“In its ruling, the Supreme Court decided there was no question that Mr. Trump enjoyed immunity from being prosecuted for one of those methods: his efforts to strong-arm the Justice Department into validating his false claims that the election had been marred by widespread fraud. That was because the justices determined that Mr. Trump’s interactions with top officials in the department were clearly part of his official duties as president.” [1]
One of the president’s official duties is to direct the military to take actions that protect the country. Biden can reasonably claim Trump is a threat to democracy, and can officially request him to be killed. Right? If not why not?
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/politics/supreme-court...
Immune from judicial prosecution.
Not immune from Congressional prosecution.
---
This isn't a unique concept.
For example, if SEAL Team 6 improperly kills someone on a mission, they aren't prosecuted in criminal court; they are court-martialed.
There is accountability, but due to the unique nature of the profession, it has a specialized venue.
SEAL Team 6 can take care of that too
how can SEAL Team 6 even refuse a presidential order ?
No different than the judiciary, right?
---
I am constantly amazed by the number of new discoveries made on HN, like military coups.
Which we need to fix regardless, but in the interim it’s hard to conclude that the federal government isn’t starting to crumble under the combined weight of that problem and the general, concerning erosion of trust in expertise and institutions, and the rise of populism. The Supreme Court is very efficiently pouring gas on that fire.
However, I don't believe they would. Not after the crap the Uniparty have done for my lifetime. Any president part of the uniparty will be protected and any president against it will be persecuted. We already have seen that.
If not so, is there a reason why not? "Murdering an oppositional politician in your own country" seems quite clean-cut bad and unjustified. I know your political system is very much "they vs us", but it can't be that bad?
Part of the ruling was that conversations between DOJ and President constitute the President's official duties and "therefore" (per the three judges appointed by Trump, one who expressed sympathies with Jan 6 rioters, and yet another whose wife was an active endorser and planner of aspects of the coup) those conversations are protected and cannot be entered as evidence in a criminal proceeding against the President.
The more insidious outcome is that the President can now, because these conversations are official, officially order the AG to investigate and prosecute political opponents.
Maybe some court can review it on down the line, years later. Given the number of judges appointed by Trump, maybe not. Either way, the federal government and rule of law was massively, severely crippled yesterday by the Supreme Court
So... exactly what they've been doing for the past four years already?
¹ Obama and any other person in the same position
---------
To justify the Awlaki killing, Barron relies heavily on the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), the law that Congress passed to permit striking al-Qaeda post-September 11th, and which was used to justify the US-led investigation of Afghanistan.
Awlaki, according to Barron, was a leader in al-Qaeda's Yemen-based branch, which is known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The intelligence supporting this claim is redacted from the memo. But Barron claims that, because Congress authorized using "necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaeda, the AUMF would thus give the US legal cover to target Awlaki.
"In consequence," Barron concludes, "the operation should be understood to constitute the lawful conduct of war and thus to be encompassed by the public authority justification." He also writes that the AUMF argument makes the killing justifiable under international law as a defensive use of force.
One possible counter-argument is that this is unconstitutional: the Fourth Amendment generally prohibits the killing of US citizens without due process of law. Barron argues that this case is an exception because capturing Awlaki was impossible — for reasons that are again redacted. If capturing Awlaki was "unfeasible," as Barron says, then killing him to prevent him from threatening the US becomes the only option.
---------
You may disagree with that interpretation of the law, but it seems — given that Obama was not prosecuted for this action — that the legal system does not agree with your disagreement.
Now the point is moot, since any president can order up the killing of anyone they like, because there is no longer a consequence for criminal behaviour. If you think the al-Awlaki killing was unlawful, I hope that you are gravely concerned by the fact that administrations no longer need to even attempt the appearance of complying with the law.
1: https://www.vox.com/2014/6/23/5835602/anwar-al-awlaki-memo
The President's power as Commander in Chief is enumerated, so having Seal Team 6 whack DeSantis would be absolutely immune to prosecution.
