Replies

"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.

No, I’m definitely not suggesting that he should just follow orders if he has reason to believe the orders are not legitimate.

I’m saying that anyone who chooses to follow the orders, would have a valid defense that there was no reason to question the orders in the first place because the POTUS was in office as the result of a legitimate election process. Verifying the eligibility of the POTUS was the responsibility of the EC and Congress. Whereas the SS officers had reason to question their orders because they knew the orders were wrong.

I don’t envy him either. If it’s not a political agenda and he truly feels that he has a moral duty to verify that his orders are legitimate, then he’s in a tough spot because he likely won’t get answer.

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?

What is illegal or highly suspicious about an order to deploy overseas? It's not like they're asking him to nuke a village or something.