6 ms·

During the Nuremberg Trials, former Nazi officers claimed that they were merely "following orders." CBP officials, meanwhile, are ignoring the law and the inde

During the Nuremberg Trials, former Nazi officers claimed that they were merely "following orders." CBP officials, meanwhile, are ignoring the law and the independent judiciary itself. How is this not treason?

Manishearth 10y ago
Not 100% sure of this, but I suspect they don't take orders from the judiciary, rather their superiors, which are part of the executive branch. So it's possible that their superiors haven't changed the orders or are doubling-down. Now, that is _illegal_ of course, and morally reprehensible, but they could still be construed to be "following orders".
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  Let me scare you a bit further, then - it is entirely within Trump's power to order Executive Branch employees to enforce whatever orders he enacts, then preemptively pardon them from any potentially criminal acts that arise from doing so.
  - itsdrewmiller 10y ago
    I don't think this is correct - the pardon authority only applies to acts that have already been committed, as far as I can tell. He could maybe keep pardoning everyone every day for crimes they committed on the previous day. Would make an interesting paragraph in a dystopian novel.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      Article 2, Section 2: [...] "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It looks to me like he has the ability. As you said, even if he doesn't, he can still make it happen as long as he's in office.
- rolux 10y ago
  Are you aware of the fact that those who carried out the most unspeakable crimes against humanity -- including those that Godwin's law forbids me to mention here -- could still be construed to have been "following orders", and that in fact, this was often the central argument in their defense?
  - Manishearth 10y ago
    Please reread my comment and the one it's replying to. I'm not justifying their actions. I did call it illegal and morally reprehensible. I'm saying that after the dust settles they will probably excuse their actions with 'following orders', exactly like the folks at Nuremberg did as the GP mentions. I do not think this is a reason to condone their actions, much like we do not condone the actions of the folks at the Nuremberg Trials. This is just a prediction of how this will be portrayed when the dust settles (and we should probably be wary of this and resist it being painted over with 'following orders')

Manishearth 10y ago

Not 100% sure of this, but I suspect they don't take orders from the judiciary, rather their superiors, which are part of the executive branch. So it's possible that their superiors haven't changed the orders or are doubling-down. Now, that is _illegal_ of course, and morally reprehensible, but they could still be construed to be "following orders".

LyndsySimon 10y ago
Let me scare you a bit further, then - it is entirely within Trump's power to order Executive Branch employees to enforce whatever orders he enacts, then preemptively pardon them from any potentially criminal acts that arise from doing so.
- itsdrewmiller 10y ago
  I don't think this is correct - the pardon authority only applies to acts that have already been committed, as far as I can tell. He could maybe keep pardoning everyone every day for crimes they committed on the previous day. Would make an interesting paragraph in a dystopian novel.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    Article 2, Section 2: [...] "he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." It looks to me like he has the ability. As you said, even if he doesn't, he can still make it happen as long as he's in office.
rolux 10y ago
Are you aware of the fact that those who carried out the most unspeakable crimes against humanity -- including those that Godwin's law forbids me to mention here -- could still be construed to have been "following orders", and that in fact, this was often the central argument in their defense?
- Manishearth 10y ago
  Please reread my comment and the one it's replying to. I'm not justifying their actions. I did call it illegal and morally reprehensible. I'm saying that after the dust settles they will probably excuse their actions with 'following orders', exactly like the folks at Nuremberg did as the GP mentions. I do not think this is a reason to condone their actions, much like we do not condone the actions of the folks at the Nuremberg Trials. This is just a prediction of how this will be portrayed when the dust settles (and we should probably be wary of this and resist it being painted over with 'following orders')