3 ms·

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

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.
- rawgabbit 2y ago
  If the President directly orders the military to arrest politicians and citizens, that is clearly illegal. The stumbling block is if the President invokes the Insurrection Act. Which is a bit of a gray area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807

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.
rawgabbit 2y ago
If the President directly orders the military to arrest politicians and citizens, that is clearly illegal. The stumbling block is if the President invokes the Insurrection Act. Which is a bit of a gray area. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act_of_1807