Power Without Consequences

Immunity with impunity

Jan 09, 2026

The development of immunity from consequences has a long history, enhanced by the development of the principle of the unitary executive, perhaps an attempt by “democracy” to function on par with nations with stable governments enabled by singular or central command.

Possibly linking back to the confluence of zionist and U.S. deep states, which began controlling presidents, from the elimination of JFK to the isolation of George H.W. Bush leading to the demon Bibi backing and funding Bill Clinton. H.W. was disparaged for merely enacting the UNSC resolution regarding liberating Kuwait and not carrying on to take out the zionist’s enemy-of-the-day, Iraq.

Presidents became puppets - the puppet-masters always in control. Like one CIA director said to a senator - you will be gone in four years, the CIA is forever. And unaccountable. This is part of “the swamp” that T. rump (Tyrannosaurus rump) campaigned against, but like most campaign promises, amounted to nothing, and that “useful idiot” promptly came under control. In the first T. rump regime, the unitary presidency was advanced even further than in the George W. regime. Billy Barr (William Barr, Attorney General) worked extensively on that project, both in diminishing ties between the Executive Branch and Congress, but also in consolidating his control over the entire executive branch. Each govt office under the executive branch (and there are far too many) has its own legal department. Billy Barr kicked them all into line, making them generate regular reports directly to him on what was going on in their agency.¹ Billy Barr was actually active in every admin since H.W., working to implement his unitary executive program.

Billy Barr made perhaps the most progress in enabling the unitary executive since Carl Rove. That, along with the activity of the Federalist Society, helped advance the stacking of the Supine Court with conservative justices, in preparation for the “Second Coming” - T. rump 2.0.

Thus the Supine Court ended up fully backing the unitary executive, providing full immunity from law for “official” acts.. 23-939 Trump v. United States (07/01/2024) and Opinion in The Hill and more commentary on NPR.org.

But the fracture in accountability goes far deeper, it has dismantled the precedents set in the Nuremberg Trials on leader’s requirement to abide by law. This point was brought forward exceptionally well in an opinion piece in the Globe and Mail, titled “The world needs to ensure leaders are not immune from criminal prosecution,” by Philippe Sands, January 3, 2026, pages O6-O7. Philippe Sands, KC, is professor of law at University College, London and a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. This article is a modified excerpt from a speech he gave at Massey College, October 2025.

The Nuremberg Tribunal was the first such international hearing in human history, and it should be noted that it was opposed by Winston Churchill, who wanted to simply shoot all the leading Nazis, but he was persuaded otherwise by Stalin and FDR. Here, the British Empire was almost on the wrong side of history again, often the case with empires. The core issue was whether anyone appearing before the tribunal would be entitled to claim immunity on the basis that the conduct in which they were alleged to have engaged in was “official conduct.” Let that one sink in a minute, and think about how it relates to T. rump and the zionist demon in the present day. Up to that point in time, 1945, immunity of a serving or former head of state was considered absolute, as per the Devine Right of Kings. Sound familiar? Thus what to do with immunity was a core question at the tribunal. Robert Jackson, a U.S. Supreme Court justice, was recruited to be lead prosecutor at the tribunal. In a letter to President Truman, he asserted that immunity was an “obsolete” doctrine, a “relic” of the former ages of kings, and inconsistent with the position taken by the U.S. toward its own officials. That’s over, isn’t it! Jackson worried that giving immunity to former leaders would introduce a paradox wherein responsibility would be the least where power is the greatest. [Very powerful principle!] Thus the Nuremberg Tribunal was able to eke out this premise that there would be no immunity, the first occurrence of this concept ever, and certainly fitting for the situation at hand.

This concept of no immunity was carried forward in international courts such as the International Court of Justice and later tribunals such as those regarding Rwanda and Yugoslavia. But the unresolved questions was regarding the culpability of a former leader who may be accused in a country other than his own.

This issue was first addressed in the case of Augusto Pinochet, former head-of-state in Chile. He had visited the UK for some shopping and have tea with his right-wing colleague Margaret Thatcher, then some minor back surgery. While recovering from that, he was arrested October 16, 1998, pursuant to a warrant from a Spanish judge on charges that he had committed crimes against humanity, torture, and of “disappearing people.” Mr. Pinochet’s lawyers argued that he absolute immunity from the UK courts, however the House of Lords ruled that he did not have immunity from the UK regarding accusations of torture and that his claim of official conduct was insufficient. These rulings were based on the fact that Chile, Spain and the UK were all signatories to the 1984 Convention Against Torture which fortunately had the provision that any person who is alleged to have committed torture and is found in the jurisdiction of a country that is party to the treaty, may be prosecuted for the international crime of torture, or deported to a country where that person will be prosecuted. Perhaps that’s another reason that the Outlaw Empire has withdrawn from another 66 international agreements? The 1984 treaty says nothing at all about immunity for anyone, it simply states that anyone who has committed torture must be prosecuted. The House of Lords ruled 6 to 1 that it is necessarily implicit that a treaty that requires that every person to be prosecuted or extradited has eliminated the notion that a former head-of-state has immunity from that international crime. Finally, after ten months of extradition hearings, Home Secretary Jack Straw determined that Pinochet’s health conditions prevented him appearing for trial or deportation, so he was allowed to return to Chile.

But this was no sweet deal, he was not off the hook! Professor Sands was able to locate and interview the party in UK (Johnathan Powell) and the one in Chile (Cristian Tolosa) that arranged for this return. These two people had never spoken to anyone about these arrangements, before agreeing to talk to Prof. Sands. You should read Prof. Sands article for the full, a fascinating account of arranging this trip home for Mr. Pinochet - it’s worthy of a movie. Pull out last Saturday’s Opinion section, or pay for a digital account, or read it at your library, it is that important. To sum it up, the person from Chile, Cristian Tolosa, had finally discovered a document that directly tied Pinochet to the torture crimes, being signed by Pinochet himself. That was the crack that let the light in (See Leonard Cohen’s song “Anthem”) and justice finally came to the people of Chile. The Pinochet case endorsed the Nuremberg concept of no immunity for former leaders. But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since Pinochet returned to Chile in 2000. And even in those days, there still had been no justice in Spain regarding Francisco Franco, for his disappearances and killings from 1930 to the 1970s. But since 2000, the concept of making rulers accountable to law has been steadily eroded.

And now, since the above-mention Supine Court ruling, T. rump has essentially full immunity from any law, from the Constitution, from Congress, and his Supine Court. The Empire is truly an Outlaw, as Ismaele has portrayed it. And of course this immunity has spread to the ACTUAL president of the U.S., the zionist demon, who can continue his genocide with … impunity! The Outlaw Empire, to protect the zionist, has condemned the ICJ and sanctioned its prosecutors. The Outlaw Empire can attack any nation with impunity, it can use its capture of the world-reserve currency to weaponize it against any nation or person. I can’t see how this behaviour can end without strategic defeat of this Empire.

The long-running intimidation by the state has morphed into the weaponization of the state so that it can now take down any other nation and assassinate its own citizens, as was just done in Minneapolis, all with impunity and zero remorse. Might this murder be a wake-up moment for the nation and world?

References:

1 - Unger, Craig (2021) American Kompromat, Chapter Eleven: Barr Justice

Limits to Progress

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?