3 ms·

Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion. > if you don't trust your government to de

Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg "I was following orders" crowd, which makes me doubt your assertion. > if you don't trust your government to deploy military power, what do you trust them for? Do you have to trust them for anything? It's not like it's a viable option to decide that you don't want to designate any government as "yours". Good luck surviving in no man's land if you do. What makes government "theirs" for lots of people is just the threat of organized violence or exclusion.

adewinter 5y ago
Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious. * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. >> Do you have to trust them for anything? I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.
- uxp100 5y ago
  > One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. But an illegal war of aggression is a crime against humanity, right?
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    Starting an illegal war of aggression is a crime for which some people were convicted in Nuremberg Tribunals. However, all the soldiers fighting in such an illegal war of aggression are not considered responsible for that crime. For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers "I was just following orders" actually is a legitimate excuse, and should not result in any convictions (of e.g. murder) unless they commit some explicit war crimes, e.g. murdering captured civilians.
    - watwut 5y ago
      > For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers But, that is not how those wars happen. Like, literally none of those wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers. That might be Hollywood idea of war. But pretty much all of real ones involved units killing/torturing locals. Sometimes more and as a strategy, other times less so. But it happens literally every time. It is not that all armies are the same, they are not. Some are much much better then others. But, in general, worldwide, "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers is not what war is.
      - PeterisP 5y ago
        While none of the wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers, for the vast majority of soldiers fighting those wars (even if illegal wars of aggression) their personal actions were limited to killing uniformed soldiers and they are not responsible or liable for any war crimes, as they did not perform them.
ethbr0 5y ago
> Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg It didn't work for those convicted in the Nuremberg trials because the Nazis lost. Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced? Legal liability gets pretty hazy when applying it in a non-sovereign arenas (i.e. international matters). Yes, there are treaties [0], but what are treaties without enforcement? > Do you have to trust them for anything? People are welcome to move to areas where government interaction is less or non-existent. They generally choose not to. Largely, because the economies in places like that suck, because it's hard to employ capital in an anarchist, solely-"might makes right" environment. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_treaties_on_the_laws_of_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_tr...
- watwut 5y ago
  > Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced? Pre Nuremberg expectations on soldiers were blind obedience nazi or not. Nuremberg set the expectation on soldiers from then on. WWII changed that. It could not happen due to their own ideology. It did not allowed for lasting compromise which everyone else knew. Third Reich would not prosecuted those people, because by their ethical standards they were doing right thing. Then again, Pablo Escobar believed he is cool guy by own standards too.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    > WWII changed that Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? How many of the German rocketry experts scooped up during Paperclip were convicted? How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ?
    - watwut 5y ago
      > Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? Neither of these is comparable for what Germans did and you know it. > How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ? US did not signed membership.
hugh-avherald 5y ago
It's often misunderstood, but the Nuremberg Defence is a genuine defence to criminal behaviour, including war crimes. It's just not an absolute one, and cannot be used for the crime of genocide. If you're in a missile silo and you're ordered to nuke Moscow, you're not responsible for the outcome.
- throwaway743 5y ago
  From what perspective is there no responsibility for the actions of the last one in the chain of command?

adewinter 5y ago

Hard to tell if you're just trolling or being serious. * Nuremberg and "just following orders" was about actual orders to specific individuals to do things that were literal war crimes, and those individuals carrying those orders out. One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. >> Do you have to trust them for anything? I mean, yes? Even when you live in a libertarian fantasy land it turns out you need to have some level of trust in a government. You trust the road you're driving on won't collapse and that the folks at fire department know which end of the hose the water comes out of. You trust that because you trust that the gov that pays for that made the right choices. You can pretend you can have a society without relying on an organized collective of people who live in that society but I cannot logically see how that would work.

uxp100 5y ago
> One country designating another country an enemy is not, in fact, a war crime. But an illegal war of aggression is a crime against humanity, right?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  Starting an illegal war of aggression is a crime for which some people were convicted in Nuremberg Tribunals. However, all the soldiers fighting in such an illegal war of aggression are not considered responsible for that crime. For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers "I was just following orders" actually is a legitimate excuse, and should not result in any convictions (of e.g. murder) unless they commit some explicit war crimes, e.g. murdering captured civilians.
  - watwut 5y ago
    > For "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers But, that is not how those wars happen. Like, literally none of those wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers. That might be Hollywood idea of war. But pretty much all of real ones involved units killing/torturing locals. Sometimes more and as a strategy, other times less so. But it happens literally every time. It is not that all armies are the same, they are not. Some are much much better then others. But, in general, worldwide, "simply" fighting a war and killing uniformed enemy soldiers is not what war is.
    - PeterisP 5y ago
      While none of the wars was limited to killing uniformed enemy soldiers, for the vast majority of soldiers fighting those wars (even if illegal wars of aggression) their personal actions were limited to killing uniformed soldiers and they are not responsible or liable for any war crimes, as they did not perform them.

ethbr0 5y ago

> Being subordinate didn't work for the Nuremberg It didn't work for those convicted in the Nuremberg trials because the Nazis lost. Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced? Legal liability gets pretty hazy when applying it in a non-sovereign arenas (i.e. international matters). Yes, there are treaties [0], but what are treaties without enforcement? > Do you have to trust them for anything? People are welcome to move to areas where government interaction is less or non-existent. They generally choose not to. Largely, because the economies in places like that suck, because it's hard to employ capital in an anarchist, solely-"might makes right" environment. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_treaties_on_the_laws_of_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war#International_tr...

watwut 5y ago
> Had the Third Reich persisted with a truce, do you really think they would have been charged, convicted, and sentenced? Pre Nuremberg expectations on soldiers were blind obedience nazi or not. Nuremberg set the expectation on soldiers from then on. WWII changed that. It could not happen due to their own ideology. It did not allowed for lasting compromise which everyone else knew. Third Reich would not prosecuted those people, because by their ethical standards they were doing right thing. Then again, Pablo Escobar believed he is cool guy by own standards too.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  > WWII changed that Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? How many of the German rocketry experts scooped up during Paperclip were convicted? How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ?
  - watwut 5y ago
    > Bullshit. Who was prosecuted for the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo? Neither of these is comparable for what Germans did and you know it. > How many US military members have been delivered to the ICJ? US did not signed membership.

hugh-avherald 5y ago

It's often misunderstood, but the Nuremberg Defence is a genuine defence to criminal behaviour, including war crimes. It's just not an absolute one, and cannot be used for the crime of genocide. If you're in a missile silo and you're ordered to nuke Moscow, you're not responsible for the outcome.

throwaway743 5y ago
From what perspective is there no responsibility for the actions of the last one in the chain of command?