by Summary:
DURING THE NUREMBERG TRIALS after World War II, several Nazis, including top German generals Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, claimed they were not guilty of the tribunal’s charges because they had been acting at the directive of their superiors.Ever since, this justification has been popularly known as the “Nuremberg defense,” in which the accused states they were “only following orders.” The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged. The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: CIA, Gina Haspel, international law, Nuremberg defense, torture, United Nations International Law Commission
This could be interesting, too:
DURING THE NUREMBERG TRIALS after World War II, several Nazis, including top German generals Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, claimed they were not guilty of the tribunal’s charges because they had been acting at the directive of their superiors.Ever since, this justification has been popularly known as the “Nuremberg defense,” in which the accused states they were “only following orders.” The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged. The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: CIA, Gina Haspel, international law, Nuremberg defense, torture, United Nations International Law Commission
This could be interesting, too:
Mike Norman writes State-Sponsored Commercial Espionage: The Global Theft of Ideas — Larry Romanoff
Mike Norman writes Ray McGovern — CIA: Mission Accomplished; Americans Believe What We Tell Them
Mike Norman writes America’s Economic Blockades and International Law — America’s Economic Blockades and International Law—Jeffrey D. Sachs
Mike Norman writes TASS — Russian embassy alarmed by London’s plans to shift focus of UK special forces
DURING THE NUREMBERG TRIALS after World War II, several Nazis, including top German generals Alfred Jodl and Wilhelm Keitel, claimed they were not guilty of the tribunal’s charges because they had been acting at the directive of their superiors.
Ever since, this justification has been popularly known as the “Nuremberg defense,” in which the accused states they were “only following orders.”
The Nuremberg judges rejected the Nuremberg defense, and both Jodl and Keitel were hanged. The United Nations International Law Commission later codified the underlying principle from Nuremberg as “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 is likely the most famous declaration in the history of international law and is as settled as anything possibly can be.
However, many members of the Washington, D.C. elite are now stating that it, in fact, is a legitimate defense for American officials who violate international law to claim they were just following orders....American exceptionalism, you see. "If we do it, it's legal. If others do it, it's illegal." A variant was Nixon's, "If the president does it, it's legal."
The Intercept
Washington Breaks Out The “Just Following Orders” Nazi Defense For Cia Director-Designate Gina Haspel
Jon Schwartz
also
“Everyone at the CIA in the post-Sept. 11 era was simply doing what they were asked to do in the aftermath of a crisis.” —General Michael Hayden, former NSA and CIA Director
“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.” — The United Nations International Law Commission
Intel Today