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?
It’s simple really. It’s not murder when someone in the military kills an enemy combatant. Murder is illegally taking another’s life, and members of the military can legally kill enemy combatants. That’s laid out in the Geneva Conventions and all of that.
The President is the commander in chief, so he doesn’t need immunity to order some terrorists taken out. That’s the way it’s worked for nearly 250 years. Joe Citizen is not a member of the military and is not the president, so generally they can expect to get in trouble for that sort of thing.
The President can order some terrorists killed the same way a fighter pilot can shoot down an enemy plane, a soldier can throw a grenade into an enemy foxhole, or navy captain can order the shelling of an enemy position.
Also note that immunity here doesn’t mean something is legal for that person. The act is still just as illegal as it has always been. It just means that the person who has immunity can’t be prosecuted for it. And in the case of absolute immunity, can’t even be charged for it, unlike things like qualified immunity where someone can still be charged and then can argue immunity as their defense the courts get to decide if it actually applies.
As such, a member of the military doesn’t have or need immunity, because what they are doing isn’t illegal. That also applies to the president in that sort of situation.
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.”
That’s a different thing entirely. Members of the US military don’t have combatant immunity when it comes to the US legal system, because what they are doing is legal in terms of the law. Combatant immunity would apply if they are captured as a POW by another nation following the Geneva conventions, which basically says that nation can’t charge them for acts of warfare, murder, etc. for participating in the war as a combatant. So long as they weren’t committing war crimes or something along those lines. So once again the President, as the commander in chief, doesn’t need immunity to order an airstrike or whatever, because it’s already legal for him/her to do so.
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?
It’s simple really. It’s not murder when someone in the military kills an enemy combatant. Murder is illegally taking another’s life, and members of the military can legally kill enemy combatants. That’s laid out in the Geneva Conventions and all of that.
The President is the commander in chief, so he doesn’t need immunity to order some terrorists taken out. That’s the way it’s worked for nearly 250 years. Joe Citizen is not a member of the military and is not the president, so generally they can expect to get in trouble for that sort of thing.
The President can order some terrorists killed the same way a fighter pilot can shoot down an enemy plane, a soldier can throw a grenade into an enemy foxhole, or navy captain can order the shelling of an enemy position.
Also note that immunity here doesn’t mean something is legal for that person. The act is still just as illegal as it has always been. It just means that the person who has immunity can’t be prosecuted for it. And in the case of absolute immunity, can’t even be charged for it, unlike things like qualified immunity where someone can still be charged and then can argue immunity as their defense the courts get to decide if it actually applies.
As such, a member of the military doesn’t have or need immunity, because what they are doing isn’t illegal. That also applies to the president in that sort of situation.
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.”
That’s a different thing entirely. Members of the US military don’t have combatant immunity when it comes to the US legal system, because what they are doing is legal in terms of the law. Combatant immunity would apply if they are captured as a POW by another nation following the Geneva conventions, which basically says that nation can’t charge them for acts of warfare, murder, etc. for participating in the war as a combatant. So long as they weren’t committing war crimes or something along those lines. So once again the President, as the commander in chief, doesn’t need immunity to order an airstrike or whatever, because it’s already legal for him/her to do so.