[BuckeyeTexan]

The Nurember trials demonstrated that a defense of "I was only following orders" will not protect you. If the officer knowingly follows illegal orders, he sets himself up for war crimes charges not only in the U.S., but also internationally. It's in his best interest, and his duty, to know that he's following legal orders.

I don't think this officer's situation would equate to the war crimes trials. Those who participated in the cold-blooded murder of Jews knew it was immoral and ultimately criminal. They knew right from wrong. So, logically "I was just following orders" wasn't a legitimate defense.

If any military officer were brought up on war crimes charges, he would have a legitimate defense of following orders from a POTUS who was elected by majority vote of the electoral college whose election was certified by Congress and who was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Following the orders of a POTUS who turned out to be ineligible isn't clearly immoral (or criminal) if one had no way to know he was ineligible.

Just my opinion. I'm not looking for an argument.

[rxsid]

"The Nurember trials demonstrated that a defense of "I was only following orders" will not protect you. If the officer knowingly follows illegal orders, he sets himself up for war crimes charges not only in the U.S., but also internationally. It's in his best interest, and his duty, to know that he's following legal orders.

I don't think this officer's situation would equate to the war crimes trials. Those who participated in the cold-blooded murder of Jews knew it was immoral and ultimately criminal. They knew right from wrong. So, logically "I was just following orders" wasn't a legitimate defense.

If any military officer were brought up on war crimes charges, he would have a legitimate defense of following orders from a POTUS who was elected by majority vote of the electoral college whose election was certified by Congress and who was sworn into office by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Following the orders of a POTUS who turned out to be ineligible isn't clearly immoral (or criminal) if one had no way to know he was ineligible.

Just my opinion. I'm not looking for an argument."

------------------------------------

At issue with the "just following orders" defense, was that even though they should have known right from wrong, they (the officers) had an obligation to question what they believed (knowing right from wrong) to be illegal orders.

So, in your opinion then, if the officer believes the orders are illegal or he is highly suspicious that they may be illegal (he asked for a year for the answer's he seeks, from his chain of command & his Congressional delegation) he should simply "follow orders" anyway?

While no doubt he would not be in the same boat as an SS officer, he should anyway subject himself to the possibility of a trial for following illegal orders?

Just curious. I do not envy his predicament.