• Akuden@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.

    Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.

    Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You can’t charge them for war crimes bc war crime isn’t a US law. This didn’t exist before and the official unofficial distinction was explicitly created in the ruling. The above post outlines exactly the process now established to block any case, suggesting that because a more ridiculously comically corrupt version of a ruling exist that this isn’t it nonsense and clearly demonstrative of your goal to spin propaganda.

      Your post is a lie, self contradictory and explicit propaganda. Your account should be blocked and banned.

    • toddestan@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The thing is, this country has existed for nearly 250 years without this ruling and the president having any sort of immunity. The idea that we suddenly need this is ridiculous. So what changed? Well, Trump of course. And yes, this is all about Trump. This ruling didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from Trump making claims about immunity, the lower courts dismissing the claims as nonsense, until the supreme court took it up and here we are.

      • Akuden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Let’s follow that logic.

        You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.

        Same scenario, but now it’s the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?

        • toddestan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          It’s simple really. It’s not murder when someone in the military kills an enemy combatant. Murder is illegally taking another’s life, and members of the military can legally kill enemy combatants. That’s laid out in the Geneva Conventions and all of that.

          The President is the commander in chief, so he doesn’t need immunity to order some terrorists taken out. That’s the way it’s worked for nearly 250 years. Joe Citizen is not a member of the military and is not the president, so generally they can expect to get in trouble for that sort of thing.

          The President can order some terrorists killed the same way a fighter pilot can shoot down an enemy plane, a soldier can throw a grenade into an enemy foxhole, or navy captain can order the shelling of an enemy position.

          Also note that immunity here doesn’t mean something is legal for that person. The act is still just as illegal as it has always been. It just means that the person who has immunity can’t be prosecuted for it. And in the case of absolute immunity, can’t even be charged for it, unlike things like qualified immunity where someone can still be charged and then can argue immunity as their defense the courts get to decide if it actually applies.

          As such, a member of the military doesn’t have or need immunity, because what they are doing isn’t illegal. That also applies to the president in that sort of situation.

          • Akuden@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018

            Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”

            • toddestan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              That’s a different thing entirely. Members of the US military don’t have combatant immunity when it comes to the US legal system, because what they are doing is legal in terms of the law. Combatant immunity would apply if they are captured as a POW by another nation following the Geneva conventions, which basically says that nation can’t charge them for acts of warfare, murder, etc. for participating in the war as a combatant. So long as they weren’t committing war crimes or something along those lines. So once again the President, as the commander in chief, doesn’t need immunity to order an airstrike or whatever, because it’s already legal for him/her to do so.