Something O'neil says in this episode.
"The whole concept of Chain of command undermins the concept of free will."
Superior Orders
(often known as the Nuremberg Defense or Lawful Orders) is a plea in a court of law that a soldier not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior office.[1] The superior orders plea is similar to the doctrine of respondeat superior in tort law where a superior is held liable for the actions of a subordinate, and the subordinate may escape liability.[2] Some legal scholars and war crimes tribunals will correlate the plea to the doctrine of respondeat superior; whereas others will distinguish the plea from the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The superior orders plea as often regarded as the complement to Command responsibility.
One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg Defense." The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. It was during these trials, under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set them up, that the defense of "Superior Orders" was no longer considered enough to escape punishment; but merely enough to lessen punishment.[4]
Historically, the plea of "Superior Orders" has been used both before and after the Nuremberg Trials, with a notable lack of consistency in various rulings.
I find it curious that O'Neil did not know this.
Every solider should know this.
"The whole concept of Chain of command undermins the concept of free will."
Superior Orders
(often known as the Nuremberg Defense or Lawful Orders) is a plea in a court of law that a soldier not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior office.[1] The superior orders plea is similar to the doctrine of respondeat superior in tort law where a superior is held liable for the actions of a subordinate, and the subordinate may escape liability.[2] Some legal scholars and war crimes tribunals will correlate the plea to the doctrine of respondeat superior; whereas others will distinguish the plea from the doctrine of respondeat superior.
The superior orders plea as often regarded as the complement to Command responsibility.
One of the most noted uses of this plea, or "defense," was by the accused in the 1945-46 Nuremberg Trials, such that it is also called the "Nuremberg Defense." The Nuremberg Trials were a series of military tribunals, held by the main victorious Allied forces of World War II, most notable for the prosecution of prominent members of the political, military, and economic leadership of the defeated Nazi Germany. It was during these trials, under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal which set them up, that the defense of "Superior Orders" was no longer considered enough to escape punishment; but merely enough to lessen punishment.[4]
Historically, the plea of "Superior Orders" has been used both before and after the Nuremberg Trials, with a notable lack of consistency in various rulings.
I find it curious that O'Neil did not know this.
Every solider should know this.
Comment