob will oppose any attempt to remove a president voted out of office. Perhaps a secret service agent will kill an impeached president who refuses to relinquish his office. Perhaps the would be dictator will
anticipate that and surround himself with those he believes will be loyal
to him removing anyone who might not have that personal loyalty.

Perhaps start by firing anyone who was involved in prosecuting the would be dictator.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 02:09:51 +0000, Owen Rees wrote:

We then move on to the issue of how a president is removed from power if impeached. January 6 should alert us to the possibility that an
organised and armed mob will oppose any attempt to remove a president
voted out of office. Perhaps a secret service agent will kill an
impeached president who refuses to relinquish his office. Perhaps the
would be dictator will anticipate that and surround himself with those
he believes will be loyal to him removing anyone who might not have that personal loyalty.

They would be forgetting the long and proud history of the Praetorian
guard ....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:21:15 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Not sure if Prague style defenestration is better or worse...

I would certainly not dismiss the possibility of another assassination
attempt. But I also think it would be unlikely to succeed.

Trump is 78, though. A medical crisis may be somewhat more probable.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 1 Feb 2025 02:09:51 -0000 (UTC), Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:

Trump, however, cannot be forcibly removed from power simply because his >>> political party has lost confidence in him. He can be impeached, but that >>> requires him to commit a sufficiently egregious criminal offence. Merely >>> making bizarre decisions does not cross that threshold.

In a country where they arm bears other options are available.

Impeachment is a political process. Is there anything to stop someone >inventing grounds for impeachment and initiating the process? If enough >politicians vote to impeach then how can that be challenged?

The politicians most likely to want to remove Trump are also those most
likely to care about things like due process and the rule of law. I think
you'd struggle to find a majority of Congress willing to fabricate grounds
for impeachment, and even more so to find a two-thirds majority of the
Senate to vote for removal on fabricated grounds.

We then move on to the issue of how a president is removed from power if >impeached. January 6 should alert us to the possibility that an organised
and armed mob will oppose any attempt to remove a president voted out of >office. Perhaps a secret service agent will kill an impeached president who >refuses to relinquish his office. Perhaps the would be dictator will >anticipate that and surround himself with those he believes will be loyal
to him removing anyone who might not have that personal loyalty.

That's another reason why, I think, most Representatives would be very wary
of taking action on trumped-up (pun intended, sorry) grounds. Even if it was successful, it would create a very real risk of significant disorder.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-03, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Feb 2025 06:34:56 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 13:45:32 +0000, Mark Goodge >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

Trump is 78, though. A medical crisis may be somewhat more probable.

In which case we would get JD Vance as president. Oh dear ....

Vance would probably be a better option. He doesn't come across as particularly intellectual, but neither does he seem to be quite as
chiroptera faeces psychotic as his boss. Given a decent set of advisors around him, he's probably be competant enough.

But we don't *want* them to be competent! Imagine for example the
extra damage the previous Tory government could have done to our
country if they hadn't been utterly incompetent as well as evil.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 03 Feb 2025 06:34:56 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, 01 Feb 2025 13:45:32 +0000, Mark Goodge ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 21:21:15 +0000, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> >>wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Not sure if Prague style defenestration is better or worse...

I would certainly not dismiss the possibility of another assassination >>attempt. But I also think it would be unlikely to succeed.

Trump is 78, though. A medical crisis may be somewhat more probable.

In which case we would get JD Vance as president. Oh dear ....

Vance would probably be a better option. He doesn't come across as
particularly intellectual, but neither does he seem to be quite as
chiroptera faeces psychotic as his boss. Given a decent set of advisors
around him, he's probably be competant enough.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>> current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms. >>>>

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions,
would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and
the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in
those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to
eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

You are forgetting the JFK assassination, ordered by Edgar J Hoover.

Apparently.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-04, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and >>>>>>> the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in
those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to
eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

You are forgetting the JFK assassination, ordered by Edgar J Hoover.

Apparently.

Who do you think the "62 years ago" was referring to?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 04/02/2025 13:36, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >>> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>>> current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms. >>>>>

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even
his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

A few more, if you include serious attempts which didn't quite hit home.
I suspect a graph would show a rising trend.

--
Sam Plusnet

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 4 Feb 2025 at 18:20:26 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

On 2025-02-04, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and >>>>>>>> the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in >>>>>>>> those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump >>>>>> will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to
eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

You are forgetting the JFK assassination, ordered by Edgar J Hoover.

Apparently.

Who do you think the "62 years ago" was referring to?

You missed the implication that J Edgar might have been considered a representative of a Praetorian Guard fixed on preventing any rapprochement (actually illusory) with a fundamental enemy.


--

Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message news:vntcim$1sc4r$58@dont-email.me...

On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and >>>>>>> the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in
those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to
eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

You are forgetting the JFK assassination, ordered by Edgar J Hoover.

Apparently.

How so ? Hoover "apparently", had successive Presidents in his pocket,
on account of his inside knowledge of their indiscretions.

Just so long as Kennedy was still around, as it subsequently turned out, servicing a succession of cuties in the White House Swimming Pool, almost
on a daily basis ( Kennedy was a virtual cripple who relied on medication ) Hoover knew his career was assured.

And its doubtful whether he would ever have got a tenth as much dope, on LBJ


bb





--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-04, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:

On 4 Feb 2025 at 18:20:26 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:

On 2025-02-04, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Tue, 04 Feb 2025 13:36:17 +0000, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and >>>>>>>>> the current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in >>>>>>>>> those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump >>>>>>> will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to
eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime >>>> change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

You are forgetting the JFK assassination, ordered by Edgar J Hoover.

Apparently.

Who do you think the "62 years ago" was referring to?

You missed the implication that J Edgar might have been considered a representative of a Praetorian Guard fixed on preventing any rapprochement (actually illusory) with a fundamental enemy.

I did not, in fact, miss that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-02-04, Sam Plusnet wrote:

On 04/02/2025 13:36, Adam Funk wrote:

On 2025-01-31, Martin Brown wrote:

On 31/01/2025 15:41, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 09:47:23 +0000, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> >>>> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the >>>>>>> current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>>>> would you ?

The way things are going, I think there is a good chance that Trump
will do a Liz Truss and make such a dreadful mess of things that even >>>>> his most ardent fans will turn against him.

The difference is that there's no mechanism for even his party to eject him.

USA has a nasty habit of assassinating it's presidents instead.

Huh? Four in 236 years, with the last one 62 years ago, and no "regime
change by Praetorian Guards" situations.

A few more, if you include serious attempts which didn't quite hit home.
I suspect a graph would show a rising trend.

Fair point. There are quite a few "other attacks, assassination
attempts, and plots" after JFK.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2025-01-29, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 17:10:31 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 11:58:22 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jan 2025 10:24:03 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:

But getting to that point would require playing a long game, and the
current US administration doesn't seem inclined to think in those
terms.

If you had a president that had immunity for their official actions, >>>would you ?

He can still be impeached. A president doesn't have automatic immunity
for everything.

Has SCOTUS actually ruled that ? Also, what if congress is partisan and declines to impeach ?

What do you mean if? Most of the Republicans in the Senate voted to
acquit in 2020 and 2021.

And impeachment is a political not criminal process.

It's a special case and the penalties are restricted to removal from
office and disqualification from further office.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)