When the Iraq War is finally declared illegal, will US soldiers be absolved from their crimes by using the Nuremberg Defense? * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense
2007-02-08 13:01:54 · 14 answers · asked by Spock 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I find your assumptions questionable, but your question is still valid, so i'll just ignore the politics.
In a word, No. All branches of the military have procedures in place to query orders further up the chain of command, in theory all the way to the president. If a soldier receives orders that would be considered possibly illegal, he has the option to refuse, and start the process to have the commander investigated. This is normally a bad idea for the soldier, but since the procedure exists, they can't fall back on Nuremburg.
2007-02-08 13:08:50 · answer #1 · answered by juicy_wishun 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To a very small extent.
"Just following orders" will only get a soldier off the hook if to the best of his knowledge, the specific orders he got were lawful and legal.
Example: If a soldier is guarding unarmed women and children and is told by his commander to shoot them, he has more than enough information at that time to know that the order is illegal and if he does it, the excuse he was "just following orders" will not protect him from trial. As we are seeing in a number of cases out of Iraq.
However, if a soldier manning a howitzer is told to fire and destroy a particular building by his commander (who knows the house is full of women and children but does not share that knowledge with the soldier) the soldier is protected as he had no information or way of knowing he was about to commit a war crime. The Commander however is responsible and he can be tried for it.
The legality or illegality of the war is an issue so broad, a simple soldier in the field can not possibly have all the information he needs to make a judgment. He might have a "gut feeling" but there is no way he can have all the information necessary to make a valid decision. Also, it is not his place to evaluate the legality or illegality of the war.
No nation can have any kind of effective military if common soldiers are allowed to decide if the overall war is legal or not. They can not be allowed to decide what orders they chose to follow or not based upon their overall, uninformed impression as to the legality of the war. They can not be allowed to even refuse orders because they think the orders are too dangerous. (The truck drivers who refused to drive their trucks because the orders were "too dangerous" were all court martialed, and rightly so.)
They can only be allowed to judge the legality/morality of orders they receive based upon information they have in that particular situation. They can judge it is NOT OK to shoot women and kids and refuse the order. They can not judge the overall war is illegal and therefore refuse all orders related to it. (The Lt is hosed and going to prison.)
2007-02-09 08:14:31 · answer #2 · answered by forgivebutdonotforget911 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Talk about a baited and ignorant question... by whose standards is this war illegal to begin with and who do you think is going to declare it illegal? Please don't say the UN. The UN is not the world gov't and there is no entity that is higher than the sovereign state. Since our National Security Strategy makes provisions for the US to use preemptive measures, the war IS legal. By the way, that provision, so ignorantly referred to as the Bush doctrine, has been in the National Security Strategy since the Kennedy administration. When we signed the UN charter, we never agreed to give up our sovereignty, nor did we agree to be bound by rules and resolutions that are in conflict with our own national interests. So, with this new, fact based knowledge I have provided for you, try to come up with an informed opinion that doesn't suck, because what you just posted is pure crap.
2007-02-08 13:42:24 · answer #3 · answered by dr_law2003 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There will be no need for US soldiers to use any defense, because once they destroy the Iranian nuclear complex and drive these evil leaders in Iran straight into hell's fury, they will come home as conquering hero's, and the people will applaud with appreciation and gratitude. Then, we will give them your blog name so they can track you down and bi tch slap the snot out of you for being such a wise @ss punk!
2007-02-09 10:15:00 · answer #4 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When soldiers are told to "shoot now, ask questions later", this a clear indication that the Nuremberg defense will be invoked later. In any court martial the soldier will always say "I'm just following orders" or "I followed the rules of engagement" to cover-up their wrongdoings.
2007-02-08 13:43:29 · answer #5 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They don't ever have to worry about that. There's no reason to even consider it.
And obviously, the Nuremberg defense didn't work very well, did it? Those who were tried were still found guilty.
2007-02-08 13:11:27 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, after Nuremburg, nations passed laws saying that soldiers who claim that they were just following orders CAN be held liable for their actions
2007-02-08 13:07:05 · answer #7 · answered by discmiss1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Illogical.
2007-02-08 13:37:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, it didn't do the Nazis at Nuremberg very much good to use it, did it?
2007-02-08 13:06:07 · answer #9 · answered by KCBA 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
U.S. Soldiers are considered property of the U.S. government.
If I get drunk and kill someone...will the court also send my car to jail?
2007-02-08 13:06:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