United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018
Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”
Hell yeah my candidate isn't fascist, YOUR candidate is fascist!
You assumed wrong, as the supreme court said the trails court will determine what is and isn't an official act. What's the problem?
First responders get immunity while they are doing their duty. Judges do too. What exactly is the problem? Breaking the law CANNOT be an official act.
Trump was president for four years, enjoyed all of this immunity already, and not one politician was murdered. Pretty sure we'll be alright.
Source?
Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
Never once have I said I'm for this.
Funny, that's what I think about all the people clutching their pearls crying democracy is dead because of this ruling.
Lemmy isn't representative of the US. If you consumed any media outside your bubble you'd see that.
I've always thought people of all races were people and share the rights as all other human beings. Weird, innit?
Is that because I don't vote the way you want me to?
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
The president can't kill anyone who opposes him. The president is subject to the laws just like anyone else. Breaking the law is not part of his official duty. Assassinating someone the president doesn't like is against the law.
Assassinating an enemy of the United States is a different story. The president cannot claim a citizen of the United States with no criminal activity or record against the United States is an enemy. Furthermore, the military cannot use force on citizens of the United States. The FBI can, and the president doesn't control the FBI the judicial branch does.
Aren't checks and balances fun?!
The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.
Let's follow that logic.
You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.
Same scenario, but now it's the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?
The law applies to the president always.
Here is what this ruling is for -
First - if I order an enemy of the US dead I can be prosecuted.
The president orders an enemy dead. That enemy is killed. The president cannot be prosecuted for that act.
What this ruling does - the president may also not be prosecuted for that act after they leave office.
That's all this does. That's it. If the president kills a maid in the White House he or she will go to prison because that is against the law and not within the duties of the office.
Nope. That is not within the duties of the president. Declaring something official doesn't make it official.
No, the president has immunity during official duties much like a first responder. If they break the law that isn't an official duty.
The president acts through people. Asking the military to murder Americans on American soil is the easy slam dunk straight to pound me in the ass federal prison for life idea you've ever come up with.
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I've seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett's examples.
Yes, because it doesn't fall within the powers granted to the president via the constitution. He cannot sexually harass her. He cannot kill her. He cannot take bribes from her. So on and so forth.
No. The president could not personally kill their maid.
Says right in the ruling it's up to the trails court to determine what is official.
Is Saddam Hussein in the room with us now?
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don't you? You must have missed the part where it's only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it's in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.
I'm not Republican.
Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?
Well, didn't take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?
That's because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7
Incorrect. Breaking the law is never an official act of the office, and therefore, cannot be protected.
Absolutely not. You're insane, you wouldn't consider anything I'd say.
The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It's been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn't gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren't suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.
You bring up an excellent point. America doesn't have to provide further support, because they aren't single handedly funding Ukraine.
https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/
The understanding of what is and isn't an official act is severely lacking. An official act is within the duties of the president. The president can't break the law and claim it was an official duty, lol.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
Because they are protecting our republic. A president shouldn't fear being prosecuted by someone for their official acts when they are out of office, such as a political rival.
And no, something illegal cannot be official.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don't vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.