3 ms·

> If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? The president has constitutional authority to issue o

> If the president has the constitutional authority to do X, how can he be criminally liable for doing X? The president has constitutional authority to issue orders to the military, so can he be prosecuted for ordering the military to, for example, drop a cluster bomb on a political opponent from a predator drone?

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
Great question that exceeds my skill to answer. I think we should try a recent, similar case where a US president ordered the military to assassinate a US citizen/political activist[1]. I believe this case is very close to the "seal team 6" hypothetical that seems to be top of mind for critics of this SCOTUS decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- jl6 2y ago
  “US citizen/political activist” is a pretty charitable description of this person. Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much.
  - thunky 2y ago
    > Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much. It does though. It's not widely accepted that the US president can skip due process and murder US citizens.
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      >skip due process and murder US citizens. One citizen at a time would have gained President Clinton wider acceptance if the intelligence would have been there to intercept the Oklahoma City bomber before he could act. Until now I don't think a President would have ever been expected to proceed to such a terminal conclusion, or be chastised for failing to, but it is only that very end point that is so well defined. OTOH, the former police chief in Uvalde was just charged with failure to shoot first and ask questions later. Anything less and you have to draw the line somewhere but there is no clear guidance or precedent any more. Well, maybe with Trump having already been elected then attempting violent insurrection instead of stepping down when his term was up, that's the precedent that's needed. Plus Trump has recently confirmed that he would like to murder more than one of the people he currently hates, and expects citizens to handle it jokingly. Also has confirmed he will do all he can to investigate anyone who he dislikes on a whim. Biden doesn't have to completely skip due process and proceed all the way to murder, he can now stay in the gray area and merely compromise due process and intimidate suspect individuals, however many Trump supporters it takes to root out any extremists that have any chance whatsoever of acting in an insurrection ever again. Like nothing ever seen in a free country. Trump would surely be doing the same to his suspected adversaries and then some if he got back in office. When the highest court in the land makes you dictator, your supporters expect you to step up to the plate, and hit it out of the park for the home team.
      - thunky 2y ago
        > When the highest court in the land makes you dictator Obama was unchecked, never charged with a crime. Which I think makes him a dictator by your definition. The court never had the opportunity to rule on the matter.
        fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Obama was unchecked Yes, presidents have always already had too much leeway to begin with.
AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Well, if anyone in the military received such an order, the correct thing to do is to refuse to follow it, as it is an unlawful order. And why is it unlawful? Because it exceeds the bounds of what the president can legitimately order the military to do. Any service member who carried out such an order could be prosecuted for doing so. So, if the president doesn't have the legitimate authority to order the military to do such a thing, could the president be prosecuted for giving such an order? As I read the decision, yes, he could.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

Great question that exceeds my skill to answer. I think we should try a recent, similar case where a US president ordered the military to assassinate a US citizen/political activist[1]. I believe this case is very close to the "seal team 6" hypothetical that seems to be top of mind for critics of this SCOTUS decision. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

jl6 2y ago
“US citizen/political activist” is a pretty charitable description of this person. Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much.
- thunky 2y ago
  > Testing the legality of “president issues order to kill terrorist” wouldn’t test much. It does though. It's not widely accepted that the US president can skip due process and murder US citizens.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    >skip due process and murder US citizens. One citizen at a time would have gained President Clinton wider acceptance if the intelligence would have been there to intercept the Oklahoma City bomber before he could act. Until now I don't think a President would have ever been expected to proceed to such a terminal conclusion, or be chastised for failing to, but it is only that very end point that is so well defined. OTOH, the former police chief in Uvalde was just charged with failure to shoot first and ask questions later. Anything less and you have to draw the line somewhere but there is no clear guidance or precedent any more. Well, maybe with Trump having already been elected then attempting violent insurrection instead of stepping down when his term was up, that's the precedent that's needed. Plus Trump has recently confirmed that he would like to murder more than one of the people he currently hates, and expects citizens to handle it jokingly. Also has confirmed he will do all he can to investigate anyone who he dislikes on a whim. Biden doesn't have to completely skip due process and proceed all the way to murder, he can now stay in the gray area and merely compromise due process and intimidate suspect individuals, however many Trump supporters it takes to root out any extremists that have any chance whatsoever of acting in an insurrection ever again. Like nothing ever seen in a free country. Trump would surely be doing the same to his suspected adversaries and then some if he got back in office. When the highest court in the land makes you dictator, your supporters expect you to step up to the plate, and hit it out of the park for the home team.
    - thunky 2y ago
      > When the highest court in the land makes you dictator Obama was unchecked, never charged with a crime. Which I think makes him a dictator by your definition. The court never had the opportunity to rule on the matter.
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        >Obama was unchecked Yes, presidents have always already had too much leeway to begin with.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Well, if anyone in the military received such an order, the correct thing to do is to refuse to follow it, as it is an unlawful order. And why is it unlawful? Because it exceeds the bounds of what the president can legitimately order the military to do. Any service member who carried out such an order could be prosecuted for doing so. So, if the president doesn't have the legitimate authority to order the military to do such a thing, could the president be prosecuted for giving such an order? As I read the decision, yes, he could.