Dave: That's the logic. If the president needs immunity to do his job then so do those he commands or else that immunity is moot.

is torture an official act? are war crimes? both are criminal under U.S. law. what happens to presidential command responsibility? also, if POTUS is immune from prosecution, there is no complementarity. the court has made it easier for the ICC to pursue cases ag american presidents.

If the President orders his staff or military or whomever to do something illegal, are they also immune?

depends on the crime. there's no immunity from manifestly unlawful orders. but what is unlawful now? who decides? the court may be throwing all this up in the air.

Seems like the presumption is that anytime the president exercises their constitutional powers it is legal. Therefore, any command given by the president as commander-in-chief is by definition not criminal. So... Sounds like no such thing as an unlawful order if it comes from the pres.

That's the logic. If the president needs immunity to do his job then so do those he commands or else that immunity is moot.

i don't know, really. seems like the logic but if i were a subordinate, i would definitely not take that to the bank. i am almost certain the ICC wouldn't see it that way and i'm not sure a court martial would either.

The ICC doesn't matter to the US and any criminal case in the US. including military courts I believe, the Supreme Court can eventually overrule them. The leash is off now. We have seen many times that they aren't afraid to test limits in court because they know SCOTUS has their backs.

The US has passed laws basically saying that we will invade The Hague if the ICC tries to charge a US politician or military personnel. They effectively don't matter when it comes to the US (just stating facts, I'd rather it wasn't this way). I don't think that the military (continued)

justice system would be much better either. If the Pres gives an order and SCOTUS says that it is presumed to be legal. Then disobeying an "unlawful order" would essentially be denying the legality of presidential orders, basically a military coup if military leadership did it.

my only point is that, if the ICC concludes that the US lacks criminal jurisdiction over presidents for official acts, & that he can/does immunize subordinates, it will be able to pursue a case ag him/them. obv more to it than this but it's a very clear implication of the court's opinion.

Post