‘Legally Trump cannot be stopped but he can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors.’

Posted on by

Last night Trump stated an intention to commit ‘War Crimes’ which may also amount to ‘Crimes against Humanity’, on an unprecedented scale since World War 2.

Direct and public incitement to commit genocide is a specific crime under international law, punishable even if the genocide never occurs.

A leader or commander stating an intention to commit war crimes can be used as evidence of a ‘plan or policy’ to commit such crimes, which is a key element in prosecuting crimes against humanity.

Constitutionally, there is no direct, established emergency injunctive procedure in the US judicial system that allows a court to immediately declare that a President’s military orders constitute ‘war crimes’ or ‘crimes against humanity, and subsequently halt them.

While US law includes mechanisms for addressing potential crimes, the separation of powers and the doctrine of Presidential Immunity create severe hurdles for such a declaration.

Under the Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. United States (2024), sitting and former presidents enjoy absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts, which broadly covers actions taken as commander-in-chief, such as ordering military strikes.

US courts typically view decisions regarding military deployment and foreign policy as ‘political questions’ meant for the legislative and executive branches, not the judiciary.

The president is considered the ‘sole organ’ of the nation in foreign affairs, giving them broad discretion over the armed forces.

While no simple injunction procedure exists, there are limited, unconventional legal and political channels that may be used:

(i) ‘The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)’ – Members of the Armed Forces have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. If a military commander refuses an order, it could trigger a court-martial, where the legality of the order would be argued.

(ii) ‘Impeachment’ – Congress has the power to impeach a president for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ which could include war crimes.

(iii) ‘War Powers Resolution of 1973’ – This act provides a legal framework for Congress to force the withdrawal of armed forces if military action is taken without congressional authorization.

(iv) ‘Civilian Lawsuits/Alien Tort Statute’ – In rare instances, individuals have attempted to file lawsuits for violations of international law, but these rarely succeed against the executive branch.

The US is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), meaning the ICC cannot typically prosecute US leaders for actions within the US.

Furthermore, US law (the Hague Invasion Act of 2002) explicitly authorizes the President to use ‘all means necessary and appropriate’ to free any U.S. personnel detained by the ICC, further insulating the Executive from international war crimes charges.

Comments added:

  • The mainstream media do not appear to have grasped that today the world is on the edge of potentially the biggest crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis. Everything in the news appears to be normal. It is not!
  • Legal experts and international bodies like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) have recently warned that mass threats against Iran’s infrastructure, such as those described as “bringing them back to the Stone Age”, would flout modern rules of warfare and constitute clear violations of international law. In 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian officials for similar ‘widespread attacks on Ukraine’s power infrastructure,’ setting a recent legal precedent.
  • The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols mandate that parties to a conflict distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives. Most bridges and power stations are primarily civilian. To be a lawful target, an object must make an ‘effective contribution to military action’ and its destruction must offer a ‘definite military advantage’. A blanket order to destroy all such facilities fails this case-by-case test. International law prohibits attacking objects ‘indispensable to the survival of the civilian population,’ such as electricity needed for water pumping, healthcare, and food storage. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) defines ‘extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly’ as a war crime. If the destruction is part of a ‘widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population,’ it may qualify as a Crime Against Humanity under the Rome Statute. If the total destruction of infrastructure is calculated to bring about the physical destruction of part of the population (e.g., through starvation or lack of medical care), it could meet the threshold for extermination.
  • Tom Fletcher (Former UK Ambassador/UN Humanitarian Chief) warned that hitting civilian infrastructure like bridges and power plants constitutes ‘war crimes’ under international law, stating such targets are ‘not negotiable’.
  • Dame Emily Thornberry, chair of the UK Foreign Affairs Committee, also condemned the threats, stating that bombing such infrastructure would be ‘unlawful under the Geneva Convention’.