Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
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?
AP, that's an interesting question. It was not my intent to go down that road, I was talking more in generalities. It should not matter if we are supporting a democracy or a dictator, only that it is in the interest of National Secuirty.

However, looking at waterboarding and other methods that could/should be considered torture under the Convention Against Toruture, is it not fair to say that we have already crossed that bridge - that the government has ordered Soldiers to either torture suspects or be complacient in that torture (at least until someone dies and it becomes public) [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_...risoner_abuse]. I suppose it only matters if you lose.