[PassedOut]

Codo, on Nov 29 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

Roland, you make quite a strong statement here, and I'm curious about your basis for writing it. In fact, it looks so wrong to me that I think I may not be understanding you correctly.

It seems to me that outside of the military, following orders has long been a discretionary matter in civilized society. And the Nuremberg trials established that blindly following orders is not acceptable in the military either.

While it's generally useful to follow orders to maintain a well-functioning society, we've always (in my opinion) relied upon people to subvert authority, when necessary, by refusing to follow unjust or oppressive or just plain stupid orders. On a major level in modern history, we've had people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. And on a minor level we've had millions of normal people who stand against the excesses of those in authority.

The Green case we are discussing here looks to me like it fits squarely within the latter group.

[gwnn]

what did the milgram experiments prove, if they proved anything?

[Codo]

PassedOut, on Nov 30 2008, 11:55 PM, said:

Codo, on Nov 29 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

Roland, you make quite a strong statement here, and I'm curious about your basis for writing it. In fact, it looks so wrong to me that I think I may not be understanding you correctly.

It seems to me that outside of the military, following orders has long been a discretionary matter in civilized society. And the Nuremberg trials established that blindly following orders is not acceptable in the military either.

While it's generally useful to follow orders to maintain a well-functioning society, we've always (in my opinion) relied upon people to subvert authority, when necessary, by refusing to follow unjust or oppressive or just plain stupid orders. On a major level in modern history, we've had people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. And on a minor level we've had millions of normal people who stand against the excesses of those in authority.

The Green case we are discussing here looks to me like it fits squarely within the latter group.

Richard made a quite short statement. I guess it is not his opinion that to follow rules and orders is always wrong, because this would be plain stupid and not workable in any society.

Nor did I meant that blindly following rules and orders is the right way. Of course this is not.
But I guess that most of us do follow more orders in their life then breaking them and they do not even realize how many orders these are.
F.E. You cannot play any game if you do not follow the order how to play it. However, our form of bridge had never been developed if anybody had always followed the rules of Whist.

And I guess that Ghandi, to take your example had been less successful when his fellowers had not followed his orders where and when to demonstrate but had choosen the time and place for their own.

So following the rules makes a society/company/any group of people work. But you are responsable for what you are doing and which rules and orders you follow.

This is what Nuremberg and the milgram experiment showed.

[PassedOut]

Codo, on Nov 30 2008, 11:27 AM, said:

So following the rules makes a society/company/any group of people work. But you are responsable for what you are doing and which rules and orders you follow.

This is what Nuremberg and the milgram experiment showed.

Thanks, Roland. I agree.

[blackshoe]

Codo, on Nov 30 2008, 09:30 AM, said:

Stupid me, I did not know that the beginning of civilization was 1945 in Germany.

Neither did I. Ya ask me, "civilization" hasn't happened yet.

[helene_t]

gwnn, on Nov 30 2008, 04:34 PM, said:

what did the milgram experiments prove, if they proved anything?

Good question. I really don't know. Since it is very contra-intuitive (or, maybe more precisely, contrary to what I would like to believe) I am inclined to say that it doesn't prove much.

Of course there is scope for some very cynic interpretations. Such as that morality is nothing more than a "it wasn't my fault" mentality.

[blackshoe]

One thing Nuremberg has given those in the military (well, the US military, anyway) is the clear statement that if you obey an illegal order, you are not absolved of the illegality because your superior issued the order. OTOH, if you refuse to obey an order on the grounds that in your opinion it's illegal, and the almost inevitable court-martial later determines the order was legal, you're screwed, because disobedience of a legal order is a serious offense in the military. So if you think an order is illegal, you better be damned sure you're right. You're staking your career, your freedom, and possibly your life on that judgement.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on Nov 30 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

One thing Nuremberg has given those in the military (well, the US military, anyway) is the clear statement that if you obey an illegal order, you are not absolved of the illegality because your superior issued the order. OTOH, if you refuse to obey an order on the grounds that in your opinion it's illegal, and the almost inevitable court-martial later determines the order was legal, you're screwed, because disobedience of a legal order is a serious offense in the military. So if you think an order is illegal, you better be damned sure you're right. You're staking your career, your freedom, and possibly your life on that judgement.

Good point another lesson of Nuremberg was that the overwhelming numbers who followed an illegal order in Germany were never tried or punished. In fact the numbers are even less for those in Japan after WWII as rebuilding these countries and containing Russia was thought a higher priority than going after those who committed war crimes.

Of course we can just ignore the War crimes of the Allies. Russians may have raped a million women, girls and boys. Allied soldiers shot the wounded. Slave labor was sent to the Gulag to work and die.

As for the UK, it has for a very long time very restrictive rules compared to other countries regarding what can or cannot be printed or released. Compare the Pentagon Papers case here in the USA to what would happen in the UK and its press.

[kenberg]

From Helene's reference:

"To send a squad of counter terrorist officers to arrest an MP shows the growing police contempt for Parliament and democratic politics," he said.

