Hacker News Reader

Comment by claudius | Hacker News Reader

"I was just following orders" has already been established as an insufficient defense in the 1946 Nuremberg trials and essentially all later trials against WW 2 war criminals. It is by now pretty well established that crimes against humanity in general and torture in particular are not justifiable.

View on HN

This (along with striving to get good PR) is one of the main reasons the US government is so keen to redefine the word "torture" to mean something that they don't do. The same goes for the words "terrorism" and "terror".

  "Shock and awe" == good
  "Terror" == bad

  "Torture" == illegal
  "Stress position" == legal

  decapitation with a knife == horrific and evil
  decapitation by shrapnel == worthy of a medal

  assassination by the American govt == good
  assassination by other governments == bad

  killing by poison gas on the battlefield == bad
  killing by poison injections in a prison == good

What about when it is combined with duress? Like if you refused once and were told they would kill your family if you ever refused again or quit? I'm just curious. I agree with the spirit of the idea that following orders is not valid justification, but being under duress is a well-known and generally accepted justification for committing a crime. Can you shed any extra light on this?

> being under duress is a well-known and generally accepted justification for committing a crime

In what jurisdiction? duress (or necessity in general) is only rarely a valid defence in English law.

War criminals who would have been shot for abandoning their posts (almost all of the low-level guys fall into that category) have been, and continue to be, prosecuted for those crimes. It's not a hypothetical, it's still in the news.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/justice/nazi-charge-philadelph...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com