FARK calls this "Best Chewbacca Defense of the New Year:"

[theweaselking]

Forcing naked Iraqi prisoners to pile themselves in human pyramids was not torture, because American cheerleaders do it every year, a court was told today.

Apart from arguing that the methods were not illegal, Graner’s defence is that he was following orders from superiors. Mr Womack said: "He was doing his job. Following orders and being praised for it."

The chief prosecutor, Major Michael Holley, asked rhetorically,"Did the accused honestly believe that was a lawful order?"

The Bush Administration has said that the actions were those of a small group and were not part of a policy or condoned by senior officers.

But investigations have shown that many prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba also suffered abusive treatment after the Government considered ways to obtain information in the war against terrorism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the soldiers of the US Military are trying *the Nuremburg Defense*.

This is sad, but at least they're pointing out that yes, the orders to do this DID come from above, and the people who claim otherwise are lying... again.

Comments

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I know that following an unlawful order is illegal according to the UCMJ (or, whatever it is), but is giving an unlawful order illegal?
If not, why not?
Also, even if following an unlawful order is illegal, I bet there's some clause somewhere that takes away a soldier's right to determine for his or herself the lawfulness of an order. Which means they're fucked. Which is bullshit.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Following an unlawful order is not itself illegal.

Committing an unlawful act is illegal. An unlawful order is one that causes you to commit an illegal act - "I was following orders" does not protect you from the consequences of committing the illegal act, and it is the responsibility of the soldier to obey the law and to disobey an order to break the law.

Of course, if the court says the order was lawful, and you disobeyed, you're fucked. If the court says the act was unlawful and you obeyed an order to do it, obeying an order is not a valid defense.

Adam can probably point out more details, since he's in the Navy and I'm a Canadian civilian who just likes military fiction and history.

[spartonian.livejournal.com]

You've got it right. There have to be obvious ethical/moral problems with the order for it to be considered unlawful. However, the judicial process can be very confusing and difficult depending on what/where/to whom the infraction happened.

If Rumsfeld authorized torture against the Iraqi POW's, he can only claim to have been following orders if he implicates the Pres or VP. If a PFC or Corporal does this, it implicates everyone in his chain of command, which does, as crazy as it sounds, include members of the Administration. So... where does the order(if there was one...) originate?

Another problem is stupid service members claiming an order was unlawful simply because they think its unlawful. Of course, when this happens, you just bust out the appropriate literature, since everything in the US military has tomes of literature on, well, everything.

[publius1.livejournal.com]

The defense really does have the worst job on the planet, on this one. I guess that they figured that any possible defense was guaranteed to upset someone, so why not go with the absolutely most offensive Limbaughesque strategy possible?