Assault on the Capitol (DC)

[bob]

Didn't Nuremberg establish "I was only following orders," is not a valid defense?

The Nuremberg judges essentially rejected that defense, yes.

But there was a trial after WWII only because the Big Three (plus France) wanted one. There was no established court, no precedent that the judges were required to follow. While the process created a historical precedent for international criminal law, like all things political, it can and has been ignored when inconvenient.

The Nuremberg trials undoubtedly influenced the creation and role of the International Criminal Court, for example. But the United States does not recognize that court's jurisdiction.

[Slim Cognito]

Thanks Bob! We appreciate you!

[pipistrelle]

Let’s say that Trump actually did have irrefutable evidence that the election was rigged and stolen. There’s a remedy for that, and it does not involve storming the capitol.

But that's not as much FUN!

I'm guessing our boy isn't liking even minimum security prison.

[Maybenaut]

Outside of an Executive Order, which applies only to the Executive Branch, I doubt a sitting President has the authority to “order” anyone, military or civilian, to do anything.

ETA: I’m talking about ordinary people, not Cabinet members or people who work directly for the White House.

[p0rtia]

So, sue them.

All the actually cool kids are doing it.

[realist]

Didn't Nuremberg establish "I was only following orders," is not a valid defense?

The Nuremberg judges essentially rejected that defense, yes.

But there was a trial after WWII only because the Big Three (plus France) wanted one. There was no established court, no precedent that the judges were required to follow. While the process created a historical precedent for international criminal law, like all things political, it can and has been ignored when inconvenient.

The Nuremberg trials undoubtedly influenced the creation and role of the International Criminal Court, for example. But the United States does not recognize that court's jurisdiction.

But the courthouse is very pretty. And also very small.

[AndyinPA]

It is very pretty and very small, but I've only seen it from the outside.

[keith]

Didn't Nuremberg establish "I was only following orders," is not a valid defense?

The Nuremberg judges essentially rejected that defense, yes.

But there was a trial after WWII only because the Big Three (plus France) wanted one. There was no established court, no precedent that the judges were required to follow. While the process created a historical precedent for international criminal law, like all things political, it can and has been ignored when inconvenient.

The Nuremberg trials undoubtedly influenced the creation and role of the International Criminal Court, for example. But the United States does not recognize that court's jurisdiction.

I believe it is baked into the UCMJ and is implied in the RICO laws, correct?

[Maybenaut]

Didn't Nuremberg establish "I was only following orders," is not a valid defense?

The Nuremberg judges essentially rejected that defense, yes.

But there was a trial after WWII only because the Big Three (plus France) wanted one. There was no established court, no precedent that the judges were required to follow. While the process created a historical precedent for international criminal law, like all things political, it can and has been ignored when inconvenient.

The Nuremberg trials undoubtedly influenced the creation and role of the International Criminal Court, for example. But the United States does not recognize that court's jurisdiction.

I believe it is baked into the UCMJ and is implied in the RICO laws, correct?

I don’t know about RICO, but with the UCMJ, the issue is whether the order is lawful. If the order is lawful, you have a duty to follow it. If the order is unlawful, you have a duty to disobey it. There’s really no middle ground.

[Ben-Prime]

The Nuremberg judges essentially rejected that defense, yes.

But there was a trial after WWII only because the Big Three (plus France) wanted one. There was no established court, no precedent that the judges were required to follow. While the process created a historical precedent for international criminal law, like all things political, it can and has been ignored when inconvenient.

The Nuremberg trials undoubtedly influenced the creation and role of the International Criminal Court, for example. But the United States does not recognize that court's jurisdiction.

I believe it is baked into the UCMJ and is implied in the RICO laws, correct?

I don’t know about RICO, but with the UCMJ, the issue is whether the order is lawful. If the order is lawful, you have a duty to follow it. If the order is unlawful, you have a duty to disobey it. There’s really no middle ground.

I've always wondered but never asked: what if the order is impossible? Does that make it unlawful on its face? I ask because I used to joke that my job (and I think I have shared this joke here, but I could be wrong) is about managing expectations, and that if my CEO (or Ambassador, now) asks me to build a bridge to the moon by Thursday next, it doesn't matter that it's impossible: my job is either to get it done or to manage the expectation that it cannot be done within the constraints I have; and as part of the latter, if asked, to present findings within a reasonable period of time as to what would be needed to get around those constraints.

Is this the same in the military? Or are impossible orders ("Soldier, sweep all the sand off of this beach") still lawful with no recourse?

[Mr brolin]

IIRC, the issue is very specific to whether the order is lawful, not the levels of possibility...... Rules, Regulations, Law and Laws of War

"Soldier, go into the jungle and set an ambush to sneakily kill enemy combatants"........ Lawful
"Soldier, go into the jungle, find a village and kill any male between the ages of 15 and 60. 'cause one day they may be enemy combatants" .... Illegal

"Soldier, your failure to complete the course in the time alloted...Clean the parade ground to my satisfaction (no indication what satisfaction means) ".... Legal

"Soldier, your failure to complete the course in the time alloted...Clean the parade ground with your tongue" .... Illegal (bizarrely also due to being deliberate and malicious damage of military equipment.... the soldier)

[bill_g]

The next time I'm on trial for bank robbery, Imma gonna say my bank robber boss manipulated me because clearly I'm a dullard incapable of doing something like that on my own.

