6 ms·

Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups

Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.

robotnikman 2y ago
As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure, I suppose it always exists de facto, both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.
      - psunavy03 2y ago
        As a retired military officer, disobeying illegal orders is expected. An order to commit a war crime is itself a crime, not a lawful order. The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.
        vundercind 2y ago
        This is further complicated by a history (yes, in the US) of not just failing to prosecute obvious war criminals, and of pardoning many who do somehow manage to get convicted, but wide swaths of the population treating them as heroes. There are recent examples, but look at how we treated those with the most direct culpability for the My Lai massacre, and further, how the guy who took direct action to stop it got treated—this stuff goes back quite a bit, we pretty consistently don't just tolerate but coddle war criminals, so... risk disobeying the illegal order and maybe get treated like a villain, or become an actual villain but good odds you get hero treatment? The law is arguably not what's written, but what actually happens, and analyzed that way our laws about war crime are complicated.
        jp_nc 2y ago
        The recent SCOTUS decision in the US will make this endlessly complicated. If the illegal order is deemed an official act, SCOTUS has said POTUS has liability. So does the military carry out an illegal act (which can’t be illegal), or refuse and face charges of insubordination?
        vundercind 2y ago
        Part of what makes this so obviously a fucked-up decision is that now some poor E-3 can easily be prosecuted for egregiously-illegal horse-shit while the "buck stops here" fucking President who ordered it is untouchable. Like, if it's not plainly an awful decision on its face (and god, it so very is) then the fact that just about every plausible application of it looks something like that, as far as who can and cannot be held responsible for their actions, should demonstrate that the decision is, in the highest ideal of what it means to be American, deeply un-American.
  - ibejoeb 2y ago
    >I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system. There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.
  - bonzini 2y ago
    The declaration of martial law was already unconstitutional in the part that forbids something that is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (a meeting of the Parliament to request that the president lift the martial law). Which is probably why the members of the Parliament only has minor obstacles towards having their meeting.

Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.

robotnikman 2y ago

As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure, I suppose it always exists de facto, both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.
    - psunavy03 2y ago
      As a retired military officer, disobeying illegal orders is expected. An order to commit a war crime is itself a crime, not a lawful order. The sticky part comes in when the venue for determining the legality of the order often then becomes one's own court-martial and resulting appeals. I'm not sure how much case law there is on the subject.
      - vundercind 2y ago
        This is further complicated by a history (yes, in the US) of not just failing to prosecute obvious war criminals, and of pardoning many who do somehow manage to get convicted, but wide swaths of the population treating them as heroes. There are recent examples, but look at how we treated those with the most direct culpability for the My Lai massacre, and further, how the guy who took direct action to stop it got treated—this stuff goes back quite a bit, we pretty consistently don't just tolerate but coddle war criminals, so... risk disobeying the illegal order and maybe get treated like a villain, or become an actual villain but good odds you get hero treatment? The law is arguably not what's written, but what actually happens, and analyzed that way our laws about war crime are complicated.
        jp_nc 2y ago
        The recent SCOTUS decision in the US will make this endlessly complicated. If the illegal order is deemed an official act, SCOTUS has said POTUS has liability. So does the military carry out an illegal act (which can’t be illegal), or refuse and face charges of insubordination?
        vundercind 2y ago
        Part of what makes this so obviously a fucked-up decision is that now some poor E-3 can easily be prosecuted for egregiously-illegal horse-shit while the "buck stops here" fucking President who ordered it is untouchable. Like, if it's not plainly an awful decision on its face (and god, it so very is) then the fact that just about every plausible application of it looks something like that, as far as who can and cannot be held responsible for their actions, should demonstrate that the decision is, in the highest ideal of what it means to be American, deeply un-American.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  >I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system. There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.
- bonzini 2y ago
  The declaration of martial law was already unconstitutional in the part that forbids something that is explicitly mentioned in the constitution (a meeting of the Parliament to request that the president lift the martial law). Which is probably why the members of the Parliament only has minor obstacles towards having their meeting.