[Springfield Reformer]

So distinguish your proposition from the Nuremburg defense. I’m just trying to understand. Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders. If that’s the case, simply reciting the same canard they used for their defense as if it were a stand-alone universal truth seems highly suspect. There must be a better, more complete answer out there than some hypothetically unconditional obligation to always follow the orders of a superior officer.

[curiosity]

Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders.

So are you claiming Lakin was being ordered to commit genocide?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Lakin wasn’t ordered to commit murder.

[Non-Sequitur]

Whenever these Lakin threads come up, someone always raises the question of whether “just obeying orders” theory works for this situation, and no one ever seems to address head on how it is that at Nuremburg the defendants were held responsible for wrong-doing despite their otherwise legitimate orders.

The Manual of Courts Martial states, "An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime." Mass murder is a crime. Shooting unarmed civilians is a crime. Robbing a bank is a crime. All are violations of international law and being ordered to do any of those acts is not a legitimate order. Being ordered to report to your brigade commander is not a crime, it is a performance of one's military duty. The Nuremburg Defense does not apply.

[Lurking Libertarian]

There must be a better, more complete answer out there than some hypothetically unconditional obligation to always follow the orders of a superior officer.

Although I am a lawyer, I am not a military lawyer, so someone with more expertise may correct me. Having said that, my understanding is that, under the UCMJ, it is a defense to a prosecution for disobeying orders that the order was illegal. In a court martial, the judge (not the jury) decides if the order was legal or illegal; if the judge decides it was legal, the jury decides if the defendant disobeyed it.