>Clearly, if war crimes were ever brought, regardless of the laws, commands, etc - it would have not resulted in being immune from prosecution

Actually one of the areas they have the most immunity. Bush passed the "American Service-Members' Protection Act," authorizing unlimited use of force/resources to free any US personnel being detained by the ICC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

All that act does is say the US will not cooperate. My statement still holds true, ICC has not given the any immunity for ignorance of the law for war crimes.

The ICC can't hold a trial in absentia unless the defendant is present or in ICC custody for the beginning of the trial. The ICC is thus unable to prosecute unless given consent by the US.

They don't need immunity from ignorance, they have a blanket immunity.

> Under recent Supreme Court law, however, we are compelled to conclude that, regardless of the legality of Padilla's detention and the wisdom of Yoo's judgments, at the time he acted the law was not "sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he [wa]s doing violate[d]" the plaintiffs' rights. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2083, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore hold that Yoo must be granted qualified immunity, and accordingly reverse the decision of the district court.

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20120502152.xml

As it relates to torture, war crimes apply regardless of if a party believed they were acting legally.

As for the case you cited, it was a civil suit, therefore ruling only covers civil law, not criminal. That said, does not protect "the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law". [1]

All Presidents are fully aware by law their powers are limited, no reasonable official would claim otherwise. No reasonable person or official would claim their actions were legal, hence why they knowingly hid them from FISA & Congress.

[1] Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986).

That deals with immunity to civil liability, not immunity to criminal prosecution. There's no necessary relationship between them.

The president has the power to fire any federal prosecutor, there should be no expectation that any action he approves of will ever result in criminal prosecution. Civil liability is the only mechanism for holding those in the executive accountable besides impeachment. Many violations of rights are not criminally prosecutable anyways.

> The president has the power to fire any federal prosecutor, there should be no expectation that any action he approves of will ever result in criminal prosecution.

The President does not have the power to fire federal prosecutors serving in subsequent administrations. It's true that you've provided the explanation for why (even without the DoJ opinion which currently prohibits filing charges against a sitting President) it is dubious that a President could effectively be held criminally accountable while in office.

After he leaves office, his only protection is relying on political concerns, or an anticipatory pardon.

The president has the power to fire any federal prosecutor, there should be no expectation that any action he approves of will ever result in criminal prosecution. Civil liability is the only mechanism for holding those in the executive accountable besides impeachment.