4 ms·

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanati

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why. I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening. Yes. Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

terminalshort 9mo ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 9mo ago
  We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attacks-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac... > Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack. And "textbook" is not an exaggeration. https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72b0a498ca08615b2589c772a1d9e642 https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72... > The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
  - terminalshort 9mo ago
    Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
    - Shivatron 9mo ago
      It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them. This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1] 1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8 https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8
      - fragmede 9mo ago
        War crimes sounds scary as a whole mess of badness, but which one is kind of material. Eg Obama's drone strikes and CIA torture likely count as war crimes, though no court has actually tried him for them, so it's hard to get worked up about Navy Seals (whos job it is to go into war zones and do war-type things) having generically having committed war crimes. Did they rape women and babies, or did they shoot the wrong person in the dark of night who it turns out wasn't actually a threat.
        ceejayoz 9mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) > Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure. > Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls. Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.
      - terminalshort 9mo ago
        Yes, but that could happen with or without the SC ruling. The president has always had absolute power of pardon.
    - 9mo ago
- refulgentis 9mo ago
  The decision explicitly says anything you do is de facto legal. I won't talk down to you like you talked down to me. I will continue to talk up to you, if neutral in this comment. What you said was unnecessary.

terminalshort 9mo ago

[flagged]

ceejayoz 9mo ago
We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attacks-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac... > Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack. And "textbook" is not an exaggeration. https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72b0a498ca08615b2589c772a1d9e642 https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72... > The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
- terminalshort 9mo ago
  Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
  - Shivatron 9mo ago
    It seems extremely relevant. Your argument suggests the president need only appoint a subordinate who will themselves give the desired illegal order without the president's public command. In the unlikely event the subordinate is called to account, the president can simply pardon them. This is certainly not a hypothetical "parade of horribles", since Trump has already pardoned military officers convicted of war crimes.[1] 1. https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8 https://apnews.com/article/257e4b17a3c7476ea3007c0861fa97e8
    - fragmede 9mo ago
      War crimes sounds scary as a whole mess of badness, but which one is kind of material. Eg Obama's drone strikes and CIA torture likely count as war crimes, though no court has actually tried him for them, so it's hard to get worked up about Navy Seals (whos job it is to go into war zones and do war-type things) having generically having committed war crimes. Did they rape women and babies, or did they shoot the wrong person in the dark of night who it turns out wasn't actually a threat.
      - ceejayoz 9mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Gallagher_(Navy_SEAL) > Gallagher was the subject of a number of reports from fellow SEAL team members, stating that his actions were not in keeping with the rules of war, but these reports were dismissed by the SEAL command structure. > Other snipers said they witnessed Gallagher taking at least two militarily pointless shots, shooting and killing an unarmed elderly man in a white robe as well as a young girl walking with other girls. Murdered a prisoner, and was shitty enough his fellow SEALs were uncomfortable enough to complain. Pardoned eventually, by Trump.
    - terminalshort 9mo ago
      Yes, but that could happen with or without the SC ruling. The president has always had absolute power of pardon.
  - 9mo ago
refulgentis 9mo ago
The decision explicitly says anything you do is de facto legal. I won't talk down to you like you talked down to me. I will continue to talk up to you, if neutral in this comment. What you said was unnecessary.