This does not seem to fit either the examples set in the majority opinion or a reasonable understanding of what the President's enumerated power as commander in chief means. In the absence of a Congressional declaration of war against Ron DeSantis (which I am all for) the President's core duty would seem to cover killing DeSantis only in the event of a clear and present danger to the nation from DeSantis. Otherwise this is rebuttable, and will be pretty easily rebutted, immunity.
Yes, we are relying on the courts to carve that kind of fine distinction, and yes, this decision makes that a bit harder. But hardly impossible, and we were already relying on the courts for that. Subjecting this decision to the most ridiculous interpretation is politically useful right now but that's about all it's good for.
I wouldn't say that the history and tradition of the office is to have Delta Force manufacture artistic pottery cups for children to drink milk from while at school. That action in that time and place would not seem to fall within the role of Commander in Chief (regardless of his intent / subjective belief that the use of fine porcelain may provide some tactical advantage).
This court would rule that people upset about the president assassinating all their rivals should just get elected president and change the policy.
After all, they already did say that women that want health care and the right to prevent (according to the court) overwhelmingly male politicians from messing with their lady bits should just run for Supreme Court and overturn their recent rulings.
And the president is still subject to impeachment.
So even if I some case they fail, there are no consequences so people can try again.
Yes there is also political considerations, but if the president feels confident enough to plan assainations of a rival, or for instance a coup with others in the executive branch, then he must feel he has that handled.
Yeah, it seems this would hinge on whether it was done to protect democracy (official duty?) vs win an election (not but who knows by now). If Biden gives up on running anyway, that removes that question. Then it may not matter much because it's not clear which testimony, recording or other evidence might be admissible where. Then it may not matter because the issue is not even whether that would be illegal or not - just whether the president would have immunity in case it is illegal - and there is evidence - and someone attempts to charge something
Interesting rough overview of that question is here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/seal-team-6-assassination-hy...
Some positions seem more absurd than the usual. For example someone argues "SEAL team 6 would obviously not accept that illegal order" Which seems irrelevant every which way: presumes it's illegal and focuses too much on this one specific example. And accepts SEAL Team 6 for more than a meme - there are obviously lots of outfits other than that one.
Should former presidents be subject to prosecution for those decisions? Remember that criminal laws are often extremely broad, and you can use conspiracy and other legal theories to make someone liable who didn’t perform the actual killing. Heck, part of the J6 prosecution against Trump somehow involves an Enron-era document shredding law.
What I feel like the dissent misses completely, which is quite ironic given Justice Sotomayor’s history in private practice, is that not having any sort of immunity means trusting every prosecutor in the country with pretty much unrestricted discretion to stitch together vague criminal laws into criminal charges against former presidents. Why should we place such trust in prosecutors?
Why should we instead trust a single person with an absolute immunity for vague “official acts”? Said person is way more powerful than any of the prosecutors.
Half the country doesn’t share your faith that career prosecutors will do “what’s good for the country” instead of indulging their personal biases.
I would point out that prosecuting Trump under Sarbanes Oxley (a financial fraud law) for supposed insurrection doesn’t exactly engender trust and confidence in career prosecutors.
Why do you presume that the dissent did not consider this? What are your qualifications to think you’ve considered this more completely than the SCOTUS (whether or not you agree)?
> Should former presidents be subject to prosecution for those decisions?
Yes! That war crimes have become normal behavior for US Presidents doesn't mean that we now need more legal frameworks for protecting from prosecution of them.
It seems to me that, if we are to actually become a nation of laws and not of men, we need to acknowledge and account for the crimes in office of virtually every president. And if that's too difficult to do, politically speaking, then we simply aren't what we say we are.
> Remember that criminal laws are often extremely broad, and you can use conspiracy and other legal theories to make someone liable who didn’t perform the actual killing.
