Dude, if your commander orders you to invade Canada, hate to break it to you, but that’s lawful. Now if they tell you to use chemical weapons or target civilians you can push back on that. The law they are referring to is United States law and a couple of conventions like the Hague and Geneva conventions which cover war crimes. Other international law doesn’t count. Nato treaties don’t mean boo when it comes to the lawfulness of orders, nor should they.
There are no more laws in the US when it comes to what POTUS wants. trump can order the military to invade Canada (which is his constitutional power that grants him full immunity when he uses it), simultaneously issue a lifetime pardon for all US military service members, and no US court can legally prosecute anyone involved. The only hope is the Hague where I hope all living US presidents eventually end up.
You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.
In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)
There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)
But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.
Removed by mod
Dude, if your commander orders you to invade Canada, hate to break it to you, but that’s lawful. Now if they tell you to use chemical weapons or target civilians you can push back on that. The law they are referring to is United States law and a couple of conventions like the Hague and Geneva conventions which cover war crimes. Other international law doesn’t count. Nato treaties don’t mean boo when it comes to the lawfulness of orders, nor should they.
Removed by mod
There are no more laws in the US when it comes to what POTUS wants. trump can order the military to invade Canada (which is his constitutional power that grants him full immunity when he uses it), simultaneously issue a lifetime pardon for all US military service members, and no US court can legally prosecute anyone involved. The only hope is the Hague where I hope all living US presidents eventually end up.
Removed by mod
Since when did they give a shit about things like law?
Removed by mod
You really shouldn’t trust the legal interpretations of an LLM. They’re frequently wrong, and, even more dangerously, they’re very, very good at making a wrong answer look right.
In this case, it does seem to be correct, though. The treaty clause has nuances in the way it’s interpreted, but according to the article they’re considered roughly equivalent to federal law. (Sorry for overlooking that and answering wrong elsewhere)
There’s still catches. Prosecution for following unlawful orders is light, and often rests on charging a perpetrator as if they were a private citizen. Violating an international treaty regarding diplomacy doesn’t really have much in the way of criminal penalties, and, even if they did, the NATO treaty doesn’t seem to have a “don’t attack other members” article. Like, it should, but it also doesn’t have a “remove members that attacked other members” clause, because that basically just wasn’t relevant when it was created. (BTW, looking over it, the US is already openly violating article 1 and part of 2)
But sure, if this guy refused to invade Canada, and was court martialled for it, it seems like he’d have a defence.
Removed by mod