Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMaddowBlog-Pressed on possible war crimes, Trump peddled 3 answers. They were all unacceptable.
The president has had plenty of time to prepare coherent answers to obvious questions. He hasnt used that time wisely.
Link to tweet
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-on-possible-war-crimes-trump-peddled-3-answers-they-were-all-unacceptable
After months of rhetoric about possible war crimes in Iran, Donald Trump upped the ante on Sunday morning, publishing an unhinged threat to his social media platform in which he explicitly vowed to target Iranian power plants and bridges. As Easter Sunday progressed, the president did brief interviews with several media outlets to echo that point.....
The president, who must have realized hed face these questions and had plenty of time to huddle with his aides and prepare coherent answers, peddled three distinct responses to the line of inquiry.
1. Refuse to talk about his plans for possible war crimes. MS NOWs Lindsey Pipia asked, Are you committed to committing a war crime in this war with Iran? Trump heard the question but refused to answer it. What else? he said to no one in particular, as if the question wasnt worth his time or consideration.
2. Change the definition of war crime. As part of a separate exchange, Trump was asked whether he considered hitting civilian infrastructure to be a war crime. You know whats a war crime? he responded. Having a nuclear weapon, allowing a sick country with demented leaders to have a nuclear weapon. Thats a war crime.....
3. War crimes are fine, because Iranian leaders are bad. Asked how U.S. military strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure wouldnt be a war crime, Trump pointed to the Iranian government killing Iranian protesters. They kill protesters, the president said, claiming Tehran had slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people. Theyre animals.
Or, put another way, as far as the Republican sees it, the United States would be justified in committing war crimes because Iran deserves it a line that is every bit as morally abhorrent as it appeared.
This is not simply an academic exercise: Trump has set a deadline for 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday by which he expects Iranian officials to accept his demands. If not, in the words of the American president, hes prepared to blow up the whole country.
The president, who must have realized hed face these questions and had plenty of time to huddle with his aides and prepare coherent answers, peddled three distinct responses to the line of inquiry.
1. Refuse to talk about his plans for possible war crimes. MS NOWs Lindsey Pipia asked, Are you committed to committing a war crime in this war with Iran? Trump heard the question but refused to answer it. What else? he said to no one in particular, as if the question wasnt worth his time or consideration.
Q: Are you committing a war crime?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-06T15:42:40.701Z
TRUMP: *refuses to answer* What else?
2. Change the definition of war crime. As part of a separate exchange, Trump was asked whether he considered hitting civilian infrastructure to be a war crime. You know whats a war crime? he responded. Having a nuclear weapon, allowing a sick country with demented leaders to have a nuclear weapon. Thats a war crime.....
3. War crimes are fine, because Iranian leaders are bad. Asked how U.S. military strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure wouldnt be a war crime, Trump pointed to the Iranian government killing Iranian protesters. They kill protesters, the president said, claiming Tehran had slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people. Theyre animals.
Q: How would it not be a war crime to strike Iran's bridges and power plants?
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) 2026-04-06T16:01:40.467Z
TRUMP: Because they killed 45,000 in the last month. They kill protesters. They are animals.
Or, put another way, as far as the Republican sees it, the United States would be justified in committing war crimes because Iran deserves it a line that is every bit as morally abhorrent as it appeared.
This is not simply an academic exercise: Trump has set a deadline for 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday by which he expects Iranian officials to accept his demands. If not, in the words of the American president, hes prepared to blow up the whole country.
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MaddowBlog-Pressed on possible war crimes, Trump peddled 3 answers. They were all unacceptable. (Original Post)
LetMyPeopleVote
Yesterday
OP
pat_k
(13,424 posts)1. The only "coherent" answer is YES. There is no "spinning" his declared intent as ANYTHING ELSE.
"The president has had plenty of time to prepare coherent answers to obvious questions. He hasnt used that time wisely" is bizarre.
Is the implication that a "coherent" answer to the question "is targeting civilian infrastructure a war crime" could be anything but "Yes."
And, it is not just THREATS. He has ALREADY committed war crimes in our name.