[Maybenaut]

I've always wondered but never asked: what if the order is impossible? Does that make it unlawful on its face? I ask because I used to joke that my job (and I think I have shared this joke here, but I could be wrong) is about managing expectations, and that if my CEO (or Ambassador, now) asks me to build a bridge to the moon by Thursday next, it doesn't matter that it's impossible: my job is either to get it done or to manage the expectation that it cannot be done within the constraints I have; and as part of the latter, if asked, to present findings within a reasonable period of time as to what would be needed to get around those constraints.

Is this the same in the military? Or are impossible orders ("Soldier, sweep all the sand off of this beach") still lawful with no recourse?

I think it’s unlawful on its face. We usually talk about lawfulness of orders in the context of consequences for failure to carry them out.

Also, in the military, whether a subordinate is in a position to manage the expectations of a superior is going to depend a great deal on the disparity in rank.

IIRC, the issue is very specific to whether the order is lawful, not the levels of possibility...... Rules, Regulations, Law and Laws of War

"Soldier, go into the jungle and set an ambush to sneakily kill enemy combatants"........ Lawful
"Soldier, go into the jungle, find a village and kill any male between the ages of 15 and 60. 'cause one day they may be enemy combatants" .... Illegal

"Soldier, your failure to complete the course in the time alloted...Clean the parade ground to my satisfaction (no indication what satisfaction means) ".... Legal

Probably not, if the superior is looking to hold the soldier accountable for failure to follow it.

"Soldier, your failure to complete the course in the time alloted...Clean the parade ground with your tongue" .... Illegal (bizarrely also due to being deliberate and malicious damage of military equipment.... the soldier)

Unlawful if the intent of the order is punitive rather than instructive. Also, in the U.S. military at least, people aren’t property. There’s an oft-repeated myth that you can be punished for getting a sunburn because of damage to military property. Theoretically, you can be punished for dereliction of duty to keep yourself healthy enough to work, but I’ve never seen it happen.

[raison de arizona]

New wave of Jan 6 arrests continues to grow

Kyle McMahan of Texas, an Air Force Reserve Staff Sgt, is charged with assaulting/resisting police. Justice Dept alleges video shows him "appearing to initiate four separate physical encounters with four different officers"

[Rolodex]

They get arrested and then run for office. They recognize a good grift when they see it.

[Dave from down under]

He still intends to destroy the republic from within the building

[Rolodex]

He still intends to destroy the republic from within the building

I'm sure that's the point. Hopefully the Dems will do a better oppo job than they did on Santos.

[realist]

It is very pretty and very small, but I've only seen it from the outside.

Too bad. It's small (I was really surprised how small, considering all the participants during the trials) but beautiful on the inside. I was fortunate enough to get a tour when on a Viking cruise. Included was a talk on the trial and the ins and outs of getting the prisoners to the courtroom, how crowded the room was with all the people involved, etc. It was very interesting.

I have some pics of it but for some reason could not get them to attach here.

[AndyinPA]

It is very pretty and very small, but I've only seen it from the outside.

Too bad. It's small (I was really surprised how small, considering all the participants during the trials) but beautiful on the inside. I was fortunate enough to get a tour when on a Viking cruise. Included was a talk on the trial and the ins and outs of getting the prisoners to the courtroom, how crowded the room was with all the people involved, etc. It was very interesting.

I have some pics of it but for some reason could not get them to attach here.

I was also on a Viking cruise, but it wasn't an option. Good for you! I'd love to see the inside.

[raison de arizona]

Sentencing this afternoon in the high-profile Jan 6 case of Alan Hostetter of California

Feds seek 12+ years prison, arguing "Hostetter chose not to fly, so that he could load his car with weapons"... had "war and revolution on his mind"

This photo is in court filing ====>

[Maybenaut]

It is very pretty and very small, but I've only seen it from the outside.

Too bad. It's small (I was really surprised how small, considering all the participants during the trials) but beautiful on the inside. I was fortunate enough to get a tour when on a Viking cruise. Included was a talk on the trial and the ins and outs of getting the prisoners to the courtroom, how crowded the room was with all the people involved, etc. It was very interesting.

I have some pics of it but for some reason could not get them to attach here.

I was also on a Viking cruise, but it wasn't an option. Good for you! I'd love to see the inside.

We had the option, but my husband wasn’t interested.

[Rolodex]

Sentencing this afternoon in the high-profile Jan 6 case of Alan Hostetter of California

Feds seek 12+ years prison, arguing "Hostetter chose not to fly, so that he could load his car with weapons"... had "war and revolution on his mind"

This photo is in court filing ====>

So this guy got sentenced to 135 months in prison. He argued his original case himself (found guilty by a jury) and argued his own case at sentencing. He's still down the rabbit hole. He said he thought the Ashli Babbit "killing" was a psy-op and that she's not really dead. Babbit's mom was in the courtroom. I hope some reporter asks her about that. I can't imaging why she was at this hearing, unless maybe to support this chud. But...oops.

[Slim Cognito]

The DOJ didn’t let Johnson blur the images of the two hatchets first? I’m sure he’s clutching his pearls.

[raison de arizona]

Hostetter failed to read the room. Also, he's a wack job poot.

The Jan 6 defendant… a former police chief.. unleashed a series of conspiracy theories as he sought leniency

Then the judge handed down one of the longest sentences issued so far

My latest ====>

[Dave from down under]

Giving convicted violent criminals who are domestic terrorists a month prior to jail to vent their anger at society awash in firearms may not be the best decision…