What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
58 Comments
- Tarnum, on 07/02/2009, -2/+23"It is no defense at all" only if you lost the war.
If "The Arrogant Empire" is backing you, it is very good defence. - alexforcefive, on 07/02/2009, -0/+18yeah, and the guy at the top says "I'm not responsible, I was acting on the information available to me..."
- diggerado, on 07/02/2009, -2/+20Isn't that the defense that all the people in government used under the Bush administration? Gonzales, and then the people under him, the spy agency head and his people, etc.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -5/+17The Nuremberg defense didn't work then nor will it now. If you break your oath to the Constitution, you will be dealt with most severely. Sorry that you're held to a higher standard but apparently all the gun grabbers think you're the only ones who should have guns. Those of us who agree will allow for a fair trial but will execute justice immediately upon conviction. Sorry, it was your choice to break your oath and your demise will be for the greater good. Hell, it will be for the children..........those who can potentially live in a free state rather than the dictatorial one you're setting up for us.
- hasslinthehoff, on 07/02/2009, -1/+12Actually, the Nazis had a better excuse, if they didn't follow orders, they would probably be tortured or put to death. Unless the CIA executes its agents who don't follow orders, they could have just walked.
- mithrasinvictus, on 07/02/2009, -2/+11An explanation is not an excuse.
People should still be held accountable for their actions. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -9/+18Just following orders
The Obama defense
Same as
The Bush defense
I see change has come, I found a penny - Kupon3ss, on 07/02/2009, -0/+7The real BS comes from the reverse Nuremberg defense "I just gave the order but didn't know the details"
...and using both at the same time - diggerado, on 07/02/2009, -2/+9"If you break your oath to the Constitution, you will be dealt with most severely."
Or... we won't "look to the past" and allow the criminals (Bush etc) to get away with everything. - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -0/+7So, don't follow the orders of your superior and risk being punished, or follow the orders of your superior and risk being punished?
What to do, what to do? - inactive, on 07/02/2009, -0/+6It's a big ***** circus show and nothing has changed...
- Deausx, on 07/02/2009, -2/+7Show trial *****. This article is about a Honduran born man named Robert Lady who lived in Italy and worked with the CIA there. Lady had left Italy, then they issued a warrant for him. Its called playing to your audience. The Italian govt wants to win some free points but dont actually want to piss off the wrong people so they hold a show trial.
Call me when they actually have someone to try. - BotchaMcCoola, on 07/02/2009, -0/+4This defense is valid for winners but doesn't apply for the losers.
- emkaysmith, on 07/02/2009, -2/+6What "terrorist"? Oh, yeah. "My boss told me he was a terrorist, so he must have been a terrorist." The fact that he was never arrested and tried -- just kidnapped and locked up by the CIA -- has nothing to do with it.
It's a pity that Italy, of all places, has to give the U.S. lessons on how a democracy is supposed to operate. - Bloodboiler, on 07/02/2009, -3/+6... kidnapping and TORTURING and likely KILLING SUSPECTED terroristS.
BTW. individuals who were sentenced in Nuremberg were hardly guilty of personally killing millions. All of them obeying orders was what resulted in murder of mullions that is crime against humanity. Similarly US war against terror should be investigated as a whole as crime against humanity (death toll well over 100 000). Individuals in command may be guilty of crimes against humanity, and the executing individuals guilty of ''doing their part' by following criminal orders. - Dustin00, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4We signed on to the Geneva Convention. Every person in our military and law enforcement agencies must know what they can and cannot legally do.
It's their job. - rmxz, on 07/02/2009, -2/+5"Milgram's obedience experiment, look it up before judging these people. "
Why? There are many experiments that show that people do evil things under some circumstances. That doesn't mean that those evil things are OK - it means that societies need deterrents to dissuade people from doing such evil things. In this case, by making it clear to as many people as possible that the Nuremberg defense does not justify evil actions. - mithrasinvictus, on 07/02/2009, -1/+4Agreed, the circumstances always need to be taken into account for sentencing. But not for determining guilt. Temporary insanity might get you a reduced sentence, but never an acquittal.
- Dustin00, on 07/03/2009, -0/+3The Japanese used waterboarding on Americans and we put them to death for it.
It's EXACTLY the same thing. - kemp34, on 07/02/2009, -0/+3When were these people convicted?
- NothingTangible, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2This is NOT about some Nazi concentration camp guard... this is about US personel. We don't kill people that refuse to carry out orders particularly when they are refusing to break the law.
- levitron, on 07/03/2009, -0/+2Any fans of Stephen R. Donaldson's Gap Series out there? That book makes an interesting indirect case for "just following orders." The character Min Donner followed Warden Dios' orders many times, even though it made her sick to her stomach, because she believed that although they seemed to violate everything she believed in, she trusted that he knew better. Plus, she believed in the system- a 'grunt' is not allowed to do much thinking for him/herself. They can't see the big picture, and therefore don't always know the context of what they are being required to do.
