The Nuremberg Defence is a legal argument essentially arguing that the defendant’s were only “following orders” of their superiors. So, please inform all of us WHY those US interrogators who ostensibly “tortured” those incarcerated at GitMo and elsewhere that this argument stands when CLEARLY this argument has been put forward and dismissed before:
“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 States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defence, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/obama-admin-no-charges-ag_n_187837.html
The US Gov seems to be adopting the Sargeant Schultz philosophy; “I see nothing” and by ignoring the basic fundamentals argue that “it is OK” to torture prisoners at GitMo and elsewhere??
These US Government sanction acts of torture and “other criminal activity” including prison ships, extraordinary rendition and other acts of illegal removal/transport of people/suspects, many of whom have been released, never tried or convicted thereby exonerating them and therefore exacerbating the illegal activities of the US Government and their agencies and various operatives who have actively and wilfully engaged in these illegal torture activities around the world. This should spark hundreds of lawsuits against the US Government for their illegal actions.
