4 ms·
That's why it's the job of soldiers to follow "lawful orders", not orders generically. On the other hand there is basically zero jurisprudence of a soldier eve
by mpyne 5y ago
That's why it's the job of soldiers to follow "lawful orders", not orders generically.
On the other hand there is basically zero jurisprudence of a soldier ever getting in trouble for following an order they thought was given under competent military authority, even though it was illegal. So it can be hard for a soldier to rely on the mercy of the courts in this situation. Though that is still not justification for carrying out an illegal order.
- jlcoff 5y agoThe "law" itself may be unconstitutional.
- jlcoff 5y ago> On the other hand there is basically zero jurisprudence of a soldier ever getting in trouble for following an order they thought was given under competent military authority, even though it was illegal. Are you kidding me ? It was called the Nuremberg trials. Following orders has not been a valid defence ever since.
- mpyne 5y agoWere any U.S. soldiers tried at the Nuremberg trials? A comparable incident would be the My Lai massacre, after which 20+ soldiers and officers were tried of various charges, only 1 was convicted, and even that 1 soldier was promptly paroled by the President. Despite that, it is still theoretically possible to be tried and convicted of crimes despite having a military order to do so (and this was true even before Nuremberg). My point is that in practice having an order to do something counts for a great deal.
- jlcoff 5y ago> Were any U.S. soldiers tried at the Nuremberg trials? History is written by the victorious side, so until the US keep is hegemonic military position weaken, it will not happen. It is arguable the us has committed plenty of crimes against humanity in the past 75 years of world domination.