I'm not saying that Nazi (or other) war criminals are innocent by using this defence, I'm just saying that (as most of us are realizing as we get older) things are just not as black and white as they seem. Chances are, you'd push that button too, as the experimenter upped the voltage after every wrong answer.... - Corvidae, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4It was crimes against humanity committed by nazi interrogators on people they labeled as terrorists. I could be mistaken, but I believe a few of the Japanese tried the same defense.
- inactive, on 07/02/2009, -2/+4Shot on the spot for disobeying a direct order from a superior officer..... hmmmmm.....
Hey! I know what.... no wait, I don't. - mithrasinvictus, on 07/02/2009, -1/+3I'm sure it would have been the end of his career.
- TrevorBradley, on 07/02/2009, -0/+2Which raises an interesting (though thankfully rarely acted on) moral question. If someone has a gun to the back of your head, and tells you to kill people, after how many people would it be the right and moral thing to simply stop following orders and be killed yourself?
- MWeather, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2Out of curiosity, what do you think would have happened to a concentration camp guard if he refused?
- lougoose, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1It is a psychological phenomenon. People will do unbelievable things when told by people with authority (especially social authority). The need to belong is overwhelming, and people don't understand just how powerful it is. It is why abused women stay with their partners.
- Dustin00, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2Hmm... the people found guilty at Nuremberg were hanged... hmmm...
Hey! I know what I would do! - Sherman901, on 07/02/2009, -2/+3Exactly the kind of comment I was going to leave.
HOLY *****, LOOK AT THE RIOTS AND TOTAL PANDEMONIUM GOING ON, OUR COUNTRY IS IN REVOLT!!!
Oh wait, that's actually happening on the other side of the world and we are just watching it on TV. - Bruce3, on 07/02/2009, -4/+5Milgram's obedience experiment, look it up before judging these people.
- SirCharge, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Wrong. We never put a Japanese soldier to death just for waterboarding. Nor was the waterboarding the Japanese used anything like what the Americans have been accused of.
- darthom, on 07/05/2009, -0/+1Somebody changed their mind, again. Everyone agrees that you should follow orders loyally. But when it comes to right and wrong, very subjective qualifiers, following orders requires those who follow them carry around a morality crystal ball, peek behind the curtain of the world stage and understand their black and white world is so far removed from Alice's they may as well journey through the glass darkly and hold themselves accountable for the world's vacillations. Each of us has taken the high road when in fact, each of has already taken the low road. Each day that you obey the dictates of another you set yourself up for a Nuremburg defense. You can hope and pray that nothing you have done is ever called into question and you held accountable for your obedience. It can be something as simple as my boss told me to shred that document or change that customers file information or..., you get the picture. Even the most innocuous action is subject to a Nuremburg defense.
- DirtPile, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2I think it's an excellent defense, if you work in fast food.
- Anightowl, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Follow orders: possibly get hung years later.
Don't follow orders: get shot immediately.
Take your pick. - NothingTangible, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1While the Nuemburg Trails were indeed for some of the most heinous crimes and the most notorious persons, the principals with which they were judged was to be applied to ALL PERSONS. The opening statement for the trials was provided by a US Supreme Court Justice and the charges outlined were quite specific. No where was it stated or intended that these laws and principals ONLY applied to the most heinous crimes, nor was it limited in scope of power or level of participation.
Even if the Nuemburg Trials were intended for the select few individuals there are certainly some fairly basic human rights that were violated. If someone was unfamiliar with the Nuemburg Trails, there are other standards that apply such as the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this day and age NO reasonable person can claim they did not know torture was wrong! NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE from the people knowing of the orders, the people giving the orders and those claiming to follow orders are exempt. - kd1s, on 07/03/2009, -0/+1A CIA officer is not a soldier.
- maz2331, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2The Nuremberg Defense refers to using orders from superiors as an excuse to justify criminal behavior, not following orders under duress or threat oneself.
The SS guards in WWII were not under personal duress - if they wanted out of concentration camp duty, they could have easily transferred elsewhere with no problem at all. Thus the "following orders" defense was disallowed, as they were willing participants in a huge criminal conspiracy. Contrast that with a prisoner who helped burn bodies under the threat of becoming one himself and the difference is clear.
Regarding the terrorist cases, let's keep in mind that refusing to follow orders or releasing classified information is considered a felony under the US Code. The personnel involved are possibly under at least some duress there. - NothingTangible, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1Sorry SC, but that argument just doesn't hold water. This isn't about the Nazis or some other nation where they might shoot you on the spot for disobeying an order. Furthermore, none of this was done on the spot, in the heat of a battle or some other exigent circumstances.
While the Nuemburg Trails were indeed for some of the most heinous crimes and the most notorious persons, the principals with which they were judged was to be applied to ALL PERSONS. The opening statement for the trials was provided by a US Supreme Court Justice and the charges outlined were quite specific. No where was it stated or intended that these laws and principals ONLY applied to the most heinous crimes, nor was it limited in scope of power or level of participation.
