Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by say

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by saying they were just following Orders therefor they were not Guilty of Genocide why is following orders not an excuse ? Is it because humans have freewill did the Nuremberg Trials Judges/Courts say this ? Also if low rank Soldiers commit war crimes and or genocide because their military offiers and or generals or heads of state give them these orders to commit murder can these soldiers if taken to court say they were just following orders as an excuse defense to defend themselves ?

en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


Anyone in military service, brought up on charges, of course, will use that excuse. But, it's the judicial system's decision to accept those excuses, or not. I'm not really understanding your question.

Des



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


Dear mikejohnson2006,

We used to believe in personal responsibility for one's actions. Yes, this contradicts respect for authority which we also believed in. In the military the responsibility was outlined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and as we are referring to officers, the specifics were included in the concept of Conduct Unbecoming and Officer and a Gentleman. The Germans knew of these things and came from similar traditions. They knew that there were times when you don't follow orders if they contradict your Constitution and laws. The Nazi's bypassed the German military tradition by replacing their top military with other Nazis who did not care about their laws.

The average soldier was not prosecuted at Nuremberg, it was the leaders and the soldiers who went well beyond what was acceptable. How many soldiers were prosecuted for having shot Jews or Russians at the concentration camps, not all and not most most. The ones that took a special pleasure in it were prosecuted and should have been.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
There is no way one man alone can kill millions of people. Those men did those crimes on their own will to do them. Following orders should never be used as excuse. I respect the millitary. Those brave men and woman dedicate their lives for us, just so we can be safe. I wish I would have enlisted when I was younger but I still don't agree with being sent to war overseas. Defending our country here at home is something most people would do. I think if it wasn't for the worlds governments their might not even be war. Most people just want to live life and be free. Point is don't pick up a weapon against your fellow man and say your just following orders.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
can these soldiers if taken to court say they were just following orders as an excuse defense to defend themselves?


That seriously depends on if the soldiers committed atrocities for the winning side or losing side.

Many Nazis were hung at Nuremberg as war criminals because the "just following orders" excuse did not fly.


members of the armed forces are bound to obey only the lawful orders of their commanding officers and they cannot escape criminal liability by obeying a command which violates fundamental concepts of justice.


If the nazi's won, would they have prosecuted? No, of course not. The standard of justice is determined by the winner.
edit on 25-10-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
oops wrong thread...Mea Culpa....

Des
edit on 25-10-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I"m going to hijack this thread as I think this "it's my job" is just about the single most problematic quality the human population has.

Inherently there is some very odd "pride" thing that goes along with the idea of having any job at all. This coupled with a gigantic fear of not having a job, leads the human mind to see a job as a full and complete system of justification for any action taken.

The war problem is not as awful as these:

A policeman kills an unarmed man: "it's my job."

A policeman plants evidence: "it's my job."

A judge sentences a child to a prison he gets kickbacks from: "it's my job."

A man dumps toxic waste in a river used for drinking water: "it's my job."

A scientist lies about the safety of a drug that kills: "it's my job."

A mother hurts her child: "it's my job."

A nuke building company builds their plant on a fault line-tsunami zone-human population center: "It's my job."

The it's my job has people doing unspeakable things, things that no one finds acceptable except those who are PAID for the act and those who paid for the act. Would the people who's actions are beyond reprehensible be so flippant if they were not paid? Is payment for an action, regardless of the vile nature, a "get out of moral jail card?" Is the idea of having "purpose" via the notion of a job the reason so many do things that are simply so wrong?

It has been said the "it's my job" is not an excuse as evidenced by the Nazi trials. This is utter and complete nonsense, there is no evidence that this was introduced as a moral tenet to the human reality at all. Rendition occurs via the "it's my job" even though no right thinking human feels this is correct, especially when isolated out from the PR talking points.

The notion of "it is my job" or "it was my job" needs to be removed from the discourse. No matter what your job is, morally reprehensible acts are not justified because a weekly check comes in the mail.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
Homosexuality is a sin and from Satan no human being is born gay or homosexual God does not create gays homosexuality came from Sodom and Gomorrah in the biblical story of Lot. Judaism Christianity and Islam all 3 of these Religions view Homosexuality as a sin and as evil and Satanism. If I had my way Homosexuality would be illegal in America.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(Biblical)


Your agenda is loud and clear in both of your ongoing threads....I feel very sorry for you....

