The damage would almost solely be in reputation if you’re talking about what one person could do single-handedly. Now if you’re talking about a situation where he has numerous loyal toadies who do not question at all what they’re told to do, things might be different. But there would probably have to be a great deal of them to actually get anything significant accomplished, and they would all have to be absolutely blind in obedience.
I think that is the only possible answer to the question. Unlawful orders can be and, we hope, will be refused. A recent news mention of John Demjanjuk made this point clearly.
As for the 25th amendment, I don’t think there is any way of forcing them to give a medical reason, just conclude he is unfit. Same with impeachment. Charge him with “high crimes” (which, if I understand properly, are not necessarily criminal acts as usually understood, but policy acts) and impeach, then convict him.
My HS civics teacher claimed that had Andrew Johnson been convicted, the US might have moved to a modified parliamentary system in which a president who lost the confidence of congress could be impeached. Of course, it would still have required 2/3 of the senate, which is a pretty high bar.
Posse Comitatus means that it is illegal for the military to fight on US soil. This means any order from the president for the military to assassinate people via drone strike would be illegal. All military personnel have been taught to ignore illegal orders.
I assume there is something similar for the CIA but am not sure.
Posse Comitatus, as a law, only means that it’s prohibited for the federal Armed Forces to enforce “domestic policy” (generally Federal law or executive orders) within the States.
Exceptions (per Wikipedia):
The exception very specifically permitting the Armed Forces to fight within the states is in case of declared insurrection (2nd bullet). And, of course, the logical implicit permission to fight within the states to repel foreign invasion.
I don’t know whether the assumption that domestic assassination is explicitly illegal has strong legal backing. But perhaps someone more savvy about the law about covert operations can address that. I will note that the JSOC exception dovetails to some extent with intelligence covert paramilitary operations, since they operate in similar domains, so maybe a JSOC drone would be allowed. :smack:
The Posse Comitatus Act, as amended, makes it illegal for the Army and Air Force (not the whole military, btw[sup]1[/sup]) to engage in domestic law-enforcement actions. It certainly does not prevent them from fighting on US soil. If the Russians were to invade Alaska, the army wouldn’t just stand around twiddling their thumbs.
[sub]1. The Dept of the Navy has adopted regulations regarding the Navy and Marine Corps that are substantially similar to the Act. The Coast Guard is not covered by the Act and regularly engages in domestic law enforcement in US waters.[/sub]
This is not correct. Someone in the Presidential Cabinet (i.e. someone who’s appointment was confirmed by the Senate, typically the Secretary of Defense but it could be another if the SecDef is not available) is required to confirm that the order is legitimate and that the President is of sound mind, but the President has exclusive authority for the order. That may seem like a fine point since anyone called upon to confirm a launch order they disagreed with could deny the legitimacy or argue against the soundness of the President’s judgment (albeit facing future repercussions for doing so) but technically they are not reponsible for authorizing the launch.
The “two man rule” is a general principle that any hazardous or critical operations should have two responsible agents to assure that procedures and instructions are carried out with appropriate safeguards and quality checks. With respect to the launch of ICBMs or deployment of nuclear weapons by the USAF, AFI 91-104 requires that two operators independently confirm the order and arm the system to assure that neither error nor individual maliciousness results in an unauthorized launch. This is different from confirmation of the executive order and is performed at the operational level.
Stranger
Ignorance fought. Thanks!
I think a lot of these rules could be broken by a popular enough president. Say President Crazypants signs an executive order funneling tons of money from wherever it’s supposed to go to building infrastructure in the aftermath of a disaster, both aiding the people affected and securing employment for the devestated area. The Supreme Court decides that this is an overreach of power. Could a good enough politician, in a bad enough time, not convince enough people that the Supreme Court is screwing then over to just ignore the Court? With enough popularity, what could anyone do about it?
But this is different than the chain of command for other types of military orders, correct? The President tells the SecDef to attack St. Louis, and the SecDef relays the order to the military; you can’t have the Ag Sec confirm the order for the combatant commander.
That’s a good point. When we think about “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, we naturally assume that the writer means “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office due to a diagnosis of a medical condition fulfilling the following criteria…that is made by a duly licensed and authorized physician recognized by the National Board of Medical Competency Adjudications Federal Elected Official Subcommittee as competent to perform POTUS medical examinations under the following regulations…and that is properly notated on Form M10, signed in indelible ink, counterstamped with the authorizing seal of the applicable board of medical regulatory agencies, and submitted as an official agenda item on the Cabinet Docket of Medical Affairs and processed according to the applicable bylaws of that docket department.”
Various National Guard units routinely work very closely with domestic law enforcement. Usually in technical or intelligence support capacities.
But that’s under command of their state governor, not federal command. The National Guards are a sort of weird mix of state and federal.
Fixed.
The Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to National Guard units, except when federalized.
Moderator Warning.
bomberswarm2. This is an official warning for changing a quote that someone else made. If you had bothered to read beyond the OP you might have noticed that markdash got a moderator NOTE for bring politics into GQ. Your continuation of bringing politics into a factual GQ thread is worthy of a second warning. I’ll leave it at one for tonight.
samclem
Here’s a recent event about what an inadvertent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act can do, even if done for helpful reasons.
On March 10, 2009, members of the U.S. Army Military Police Corps from Fort Rucker were deployed to Samson, Alabama, in response to a murder spree. Samson officials confirmed that the soldiers assisted in traffic control and securing the crime scene. The governor of Alabama did not request military assistance nor did President Obama authorize their deployment. Subsequent investigation found that the Posse Comitatus Act was violated and several military members received “administrative actions”
This is usually how such violations work. (Think “Patriot Act” or “waterboarding”). Two things are important here - assuming the world is still around afterwards, note the effect of the world court and Nuremburg - what may have been acceptable at the time will not necessarily be acceptable 30 years later. In fact, there are a few CIA operatives who are due to spend years in prison in Italy if they set foot in Europe, due to a “rendition” (kidnapping). Germany and others are still prosecuting concentration camp guards well into their 90’s.
Even this:
I repeat my earlier point, not everyone in the chain of command is a killer robot - many people have principles. Spy thrillers to the contrary, not everyone weak enough to be a robot killer is incredibly competent. Stories abound about the ineptitude, for example, of the KGB or Stasi. Oliver North or Gordon Liddy were not amazingly competent operatives. The Watergate bunch were caught by a security guard just doing his job.
I had never thought of it before, and now I have the Damocles Mayonnaise Jar to worry about. Thanks dracoi.
Yeah, thats why we maintain a strategic supply of Maple Syrup.
Declan
Seriously ?
Most everyone has an oath upon taking office or position, to protect and defend the constitution of the US, from enemies foreign and domestic. So your looney president would go to Dallas and take a bullet, or someone would take one for the team and kill him or her, if it was that type of situation regarding nukes. There might even be charges brought about, if they dont kill the whacko.
Declan