Imagine how surprised they will be that it works as well as Hitler telling his Nazis they'll be OK if they are ever tried for war crimes.

NOTE: On October 1, 1946, the verdicts on 22 of the original 24 defendants were handed down for the Nuremberg trials. Three of the defendants were acquitted. Four were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 10 to 20 years. Three were sentenced to life imprisonment. Twelve of the defendants were sentenced to death by hanging.

2nd Note: Twelve of the Nuremberg defendants were sentenced to death by hanging. Ten of them—Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Ernst Kaltenbrunner, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Fritz Sauckel, Alfred Jodl, Wilhelm Keitel, and Arthur Seyss-Inquart—were hanged on October 16, 1946. Martin Bormann was tried and condemned to death in absentia, and Hermann Göring committed suicide by swallowing a cyanide capsule before he could be executed.

Two notes were edited for clarification & details.

But the rest of his cabinet doesn't...

immunity to both orders why are they complying???

as Hamlet might say.

I wonder if this legal body will bring charges in future since these extrajudicial killings will be swept under the MAGA rug by a corrupt US Supreme Court. This may be a hollow gesture since they have gone after Netanyahu for his crimes against humanity but nothing happens.

Even if they bring charges, he can just not travel to countries that threaten to comply with the International Criminal Court.

Allowing this, would give military the right to kill US citizens, without a trial.

in Yemen. There was no trial before the strike. Al-Awlaki was the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and assassinated by a U.S. government drone strike.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Whether Awlaki was an active threat is certainly debatable, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say these are the same type of activity or even similar.

Go find the Wikipedia page on even one of the people who has been killed in the boat strikes, for example.

Reliance on legal advice may be a mitigating factor but it is not a defense.

Anyone forwarding or executing the orders is guilty of murder.

of the other OLC "opinions" - e.g., the infamous one about not investigating Presidents just before elections.

All bets are off as soon as a Democratic President is sworn-in.

At this point, the DOJ is so discredited that OLC opinions are a waste of paper.

their own lawyers are making excuses for them....

They probably will not answer to the US, but the ICC can, and should investigate the US military and government for atrocities. Any future president should allow the ICC to try and, if guilty, punish the criminals.

disagrees

Does anybody still believe their B.S. legal opinions about torture.
Finding somebody to write a legal opinion to give permission to do something that is clearly illegal clearly has no obstacles. The consequences if any come later while the illegal action is carried out.

I'm sure you've heard the statement, "it's above my pay grade", no truerer words were ever spoken. The legal opinion gives the actors legal cover. The actions are covered. The court process to challenge those orders move at a snails pace which plays into a tyrants hands that knows how to demand action before it can't be stopped.
For example, tearing down a wing without permits or approval before it can be stopped. Oops, so sorry, oh well.

The corrupt DOJ is not really an authority on the law.

Even though the people who invented it called it “aqua tortura.” He pronounced it “enhanced interrogation.” Legal now!

"I was just following orders" is now a legitimate defense? How things have changed.

I'm sure many would disagree with this.