Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yes, probably. That being said, I see two immediate consequences to this.
Hiring a hitman is illegal, so the president could still be prosecuted for this. Assuming the House/Senate aren't complete morons, they would impeach and convict the president.
Once the hitman is pardoned, he would lose his 5th amendment protection. If his testimony couldn't be used to convict him, then the court could compel testimony against anyone involved. Which would make unraveling the conspiracy slightly easier.
Doesn't the US hire thousands of hitmen with drones and call it the army? Or the CIA? The president can have someone killed no problem using the tools of the state.
Ordering the military to do something illegal is still illegal. The military has an obligation to not follow illegal orders.
That being said, if nobody enforces it, then it doesn't matter what is illegal or legal.
The president is the head of the executive branch and the commander in chief of the army. Congress theoretically has to approve war declarations of the president, but they haven't exercised that right in like a century. But the stuff the president does in the situation room is traditionally treated as above the law. Nobody is successfully suing the president over a drone strike killing their dad. Regardless of whether the average person agrees it was justified or not.
And the CIA is a whole other story. They can legitimately make anyone disappear and nobody will hold them accountable.
It's not a question of the letter of the law. It's a question of how it's actually treated and enforced in practice.
There is even a case where the US used a drone to murder a US citizen abroad, extrajudicially. Apparently those "guaranteed rights" mean nothing when they don't want them to.
But good luck convincing almost any Americans of this as the propaganda is strong and the populace idiotic.