Originally Posted by
AmericanPride
I take issue with this because the Nuremburg Trials clearly established that a soldier's obedience to political orders is not a sufficient defense against charges of wars of aggression and crimes against humanity. The scope of international law is only expanding. The idea of a unquestioning military leadership is appropriate for 19th century states where no higher international legal regime existed that held individuals accountable for their actions. If a U.S. president ordered a war of aggression against a foreign state, should the military leadership obey that order?