Trump’s ‘War Crimes’

In this episode of Advisory Opinions, hosts Sarah Isger and David French explore the legal and ethical implications of Donald Trump's threatening rhetoric toward Iran, particularly his warnings of destroying civilian infrastructure—a potential crime against humanity. The discussion examines whether threats of war crimes can themselves constitute crimes under international law, concluding that while theoretically possible, prosecutions are nearly impossible in practice due to the lack of enforcement mechanisms and the dominance of power politics. The hosts contrast this with the historical precedent of post-war accountability, such as Nuremberg, and highlight the irony that international law only holds sway when enforced by military power. They also delve into the military's dilemma in following unlawful presidential orders, especially when the president threatens to commit crimes against humanity, emphasizing the lack of recourse for service members and the critical role of personal character in preserving constitutional order. The episode then shifts to the birthright citizenship case, analyzing the Supreme Court's use of legislative history versus original public meaning, with a sharp critique of conservative hypocrisy in invoking legislative intent while rejecting it in other contexts. Finally, the hosts tackle the legal liability of AI companies, arguing that despite the complexity and unpredictability of large language models, the creators remain legally responsible for their products' harmful outputs, drawing parallels to but also distinguishing the AI liability debate from gun manufacturer liability. The episode closes with Isger reflecting on the emotional weight of her new book launch, 'Last Branch Standing,' and the anxiety of public reception. Key takeaways include: 1) Threats of war crimes, while theoretically prosecutable, are rarely acted upon due to the realities of international power dynamics; 2) The U.S. military's obligation to follow orders is conditional on legality, but service members have no viable appeal path when the president issues unlawful commands; 3) Originalism should focus on public meaning, not legislative intent, to avoid manipulation; 4) AI companies cannot evade liability for their models' harmful outputs, even if they cannot predict them; 5) The UN’s effectiveness depends on the cooperation of great powers, especially the U.S.; 6) The legal system must evolve to keep pace with technological disruption; 7) Character and integrity in leadership are essential to preserving constitutional order; 8) Public perception of legal and moral responsibility must shift to hold powerful actors accountable, whether in government or tech.