Last Updated on January 17, 2022 by Constitutional Militia
“Official Immunity”: The Constitution Calls for One, and Only One, “Official Immunity”
If, for purposes of argument, public officials are properly engaged in a “war on terrorism”, those among them who turn out to be rogues should be liable to prosecution and punishment for any “war crimes” they commit in the course of that “war”—or, in light of their repeated, strident, and self-satisfied assertions that “the ” is legitimate, they should at least be stopped from denying and evading their exposure in that regard even if “the war on terrorism” is bogus. Among recognized “war crimes” are torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment, murder, deportation, and the taking of hostages. So, because the purported powers to kidnap Americans through “extraordinary renditions”, to detain Americans indefinitely in military custody, to torture Americans, and to assassinate Americans are not conceivably constitutional (but indeed are self-evidently anti-constitutional), each and every official who participates in such acts in the course of “the war on terrorism” should be condemned as a “war criminal”.
One can be sure, however, that if ever called to account for their “war crimes” (or any other crimes, for that matter), rogue public officials would stridently assert a supposedly all-embracing “official immunity” that insulated them from every form of personal liability, no matter where and against whom they might have perpetrated their thuggery, or in what tribunal or under what laws they might be charged. Such a defense would at best be effrontery, because: