My example was to point out that the bigger the war crime, the more people killed, ironically the less likely it was to be prosecuted.
Right at this moment? No. After his polls start falling even lower, after Breitbart starts going after him, after more and more former allies turn against him, as investigations uncover his illegal business practices, as impeachment comes closer and closer, when more extreme military actions seem like they might buck up support? I’m not afraid of him launching nukes at NK out of the blue, but accidentally ratcheting up tensions to the point where he interprets the situation as calling for them (influenced by everything else going on). Could anyone legally stop him? No.
Right, because legally they must. While they are people of intelligence and conscience in the military, it also selects for people who take orders. It’s not to say they’ll blindly follow them - the Cuban Missile Crisis didn’t end with the world in radioactive rubble because a Soviet captain said, “Fuck this, this is insane, I’m ignoring orders.” But that doesn’t happen very often.
Yeah, but passive resistance to policy changes is different from disobeying direct orders, and that was also when there was not only no policy (a tweet isn’t an order or actionable policy change), but it wasn’t clear the White House would even try to issue a policy directive about it.
