5 ms·
Technically speaking this is lawful under the interpretation of the law. That doesn't make it desirable, ethical or morally acceptable on any level. At the sam
by staofbur 9y ago
Technically speaking this is lawful under the interpretation of the law. That doesn't make it desirable, ethical or morally acceptable on any level.
At the same time, in any very complex set of overlapping rules, it only requires finding a suitable expert to extract the conclusion you decided on up front.
- pluma 9y agoThis is literally the Nuremberg defense: the crimes committed by the Third Reich were mostly legal under German law at the time they were carried out -- and in many cases refusing to carry out those orders would have been a crime under those laws.
- k-mcgrady 9y agoIsn't the Nuremberg defence more as a defence to breaking the law because you had to follow orders?
- pyroinferno 9y agoYes, OP is an idiot.
- sctb 9y agoYou're not welcome to post like this on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mikestew 9y agoThe Nuremberg judges apparently had an easier job specifically because Nazi Germany was reluctant to codify many offenses as law. "I didn't want to break the law" is apparently a better defense in such circumstances than "just following orders".
- ascorbic 9y agoThe main outcome of Nuremberg was international agreement that certain crimes are so serious that they go beyond any national law. That's not what this case was about.