Des



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I actually wrote an essay on that and that didn't work. Basically corporate law and lots of legislation, you know like our governments create, is not lawful unless it stands on the backbone of the constitution and everyones infinite sovereign rights and basic common law, which is like the virtues, what is in our heart. Even obeying a legislation that has not been toppled in court, but nontheless violates the constitution and common law and infinite rights, is CRIMINAL. It is criminal to follow unlawful and obviously wrong orders. That goes for police officers obeying their orders too.

And ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

I also read what a constitutional lawyer had to say on lawful legislation and the constitution.

At nuremburg, the documents themselves, were considered genocide and crimes against humanity, and signatures on the documents were confessions. All they had to do to save time was match the signatures to the person.j

And following bad orders falls under the category, of ignorance of the law is not an excuse these things are known. They're common sense.



posted on Oct, 25 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


There is no law at a war tribunal. The loser is getting hung, no matter what.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


There is a saying in the military...

What is the maximum effective range of a excuse?

The answer: Zero meters.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikejohnson2006
Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by saying they were just following Orders therefor they were not Guilty of Genocide why is following orders not an excuse ?


Earlier posters have stated the obvious, but crucial point that the winner writes the rules, and the loser becomes the bad guy.

From a jurisprudence standpoint, prior to the Nuremberg trials, there was no legislation on the responsibility of soldiers, nor was there any internationally accepted definition of what constituted a "War Crime". (N.B. My belief is that war itself is a crime, but that is probably for another thread!)

The 4th Nuremberg principle:


Principle IV states: "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Source

Of course, new terms such as "lawful orders" and "superior orders"(as you mentioned) have popped up after the fact, when lo and behold, the winning sides were upheld to the same principles!

the Billmeister
edit on 26-10-2012 by Billmeister because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
There is no law at a war tribunal. The loser is getting hung, no matter what.


In a lawless world sure but in the 20th century definite steps were taken remedy this situation even if it were eventually largely undone by imperial nations acting in their interest instead of in defense of these new laws. That being said even with all the problems in the end the Nazi's and Japanese were largely tried for crimes they 'alone' committed; the Luftwaffe leadership and officers were not charged for terror bombing as the allies did it too and so forth.

Since the Axis largely did commit crimes that were completely beyond what can be considered required in even desperate self defense , and since many crimes were committed before they or anyone else were sure they could or would lose, the prosecutions were if not always just then perhaps a great step in the right direction. If we could only enforce the statutes on the the UN permanent members , and the criminal actions of their allies they protect from prosecution, these laws would certainly aid the world in preventing the preeminant war crime which is aggressive/'pre emptive' war.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


"Hello my question is at the Nuremberg Trials did'nt the Nazi War Criminals defend themselves by saying they were just following Orders therefor they were not Guilty of Genocide why is following orders not an excuse ?"

Gee, I don't know. Maybe because if they had NOT followed orders, millions of innocent men, women, and children would not have been killed?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 


This raises the question in my mind, if you were given the choice of either killing innocent people or risking death, which would you do?



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by mikejohnson2006
 


Risking death would be the standard correct answer, as far as I'm concerned, but seeking to kill those inhuman subhumans who are threatening you with death if you don't kill innocent people would earn you bonus points.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Soldiers on the British side in world war one who had enough of war, and deserted, were caught, sent back to their own unit, tried, found guilty, and then shot, by members of their own company, so yes, soldiers follow orders.
In the Roman army, if the legion was was deemed not to have performed well in battle, a sentence of 'decimation' was passed, so every tenth man was beaten to death by his follow legionnaires, so they fought like crazy people, and followed orders, in those days, when a city was 'sacked' everyone was killed, and the whole place went up in flames.



posted on Nov, 16 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Tzemakh Shadar
This raises the question in my mind, if you were given the choice of either killing innocent people or risking death, which would you do?


Without having been in the situation it doesn't really matter what i say but obviously i think you can only die once anyways so best to stick to some kind of principle. I think most men would rather die than kill women/children and defenseless people provided that they have not somehow become convinced that the other is less than human...

The problem is that soldiers who refuse to follow such type of orders were normally ( World war II especially but i think historically in general ) put in some kind of special battalion that always got the riskiest/nastiest jobs; essentially most armed forces will under total war conditions seek to liquidate men who refuse to follow orders immaterial of the morality of the order.

That is part of why war is bad for everyone and why people who like freedom at home can't afford to make much war ( or allow for much in the way of standing armies) and certainly can not afford a empire. Leaders who are allowed to make war on foreigners will sooner or later make war on their own people if only to make sure that they can keep fighting foreigners for this or that bit of wealth or real estate they don't yet have.

Stellar






top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join