Supreme Court immunity ruling raises questions
about military orders
The Hill,
by
Brad Dress
Original Article
Posted By: 4250Luis,
7/8/2024 6:26:34 AM
The Supreme Court’s stunning ruling giving presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts raises serious questions about orders issued by the commander in chief to the military, especially if those commands clearly violate U.S. or international law.
A commander in chief with broad immunity from criminal prosecution would have more power and leeway in issuing controversial orders that the military is in most cases obligated to carry out according to the chain of command.
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 7/8/2024 6:29:29 AM (No. 1752090)
Oh, the bed-wetting!
19 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
philsner 7/8/2024 7:16:13 AM (No. 1752127)
Notice how they don't mention the Constitution, ands never mind that the United States is not bound by "international law".
27 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
petrichor 7/8/2024 7:21:05 AM (No. 1752133)
The military has allowed men to refuse immoral orders for many years.
24 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Venturer 7/8/2024 7:39:21 AM (No. 1752142)
This whole question should have never come up.
In the past when a President left office the new administration was smart enough to leave the man alone and not participate in actions that would be divisive or harmful to the country.
Along came these idiots. Of course there are some circumstances that makes this different.
First Biden stole the White House, and second Donald Trump was going to run again.
The biggest difference is that in the run up for the next election most administration could run on their accomplishments.
That is what Trump is doing, but Biden's accomplishment have all been detrimental to the country and they hoped they could put Trump in jail and people would not vote for him. So far it hasn't worked, but they are still trying.
27 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
thekidsmom66 7/8/2024 8:14:35 AM (No. 1752177)
Another deceitful, made up "dilemma".
16 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
BarryNo 7/8/2024 8:31:39 AM (No. 1752192)
No... They don't. Haven't you ever heard of an illegal order? If the military in question obeys, they are equally guilty. After impeachment, the former President can be tried for acts, that due to illegality, do not fall under "official acts".
Stupid on the face of it.
19 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 7/8/2024 8:32:05 AM (No. 1752193)
More stupidity about the horrible things that Trump could do "now that he has immunity". The SCOTUS essentially told to lawfare gadflies to buzz off, however, nothing else was changed. Trump, in taking any action, STILL needs to follow the Constitution and law. If he were to issue illegal orders, the military could refuse to obey them. In fact, they would be REQUIRED to disobey them. A review of such orders by a court would declare they are illegal. The only thing the SCOTUS has said is that in issuing such orders that a President could not be held criminally responsible.
This whole pearl-clutching response by the Left is typically insane. The sad thing is, a lot of Lefties are actually scared about this. They have no ability to discern reality from hysterical fiction. In essence they are ignorant.
18 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
edgar 7/8/2024 9:06:24 AM (No. 1752219)
That is what the Impeachment process addresses. Once impeached for behavior, then criminal charges can be brought.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
thomthomp 7/8/2024 9:07:58 AM (No. 1752221)
#7, Even a Justice of the Supreme Court demonstrated in her hysterical dissent that she didn't understand the ruling, the Constitution or the law...
...or maybe she does understand but sees her role as that of a professional agitator.
13 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
janjan 7/8/2024 9:16:22 AM (No. 1752229)
This if false. The military do not have to carry out unlawful orders. This is cheap drama.
14 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Manxsom Foe 7/8/2024 9:31:10 AM (No. 1752241)
When someone joins any branch of our military they swear to obey the Lawful Orders of their superior officers. The Nuremberg Defense does not work for any level of the chain of command.
It is already illegal to use US Forces on US soil against US citizens. The Infantry are trained to break things and kill people. However, the President is Constitutionally Responsible to protect us from invasion. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is why we have not used Federal Troops at the border. It is possible for the various State Governors to send Military Police to help defend our borders.
Illegal aliens have violated our immigration statutes. Just how many million does it take to constitute an invasion?
What a mess.
10 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Kate318 7/8/2024 10:26:07 AM (No. 1752293)
There is no such thing as “international law,” Brad. It is a leftist fantasy that is strictly voluntary and unenforceable.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Italiano 7/8/2024 10:49:01 AM (No. 1752309)
Help me out here. Which President talked about using F-15's and F-16's on Americans? While we're at it, which Congresspussy from California who was compromised by a Chicom spy talked about nuking us?
That's right.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 7/8/2024 11:29:15 AM (No. 1752362)
The leftists are literally unmoored from reality by discovering a thing that has ALWAYS BEEN THERE and always been understood by any intelligent person who ever read and understood the Constitution.
Unhinged by knowledge of how things really have always worked.
Journalists are such a collection of emotional dimwits.
6 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
robertthomason 7/8/2024 1:15:42 PM (No. 1752420)
I didn't read the whole article. It appears to me that Brad never served in our military. In 1971, while on active duty at Ft. Sill I was required to attend a class on what was a lawful order under the UCMJ. Why? Lt. William Calley and My Lai. Perhaps Brad and the other conspiracy theorists should actually do some research about lawful orders before they show what ignorant morons they are. But, I'm sure they are all graduates of the top ten American colleges and universities. And committed Marxists.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
BarryNo 7/8/2024 2:01:01 PM (No. 1752439)
No. 4, more than anything else, the Lawfare points to Obama, who used tat regularly in his political carreer.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Hermit_Crab 7/8/2024 3:04:41 PM (No. 1752467)
"The Supreme Court’s stunning ruling giving presidents immunity from prosecution for official acts..."
The Supreme Court didn't "GIVE" presidential Immunity.... they only confirmed what was there from the beginning.
I always had this feeling that "The Hill" was not named because it operates mostly on 'Capitol Hill', but because it is a mouthpiece for HILLary.
3 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "4250Luis"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)