Junta Demands an Apolitical Military

for example, we want the political opposition imprisoned

I have a mixed view of Donald Trump’s argument about presidential immunity, which you can read here. But an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court today by retired flag officers and service secretaries is so bizarre that reading it may permanently alter the structure of my face.

You can read the whole amicus brief here, but treat it like a solar eclipse and don’t stare at it directly. As a first sign of how much good faith the thing contains, one of the amici is Michael Hayden.

The first argument is that Trump has to go to prison or else civilians won’t control the military anymore. You think I’m kidding.

“Amici are deeply interested in this case because presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would threaten the military’s role in American society, our nation’s constitutional order, and our national security.” See the connection? If Donald Trump doesn’t go to prison, “the military’s role in American society” will be damaged. He has to do at least ten years, or everybody will hate the navy.

The prevailing feature of the entire brief is an essence of flattening. Every issue is very simple. There are no competing examples. None of this has ever come up before: The brief deals with questions of presidential immunity around Obama drone-killing a 16 year-old US citizen, or Lincoln unilaterally suspending habeas corpus and using the military to arrest critics of the war, by not mentioning any of it, or any other historical example. Everything is a surface. I’ve graded undergraduate essays, so the tone and depth of the effort feels familiar.

Third argument: Donald Trump has to be prosecuted, because America promotes democracy all over the world, and Trump not being prosecuted is against democracy, so it will be harder for us to promote democracy if we don’t prosecute him. Authoritarian regimes say that American democracy doesn’t work, so: “Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution feeds those false and harmful narratives. Unless Petitioner’s theory is rejected, we risk jeopardizing America’s standing as a guardian of democracy in the world and further feeding the spread of authoritarianism, thereby threatening the national security of the United States and democracies around the world.”

We have to imprison the leader of the political opposition, or people won’t think we’re a democracy, and then there will be more authoritarianism, like when regimes imprison the political opposition.

I keep staring at the walls of my living room. A large team of prominent lawyers wrote this, and their clients were generals and admirals. Here, watch how much they hear themselves:

The transition of power in the United States has always been peaceful and stable. For example, presidential assassinations and the Civil War. How have transitions been “stable and secure” if they’re caused by assassinations? By this standard, Italy transitioned away from Mussolini’s rule by stable and peaceful means.

Yes, they mean that presidential assassinations weren’t followed by power struggles, and the vice-president was just sworn in and went to work without a period of resulting instability. But the clumsiness of the writing flattens the claim, stripping out the complexity of, for example, the transition of power caused by an anarchist killing a president. Our political assassinations have always been very stable.

Now, find the tension in this statement:

The military must be firmly and perfectly apolitical; that’s why we, as retired flag officers who’ve spent most of our adult lives in uniform, want to ensure that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee is prosecuted without legal relief during an election year.

Let’s see the reaction! Here’s the Washington Post weighing in on a political statement from retired flag officers:

See, they’re saying that the generals and admirals shouldn’t have gotten involved in a political ques— oh, wait, that’s from 2021. I guess the principles have changed.

There’s so much more to say about this brief, but at some point going on about it is like eating a tenth bite of shit. Read it for yourself, if you must, and post your favorite passages in the comments.

As a final thought, one of the lawyers whose name appears on this brief is on staff at an organization called “Protect Democracy.” Their website proudly features this very large quote from a profile of the group:

This is exactly what Mike Benz has said about “our democracy” and the people like Michael Hayden who say they want to protect it: the democracy of their formulation is institutions, not individual rights or political norms that protect individuals. We have to protect democracy, Protect Democracy cheerfully echoes, because “institutions don’t protect themselves.”

So a group of retired flag officers are protecting democracy by arguing for the interests of flag officers. They’re protecting institutions, not people or rights, and that’s why the political opposition should be prosecuted to completion to protect “democracy.” Downright polite of them to feature that quote.