What happens when a soldier is given an unjust order uh and they think it's unjust do they
have a duty to disobey that order uh from what I understand from what I uh learned uh
the idea that a soldier is indeed that it is indeed the responsibility of a soldier
not to carry forward with a manifestly illegal order an unjust order is a very new thing
and it hasn't been clearly worked out in courts uh despite all of the international human
rights accords we have you say that it stems from a fellow named Lasso Oppenheim I gather
a German writer of the uh nineteen hundreds who who established the principle that a soldier
is excused if he's following orders that's about what it comes down to that's right that
was the the so called superior orders defense was pretty much accepted from what I understand
it was part of the US military code the British military code all western countries kind of
had this idea that if a soldier got orders to do something they are not responsible uh
then we had World War II and the Nuremberg trials and we had the case of well how are
we going to hold Nazis responsible for what they did and the codes were revised so now
it is recognized that you can't simply invoke superior orders that sometimes you get an
order that is manifestly illegal but there's still a lot legally and morally to work out
you know that was one of the reasons I expect why a lot of people took umbrage against the
Nuremberg trials not necessarily not even at all because they wanted to protect Nazis
but because they said you're invoking a new law which didn't exist before to which my
answer is so what well right I mean maybe maybe the the the lesson to be drawn from
that is that the previous law and the legal regime was a flawed one uh well and worse
than flawed it was an immoral turned out to be to be an immoral regime and yet that immorality
was used as the defense I was just following orders gimme a break now who knows what that's
going to mean for our country in the next ten or fifteen or twenty years because there's
been a strong movement to say that whatever we did if you disagree with it you must nonetheless
reckon with the fact people were doing what they were ordered to do by from the very highest
levels that's right I mean let's let's take the example of officially sanctioned torture
during the Bush era uh no no-one has been held accountable prosecuted uh and one reason
for that is that uh uh people say those who uh defend the the lack of accountability say
well but this is what was sanctioned by the government so why was anyone uh why can't
anyone be held accountable I do believe that the people at the top hold the most responsibility
and we should we should you know clearly recognize that when people get orders there is a lot
of pressure to follow them but should that exonerate everyone of of accountability you
know this a kind of problem that arises throughout history in that people say well everybody
else thought this was the right thing to do and I couldn't stand against it and I was
just carrying out my duty well there comes a time when I would say when you have a greater
responsibility than merely to carry out your duty as you you know what is said to be your
duty and I think the greatest example of that in American history and this will win me no
plaudits believe me is Robert E Lee Robert E Lee should never have gone with the South
he should never have fought against the Union but the uh argument was well he is a southerner
it's his family well other members of his family his cousin Samuel Lee I think his name
was was a Union Admiral and these tragic things occur and I think a lot of people simply make
the wrong decision about it This excerpt is brought to you by the Massachusetts School
of Law