> 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.
> 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.”
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]
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-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-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.”
Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
President immunity as laid out by SCOTUS clearly covers pardons.
Including "I'll pardon you and everyone down the chain if you do a war crime" promises.
1 reply →
Seems relevant to your lecture on military law.
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
3 replies →
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.