The "I was just following orders" defense has been refuted by the United States in the past, not embraced as it is today. In the 1940's, many Nazis said that they were following legal orders and should not be responsible for all kinds of atrocities. You may argue that the magnitude of destruction was much greater back then, and it was, but the argument is the same: should those who break the law while following orders of a commander be held responsible.
While I would like to argue that everyone is given free will and should be judged on his or her actions alone, regardless of the source of direction, that may not be the case. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram showed that obedience to authority can reach unprecedented levels, in which someone will torture and even kill another human being simply because they are told to do so, even if they completely disagree with it.
I can't simply say that the "orders" defense is invalid, but the fact remains that most of these CIA agents could have objected at anytime and simply given up their jobs.
Which is why we should seek prosecutions and let the courts decide.
1 comment:
The following orders thing is definitely bullshit and I agree to torture if innocent people had been tortured. When it comes to the War on Terror, these guys were dealing with bad people who know other bad people and deserved to be tortured.
Post a Comment