• Muehe
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah but like I said, if you promise some other form of compensation on the level or above what they lose in benefits, you will still find people willing to follow these illegal orders. Hell you could find people willing to follow illegal orders even before this ruling, but now that the presidents right to give illegal orders is explicitly enshrined in constitutional jurisprudence this pre-existing problem is much worse. I doubt those people will care about a dishonourable discharge, on the contrary it will make them martyrs to “the cause” and they will be worshipped for it. And it remains to be seen how all this would play out in court, I guess it’s quite possible for the defence to argue that if the president has immunity for giving orders, their subordinates have immunity for following those orders.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      At the point where you are offered some other form of compensation, I believe that would be considered a bribe, which is also illegal.

      • Muehe
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        That it was offered is nigh impossible to prove if the offer is only made verbally though. And conversely, if they make the offer an “official act” they are immune again.