Even if the Nuemburg Trials were intended for the select few individuals there are certainly some fairly basic human rights that were violated. If someone was unfamiliar with the Nuemburg Trails, there are other standards that apply such as the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this day and age NO reasonable person can claim they did not know torture was wrong! NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE from the people knowing of the orders, the people giving the orders and those claiming to follow orders are exempt. - maz2331, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2Actually, the SS didn't do that. Those who wanted out of the "final solution" could easily transfer without penalty.
- NothingTangible, on 07/02/2009, -0/+1While the Nuemburg Trails were indeed for some of the most heinous crimes and the most notorious persons, the principals with which they were judged was to be applied to ALL PERSONS. The opening statement for the trials was provided by a US Supreme Court Justice and the charges outlined were quite specific. No where was it stated or intended that these laws and principals ONLY applied to the most heinous crimes, nor was it limited in scope of power or level of participation.
Even if the Nuemburg Trials were intended for the select few individuals there are certainly some fairly basic human rights that were violated. If someone was unfamiliar with the Nuemburg Trails, there are other standards that apply such as the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In this day and age NO reasonable person can claim they did not know torture was wrong! NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE from the people knowing of the orders, the people giving the orders and those claiming to follow orders are exempt. - Midtowner, on 07/02/2009, -1/+2Precisely. The Nuremberg defense actually is a valid defense. Maybe not in Italian law, but there's at least some precedent for it at the international level. Of course, it's a bit of an academic discussion. If the case was to go to an international human tribunal, where would it go? The European Human Rights Commission? The ICC? If it goes to either of those, I think the Nuremberg defense would get a pretty hard look.
Both of those two courts, while not having outright adopted the common-law system of recognizing and being bound by precedent, have in effect done that. I think the Nazi war crimes trials would, while not being tried in those particular courts, at least weigh into the debate. If that was the case, that precedent should get a doubly hard look because the sort of crimes being prosecuted then doesn't even begin to get close in graveness to the sort of crime being charged here.
At any rate, none of that will happen. It's fun to play 'what if,' but at the end of the day, I predict a trial, a conviction with a sentence of *maybe* some jail time and then deportation. - SirCharge, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2The Nuremburg trials involved only the most heinous crimes, such as setting up concentration camps for the purpose of killing millions, sterilizing those who were deemed 'unfit' so that they could be used as slave labor without fear of procreation, starving/freezing/dismembering people for the sake of 'scientific experiments', etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experiment ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Axis_war_crim ...
Most individuals in the Nazi army/SS were able to state they were following orders without repercussions. There's a reason that the above people weren't able to claim they were just following orders: Their crimes were so extraordinary that they were considered to be going beyond the scope of their orders or they were considered to be doing something that was unmistakably immoral.
These crimes are not comparable to actions of the individuals in the CIA or at the military prisons unless more evidence is released. In fact, if their 'crimes' were brought before the judge at the Nuremberg trials the judge and witnesses would have laughed the cases off the floor. - morefrommoe, on 07/02/2009, -0/+0i agree with the core of what you are saying. however, nowadays, it just not acceptable to torture someone/deny someone their basic human rights for no reason at all. there are many judicial remedies available to all persons. in nazi germany it was a whole different playing field. the public was brainwashed, lied to, and completely suppressed. noone could speak out at any point in time for fear of being killed themselves. those who did were shot immediately. today, this is not the case.
- glitchbit, on 07/03/2009, -1/+1Can we change your name to KnowNothing? Just asking..
Seriously though I think you have a chip on your shoulder, not sure what your angle is but it has more to do than the principals of this case. - roddack, on 07/02/2009, -2/+2True to a degree but we must look at the entire situation and not just the one persons action. If a person is forced into a situation where they must harm or be harmed then we must consider how this predicament affected their decision and take that in consideration when considering how we choose to administer judgement
- roddack, on 07/02/2009, -1/+1True that
- StatMech, on 07/02/2009, -4/+4If you (Americans) actually practice what mayday4america wrote, Bush (among others) would have been convicted a long time ago. Don't pretend to be vigilant when in fact you are not.
- NothingTangible, on 07/03/2009, -0/+0Most people that don't have any logic or reasoning to offer attack the person or their screen name... just saying...
"A chip on your shoulder?" Why would you think that? Do YOU have a problem with following the law and/or trying to be morally correct?
This entire debate on torture has people reaching for just about any excuse or rationalization, anything to justify what we all KNOW is wrong so we don't look like the bad guys. The fact is that Bush43 and his Administration sought any loopholes to justify what we did... they tried to redefine torture and, just in case that was not enough, they redefined what we CALL the captured individuals. They went to great lengths to either circumvent the Geneva Conventions or try to show the captives do not fit into that category... but they totally ignored the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Did Bush43 and his people think no one was aware of these other documents? Perhaps they, themselves, were unaware of these documents and so thought it was not necessary to address them. Whatever the case may be, these documents of which we are signatories do exist and they do apply to whatever name you wish to apply to the captives. -
Show 51 - 60 of 60 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is