6 ms·

I take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum

by jkic47 2y ago

I take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum force needed to achieve an objective.

Buttons840 2y ago
We ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws? I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made. I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?
- JamesBarney 2y ago
  Not less than the average sacrifice a soldier made. The average soldier would not sign up if they had a significant chance of going to prison afterwards. Yes it's too much to ask every president to significantly risk jail time for being president.
- InTheArena 2y ago
  yes, because throughout history this has been abused. This was the reason that Caesar crossed the Rubicon - his opponents were all queued up to sue him into oblivious on his term as counsel ended.
  - Buttons840 2y ago
    Why are we okay asking soldiers to die, but asking the President to risk prosecution and be subject to the law is "too much"?
    - InTheArena 2y ago
      Because we need governments and can't afford to make it so that anyone who ever wins elections spends the rest of their life fighting off lawsuits. Wars happen, and governments exist, people forget that laws are used as much to impede good governance as they are to enforce good governance.
      - Buttons840 2y ago
        What would be the consequences if we did allow Presidents to be prosecuted and some of them did spend the rest of the life fighting prosecutions? It seems to me the consequence would be that we would have Presidents who act carefully to not break the law. Are there any other consequences? I've heard it said that "democracies are where the people in power lose". We've all seen "democracies" where the party in power never loses; those aren't real democracies. Likewise, I would say nations that are truly governed by law are where those in power face legal prosecution. (Also, what's so bad about prosecution? If a person is innocent, the legal system will find them to be innocent, right?... Right?)
        jkic47 2y ago
        The consequences would be Lawfare.
        Buttons840 2y ago
        And what's the consequence of that? Presidents who are extra careful to obey the law because they know they will be highly scrutinized? All this seems so rooted in "what do we owe the President?" while my questions here are more assuming the President is a servant of the people and is thus making a sacrifice to serve the nation and is willing to accept the risks that comes from making hard choices while being subject to the law.
        Buttons840 2y ago
        Or, to put it another way: There are good and competent people who say "I'm willing to be President and be subject to the law, I'm willing to do both". Why can't be pick a President from that group?
    - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
      Because doing so gives the President tons of incentives for bad behavior. It's a fun case where "risk of prosecution" would result in tons more questionable behavior then less.
- jkic47 2y ago
  Great rhetorical question, but do consider these points: 1. we ask everyone to do their individual jobs. In a soldier's case, loss of life is a job hazard. In the President's case, making tough decisions that could kill soldiers and civilians is a job hazard 2. The assassination rate for US Presidents is 8.7% (4/46 Presidents were assassinated). 3. There were 1,922 US combat deaths in Afghanistan (ref 1) and at the peak of the war, there were 100,000 troops there (ref 2). If you ignore all the other years of deployment, a US soldier's death risk in Afghanistan was 1.9% Numbers are hard when they go against our intuition, but every US President is taking a comparable risk to being a soldier according to these numbers. Obama took the risk of being a President while Black Trump took the risk of being a President while Orange Ref 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan... 2. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/a-timeline-of-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-since-2001/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...

by jkic47 2y ago

I take your point, but quick action is occasionally necessary. Presidents knowing that their actions could be second guessed are more likely to use the minimum force needed to achieve an objective.

Buttons840 2y ago

We ask every soldier to put their life on the line. But do we dare ask our President to subject himself to our laws? I mean, if Obama went to prison for the drone strikes he ordered, his sacrifice would be less than many common soldiers have made. I want Presidents willing to put their lives on the line and their actions under the law. Is that too much to ask?

JamesBarney 2y ago
Not less than the average sacrifice a soldier made. The average soldier would not sign up if they had a significant chance of going to prison afterwards. Yes it's too much to ask every president to significantly risk jail time for being president.
InTheArena 2y ago
yes, because throughout history this has been abused. This was the reason that Caesar crossed the Rubicon - his opponents were all queued up to sue him into oblivious on his term as counsel ended.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  Why are we okay asking soldiers to die, but asking the President to risk prosecution and be subject to the law is "too much"?
  - InTheArena 2y ago
    Because we need governments and can't afford to make it so that anyone who ever wins elections spends the rest of their life fighting off lawsuits. Wars happen, and governments exist, people forget that laws are used as much to impede good governance as they are to enforce good governance.
    - Buttons840 2y ago
      What would be the consequences if we did allow Presidents to be prosecuted and some of them did spend the rest of the life fighting prosecutions? It seems to me the consequence would be that we would have Presidents who act carefully to not break the law. Are there any other consequences? I've heard it said that "democracies are where the people in power lose". We've all seen "democracies" where the party in power never loses; those aren't real democracies. Likewise, I would say nations that are truly governed by law are where those in power face legal prosecution. (Also, what's so bad about prosecution? If a person is innocent, the legal system will find them to be innocent, right?... Right?)
      - jkic47 2y ago
        The consequences would be Lawfare.
        Buttons840 2y ago
        And what's the consequence of that? Presidents who are extra careful to obey the law because they know they will be highly scrutinized? All this seems so rooted in "what do we owe the President?" while my questions here are more assuming the President is a servant of the people and is thus making a sacrifice to serve the nation and is willing to accept the risks that comes from making hard choices while being subject to the law.
        Buttons840 2y ago
        Or, to put it another way: There are good and competent people who say "I'm willing to be President and be subject to the law, I'm willing to do both". Why can't be pick a President from that group?
  - tick_tock_tick 2y ago
    Because doing so gives the President tons of incentives for bad behavior. It's a fun case where "risk of prosecution" would result in tons more questionable behavior then less.
jkic47 2y ago
Great rhetorical question, but do consider these points: 1. we ask everyone to do their individual jobs. In a soldier's case, loss of life is a job hazard. In the President's case, making tough decisions that could kill soldiers and civilians is a job hazard 2. The assassination rate for US Presidents is 8.7% (4/46 Presidents were assassinated). 3. There were 1,922 US combat deaths in Afghanistan (ref 1) and at the peak of the war, there were 100,000 troops there (ref 2). If you ignore all the other years of deployment, a US soldier's death risk in Afghanistan was 1.9% Numbers are hard when they go against our intuition, but every US President is taking a comparable risk to being a soldier according to these numbers. Obama took the risk of being a President while Black Trump took the risk of being a President while Orange Ref 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghanistan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_casualties_in_Afghan... 2. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/a-timeline-of-u-s-troop-levels-in-afghanistan-since-2001/ https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2016/07/06/...