Didn't the us president command the military?
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2024
56 points (93.8% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26903 readers
1533 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Don't they already have a whole agency doing just that? Isn't that was the CIA is for?
Something something JFK
Grumble grumble Martin Luther King Jr.
Nice try Biden, won't get a hitman that easily
People raise good points about the federal system.
Let's say a governor did hire a hitman and murder is a state crime. All of a sudden we now have a conspiracy and ideally the federal government would take jurisdiction of what is now a federal crime. At that point, the governor would need to bribe or threaten the president to pardon these federal crimes....
Similarly, if it was the president orchestrating some sort of conspiracy, he might be able to delay or pardon federal offences, but as we are seeing with the 2016/2020 election crimes of Trump, a patchwork of state and federal cases are made all being handled (or delayed) via different powers.
Federalism is sort of good in that power is relatively diffuse. But it breaks down when 50% of courts and other officials just decide their friends can do as they will.
I do whatever the fuck I dam well please
Sort of yes, sort of no. This is one of those places where the US Federal system of government would be beneficial. For the most part, Homicide is a State crime. This means that the State where the crime occurred would have jurisdiction and The US President would not have the power to pardon for that crime. So, let's say that Biden sends a private hitman (and not Seal Team 6, the FBI or whatever fevered dream part of the US Government Trump comes up with next) to kill Trump. Said hitman would be indicted in New York under New York law for the homicide. President Biden's power to pardon would not be able to help the hitman. By contrast, New York Governor Kathy Hochul probably could (I can't be arsed to look up the power of pardon in New York). Where this breaks down is in DC or other Federal land (e.g. military bases). Since those are Federal lands, the Federal Government would have jurisdiction and the President probably would have the power of pardon.
Yes, probably. That being said, I see two immediate consequences to this.
Hiring a hitman is illegal, so the president could still be prosecuted for this. Assuming the House/Senate aren't complete morons, they would impeach and convict the president.
Once the hitman is pardoned, he would lose his 5th amendment protection. If his testimony couldn't be used to convict him, then the court could compel testimony against anyone involved. Which would make unraveling the conspiracy slightly easier.
Hiring a hitman is illegal, so the president could still be prosecuted for this. Assuming the House/Senate aren't complete morons, they would impeach and convict the president.
Doesn't the US hire thousands of hitmen with drones and call it the army? Or the CIA? The president can have someone killed no problem using the tools of the state.
There is even a case where the US used a drone to murder a US citizen abroad, extrajudicially. Apparently those "guaranteed rights" mean nothing when they don't want them to.
But good luck convincing almost any Americans of this as the propaganda is strong and the populace idiotic.
Ordering the military to do something illegal is still illegal. The military has an obligation to not follow illegal orders.
That being said, if nobody enforces it, then it doesn't matter what is illegal or legal.
The president is the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief of the army. Congress theoretically has to approve war declarations of the president, but they haven't exercised that right in like a century. But the stuff the president does in the situation room is traditionally treated as above the law. Nobody is successfully suing the president over a drone strike killing their dad. Regardless of whether the average person agrees it was justified or not.
And the CIA is a whole other story. They can legitimately make anyone disappear and nobody will hold them accountable.
It's not a question of the letter of the law. It's a question of how it's actually treated and enforced in practice.
It's a matter of political will; the Supreme Court is still deciding on the argument from Trump's defense that assassinating a rival could be considered an official act. In a sane world they would be laughed out of court, but the GOP has stacked the bench and these justices have to now weigh their corrupt intent against how much they care about the legitimacy of the court.
It's entirely possible that the question has never been considered, and that it is technically legal. In that case we should probably close that gap, and soonish.
they care about the legitimacy of the court
it's just amusing to see these words put together in this way.
I hope someone points out that sitting Supremes could also be considered political opponents. If these dipshits are gullible enough to trust the orange then they deserve the fate they're enabling.
Everyone around Donald thinks it won't happen to them.
Easy to abuse for sure. It does happen frequently. Perhaps none more damning to the project of accountability than the parden of Richard Nixon. Presidents are seen as above the law. A conviction is viewed as "dividing the nation" to hold them to their actions.
Hopefully Biden doesn't do this for Trump. Fuck that shit stain.
I don't really Biden doing that, he's certainly had no problem calling out his supporters thus far. What we really have to worry about is the Georgia case getting a bad judge
Though I could be completely wrong, of course.