This is also a huge problem. It seems that many of us walk around unknowingly subject to capricious prosecution for felonies (according to one author, three felonies a day[0]). How can we have equal protection under the law when any of us can be prosecuted at any time, and the matter of which of us are is one of political discretion?
---- > What I feel like the dissent misses completely, which is quite ironic given Justice Sotomayor’s history in private practice, is that not having any sort of immunity means trusting every prosecutor in the country
While the dissent is unsatisfying in some ways (including following the trend of exhaustive and distracting analysis of the particular facts of the case instead of sharp focus on the ostensibly simpler constitutional issues), you are mistaken, as the phenomenon you are describing is contemplated at length - 9 pages (13-21) are committed to this analysis [1].
0: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6611240-three-felonies-a...
1: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
The inverse of total immunity (freedom, no jury, no trial) would be total oppression (prison, no jury, no trial).
That is what the media - the same media who until a few days ago told you your current president was in no way diminished in his mental capacity - wants you to believe, they in turn were prompted by a 'progressive' judge - Sotomayor. It was clear from the outset that the media was lying about Biden and it is clear from the outset that this ploy about presidents being able to order hit jobs on their political rivals is a lie.
In short, think for yourself and you have a much better chance avoiding becoming a useful idiot as Lenin called those who blindly followed what the Party told them.
Couldn't he just make up some BS about a national security threat to make it "official"?
Did we just become a monarchy?
Prosecuting a president fundamentally is a political act, and why would we think a random DC bureaucrat better qualified to make a consequential political act than the Senate itself?
Carving out some special protection strikes at the heart of the idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
The DOJ threat of criminal prosecution only becomes functional when the president becomes a private person, at which point the president no longer has the ability to act in an official capacity anyway.
As for SEAL Team 6, they have a "duty to disobey" unlawful orders[1]-- which every member of the team probably knows off the top of their heads-- and which is a much more effective real-time check on a president's authority.
[1] https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/what-is-a-mi...
Why?
Because, and this is purely hypothetical (lol), an opponent could try and convict politicians with spurious charges to get them out of power.
Singapore’s ruling party loves this tactic. Political opponent is charged with defamation, and if fined more than $5,000, they are no longer eligible to run for office.
It’s a commonly used political weapon which is why most democracies offer immunity.
I mean, the former governor of New York just said the New York prosecution against Trump wouldn’t have been brought against anyone else.
When prosecutors campaign on pursuing an individual, when such efforts are multipolar and unending, and when the sum effort looks corrupt to a large portion of the country, then it seems obvious to suggest that outrage at a resultant SC ruling, which would not have otherwise come under consideration, is crying over one's self-inflicted medicine.
I don't think that it is healthy that this was put to the SC.
But it was absolutely inevitable given the various prosecutorial efforts and the norm breaking they represent. Even ignoring the open political corruption, and lies, involving them. Though, these aspects aren't necessary to ignore.
In short, breaking norms to pursue Trump was worth the squeeze for them. They were squeezed. That's it.
Assuming that these aren't crocodile tears over a ruling that will protect others from actual accused crimes of the past, or what might come in the future. That these prosecutions weren't specifically brought to force this result. Which is entirely possible. Certainly, such a benefit will be had.
If I understand this correctly, the core effect of this is to essentially transfer the gateway through which it is possible to prosecute a president from any AG's office to Congress.
I suspect which will serve to further entrench establishment power, of which Biden's camp is a part. Presidents within Congressional graces will be effectively immune, crime or no crime. Presidents outside of them may not be so much.
Whomever lived through 2016-2020 and thinks that Trump will have some kind of Congressional carte blanche either hasn't thought this through or is being deceptive.
Compare the improbability of Trump being able to swerve out of his lane, as far as Congress is concerned, and what Obama was able to legally get away with without stirring Congress.
Now predicated on the precedent of Obama's extrajudicial action, Trump may have been able to carry out extrajudicial acts during his term. But no one who was watching thinks that anything without a precedent would have resulted in anything except another Trump impeachment.
