BOMBSHELL: Supreme Court hands down terrifying decision on Trump military orders
#trump #supremecourt





The Supreme Court's unexpected decision to grant presidents immunity from prosecution for their official actions has raised significant concerns about the implications of this ruling for military orders issued by the commander in chief. This is particularly troubling when such orders clearly violate U.S. or international law. The ramifications of this decision are far-reaching and highlight the potential for abuse of military power by a president who is now seemingly beyond legal reproach for actions taken while in office.

A commander-in-chief armed with broad immunity from prosecution would wield considerable power and discretion in issuing controversial orders. Under the chain of command, the military is generally bound to follow those orders. This newfound immunity could embolden a president to issue orders that may be controversial or even unlawful, knowing that they will be shielded from prosecution. The chain of command, which relies heavily on the principle of lawful orders, could be strained under this new paradigm where the highest authority is effectively untouchable.

The Supreme Court's decision stems from a case involving former President Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The decision has sparked widespread fears about the potential abuse of power using the military as an instrument. These fears are not abstract; they are compounded by specific concerns about Trump, who has publicly vowed to seek revenge if he returns to the White House. The specter of a president with unchecked power over the military raises alarms about the integrity of democratic institutions and the rule of law.

While there is the possibility of future legal challenges to this ruling, experts note that the current decision does not extend immunity protections to commanders and enlisted service members who carry out the president's orders. This creates a precarious situation in which lower-ranking military personnel are held to legal standards and could be prosecuted for following orders deemed unlawful, while the president remains immune.

Victor Hansen, a professor of law at the New England School of Law in Boston, explained the complexities introduced by this ruling. He emphasized that despite the president's immunity, service members are still required to adhere to legal standards. Hansen, who had a 20-year career as a military lawyer in the U.S. Army, noted that the Supreme Court's ruling "turns the dynamic on its head. According to Hansen, this new reality means that subordinates in the military bear all the responsibility but lack the authority to question orders from the top, while the president has all the authority without the corresponding responsibility.

Hansen went on to criticize the ruling, saying, "In my humble opinion, it is an absurd and damaging decision. His perspective underscores the potential dangers of a legal system in which accountability is unevenly distributed, creating a scenario in which those with the most power face the least scrutiny.

In sum, the Supreme Court's decision to grant presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts raises profound concerns about the balance of power and the rule of law. The potential for a commander-in-chief to issue unlawful orders with impunity challenges fundamental principles of military obedience and legal accountability. This decision could have far-reaching implications, fundamentally altering the relationship between civilian leadership and military duty.

свернуть