"The police now believe that MPs are so reduced in public status that they are fair game for over-excited officers to order dawn raids, arrests and searches of confidential files held by MPs or those who work for them.

"I am not sure this is good for British democracy."


To me it seems pretty clear that what has really upset the folks in Parliament is that they arrested a member of Parliament. The nerve of these coppers. They are supposed to arrest the common blokes, not the good people serving in Parliament.

So it is everywhere.

As to the Nuremberg trials and following orders: Albert Speer was just a foot-soldier following orders? Please. We don't really want our cops making a lot of decisions about which laws they will enforce and against whom. We do want to hold our legislative leaders responsible for the laws that are passed.

[mike777]

Speaking of those who create or follow illegal orders I wanted to add a few things about Lincoln.


Lincoln basically faced WAR the entire time he served as President, from the time he was sworn in until he was killed. Lincoln is Mr. Obama's favorite President and Mr. Obama will enter office in a time of WAR.

I do not condone illegal war orders and bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior but the issuing and following of these orders may be alot more common then we remember in times of war or crises. For instance some of the things going on at the Federal Reserve seem to be of dubious legality but everyone, everyone including Congress, seem to be looking the other way.

Here are just a few of the illegal War orders that Lincoln created and people followed:

1) April 14th 1961 Fort Sumter surrendered. On May 3, issued a call for 3-year volunteers and increased the permanent size of the army and navy all by executive order. This was illegal per Article I, Section 7.
2) April 19 he ordered a blockade of the Confederate Ports, blockade is an act of war. Only Congress has the power to declare war.
3) He ordered the Treasury to give 2 million dollars to 3 men in NY to purchase arms and vessels. This order contravened Article I, Section 9.

There are many other examples but this is what Lincoln believed, "by these and other similar measures taken in that crises, some of which were without authority of law, the government was saved from overthrow".


BTW, later, after the fact, Congress would ok many of these acts as would the Supreme Court which by that time was packed with Lincoln appointees.

[helene_t]

kenberg, on Nov 30 2008, 10:25 PM, said:

They are supposed to arrest the common blokes, not the good people serving in Parliament.

Right. To preserve our democracy we need to make sure that politicians are immune. Berlusconi is our man

[Al_U_Card]

Ahhhh, politicians are crooks with IMMUNITY!

[shintaro]

Surely the main issue in this case is "Did they need to arrest this politician in order to ask him questions"?

The answer would seem to be No they did not


I am merely waiting for the edict from Brown and his cronies that we will all have to be Microchipped so that they can monitor us 24/7 :

[Al_U_Card]

Seems to me that the UK is the most "surveiled" country in the world considering all the video cameras....

(A camera that shows who is behind you at an ATM makes sense. Catching speeders and reckless drivers.....maybe but just being able to watch me go about my daily business????

[H_KARLUK]

“The jean! The jean is the destructor! It is a dictator! It is destroying creativity. The jean must be stopped!” Pierre Cardin

“I'm not a dictator. It's just that I have a grumpy face.” Augusto Pinochet

"All systems are capitalist. It's just a matter of who owns and controls the capital -- ancient king, dictator, or private individual. We should properly be looking at the contrast between a free market system where individuals have the right to live like kings if they have the ability to earn that right and government control of the market system such as we find today in socialist nations.” Ronald Reagan, the fortieth President of the United States (1981- 1989).

“There can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.” George W. Bush , 43rd US President (Hmm, I am told once CA or some another gifted him a golden key of State and announced as Honorary member- hope i m fooled by gossips here)

Really, a dictator is an authoritarian ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power without hereditary ascension such as an absolute monarch or something else new?

Btw, how abt ancient Rome's "Caesar" ? Weren't there a "Senate" and "Senators" confirmed him with an "emergency and limitted period" excuse ?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Obama will enter office in a time of WAR.

Quote

I do not condone illegal war orders

These statements seem at odds.

Regardless of common language usage by media and others, the U.S. is in no declared state of war. Congress has not declared war since WWII.

Invasions - that the Bush Doctrine calls for as preemptive actions - were viewed by Nuremberg to be war crimes. If they are war crimes, all orders must be illegal.

So it would seem that without a declared war, any war orders issued must be illegal.

I realize this is not the commonly-thought view and that even judiciaries have ruled in favor of non-war wars, but that does not make the concept right. The U.S. Supreme Court in its not-so-glorious-past ruled that seperate but equal was legal, thus legalizing discrimination based on race. And the Constitution is clear that only Congress can declare war.

[H_KARLUK]

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. ~Bertrand Russell

What this planet needs is more mistletoe and less missile-talk. ~Author Unknown

[Winstonm]

I think this Ministry could help the problem.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=IqhlQfXUk7w

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Dec 1 2008, 02:35 PM, said:

So it would seem that without a declared war, any war orders issued must be illegal.

No. You neglect the case where a nation is attacked without notice and without provocation. FDR asked Congress to declare war on Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but the attack made that declaration unnecessary - and any war orders issued thereafter legal (absent other considerations) even if there had been no declaration. Nations, like individuals, have a right to self-defense.

[Al_U_Card]

Do self-inflicted wounds count?