• DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    So in your opinion, did they just reaffirm something like the presumption of innocence but it’s tailored for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people? So he has “The presumption of immunity” when making otherwise illegal orders, until it’s otherwise determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      It protects any official action.

      So, for example, the notorious drone strikes that Obama ordered which killed a bunch of innocent people.

      As commander in chief, that’s an official act, he would have immunity.

      Bush and Abu Ghraib torture? Same.

      • Monument@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 days ago

        Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.

        It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.

        Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Oh, I never meant to bring Trump into it, just that Obama continued Bush’s drone program and in a perfect world it would have all been illegal… but not if the President does it. ;)