Impeachment for Supposed War Crimes

[Bill Funk]

Professors Volokh and Martin may argue whether the tribunal could be or
necessarily would be violative of the Geneva Convention.  This is an
academic argument in the extreme (which should not be considered a
criticism of it), because even those who oppose the tribunal would never
suggest that it would be an impeachable offense via the War Crimes Act
importing the Geneva Convention.  Moreover, the President would have a
due process defense against any criminal prosecution for violation of
the War Crimes Act.  That is, it is hornbook constitutional law that the
government may not prosecute someone for an act that the responsible law
enforcement official has assured the person is lawful.  See, e.g., Raley
v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 423 (1959).  Here, the Attorney General has rendered a
formal legal opinion to the President that the tribunal is lawful (or at
least I presume that was done, because it is standard practice for all
executive orders).

Bill Funk