Hacker News Reader

Comment by thomasz | Hacker News Reader

Can we please not Godwin this?

He's not Godwinning this at all. Claiming superior orders is exactly what the Nuremberg defense was all about, it is simply an accurate association. Just because something happened in relation to WWII does not automatically mean that any reference to it invokes Godwin's law, that's for inappropriate comparisons. This one is entirely appropriate as far as I can see.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a debate over what Godwin's law says approaches 1.

It is not appropriate because Ortiz is not accused of war crimes.

It is actually, because unlikely though the name may seem to you the Nuremberg defense is actually a lot older than WorldWar II and was historically invoked for lots of other things besides war crimes. The fact that during the Nuremberg trials it was used so frequently that it got named because of them does not detract from this.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

Sure. But what Ortiz is pulling here is not a Nuremberg Defense ("I was aware of the injustice, but my hands were tied"). She clearly states that she's completely fine with "severe punishment" in "appropriate cases", just that with regards to Aaron, it seemed somewhat inappropriate to her and her office. (I agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question.)

I agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question.

It isn't, though. That she comes out with this attitude afterwards is absolutely self-serving and cannot be relied on as an accurate description of her motivations. The "hey, well, that was just the press release" claptrap should be completely disregarded as a mitigating rationale for the ass-covering bullshit that it is.

This leaves us with the "hey, Congress passed these laws, don't look at me," attitude that, as Jacques astutely points out, removes her agency from her actions.

The concept and practice of prosecutorial discretion, however, casts the lie to that position. Barthes and Derrida's "death of the author" is not a force in the law, so Ortiz attempting to play The Cog role should be seen as nothing more than sarcasm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author

In this case Ortiz "I'm just following orders" warrants a reference to Nuremberg. It's insightful to realise that things can get badly out of hand, even if you follow the letter of the law. Aaron's case proves the point.

Strictly speaking, we haven't Godwin'd this yet.

You seem to be operating under a popular misunderstanding of what Godwin said. Godwin said, merely, that if the discussion goes on long enough, eventually the nazi era will be mentioned.

He never said it was always inappropriate to mention it, nor that those who mention it are always wrong, etc.

The popularity of "Godwin's Law" (especially this incorrect interpretation) has lead to a lot of people denying that anything in the US (or any online discussion) could be accurately compared to anything that happened in Germany.

Which is silly, but just another case of "when america does it, it's different."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com