That’s not accurate. Germany had a strict top-down chain of military command, hence the Nuremberg trials defense of “just following orders.”
The Nuremberg trials, like most international laws were an invention of convenience. If someone attempted to apply them to US action in a foreign intervention today, they would not be successful. In fact the US has stated that they would sooner invade a system like the ICC than allow them to prosecute anyone in the military.
After the trials, the US military was redesigned with a break above the Commanding Officer. The CO must verify the legality and constitutionality of orders before giving orders to the troops, just as it’s the responsibility of the troops to refuse to follow illegal or unconstitutional orders.
This may be a fact in doctrine, but in practice the military has historically has failed to fulfill this particular commitment. There have been several examples of US troops committing illegal actions commanded by officers without legal retribution.
You can refuse to follow orders you think are illegal, but more often than not it’s a career ending action or punishable offense if not proven in court…and military court is not exactly a non biased apparatus of justice.
This system depends on young soldiers with minimal educations and rights to stand up to a system that has an immencse amount of control over their lives. A system that has proven to defend higher command and officers in most cases, and to defend its overall image over anything.
Even higher commands ability to stand up to the commander in chief is limited, we can see this in the news today with active duty military members being deployed state side to conduct what is fairly obvious policing actions in LA and on the US border in a direct violation of posse comitatus.
My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
What does any of that have to do with my original point of Trump not the necessary having abject loyalty of the military to use it as force against the people? You’re arguing a completely different point now about technicalities, and haven’t substantiated a counterargument against my point. Are you just in the debating mood?
Lol, my response was that you do not need abject loyalty in order to have the military use force against your own population. As I already stated Hitler never achieved abject loyalty over the military and regularly used the SS to oppress dissonance within Germany.
You then went on to claim that America is different because the Nuremberg trial made it to where soldiers could refuse illegal orders. I then responded with examples of why that wasn’t a valid argument.
Every one of my rebuttals have been direct responses to your claims, I even quoted what I was responding to…
You’re missing the part where the non-loyal German soldiers would face harsh consequences, including execution, for failing to follow orders. That returns us to my original point about the top-down military.
The Nuremberg trials, like most international laws were an invention of convenience. If someone attempted to apply them to US action in a foreign intervention today, they would not be successful. In fact the US has stated that they would sooner invade a system like the ICC than allow them to prosecute anyone in the military.
This may be a fact in doctrine, but in practice the military has historically has failed to fulfill this particular commitment. There have been several examples of US troops committing illegal actions commanded by officers without legal retribution.
You can refuse to follow orders you think are illegal, but more often than not it’s a career ending action or punishable offense if not proven in court…and military court is not exactly a non biased apparatus of justice.
This system depends on young soldiers with minimal educations and rights to stand up to a system that has an immencse amount of control over their lives. A system that has proven to defend higher command and officers in most cases, and to defend its overall image over anything.
Even higher commands ability to stand up to the commander in chief is limited, we can see this in the news today with active duty military members being deployed state side to conduct what is fairly obvious policing actions in LA and on the US border in a direct violation of posse comitatus.
You’re using an argument for the exceptions as the rule. It’s wildly sensationalist.
Out of 4,100 National Guard members and 700 Marines dispatched to LA, there has been one detainment of a US citizen, and no arrests. Detainment is currently being debated as a possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-marines-carry-out-first-known-detention-civilian-los-angeles-video-shows-2025-06-13/
There are also many instances of the National Guard laying down their riot shields, and even taking a knee to support citizens in peaceful protest. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2020/06/02/tennessee-national-guard-troops-lay-down-riot-shields-at-protesters-request/
The US has not signed the Rome Statute, and is therefore not beholden to the laws of the ICC unless in a nation that has signed said agreement.
My entire point was that the rules that are supposed to protect the general population are often interpreted to serve those in power. Posse Comitatus is supposed to negate the use of military members from being used for policing on US soil.
Meaning that the definition of policing is being semantically interpreted as “arresting people” when in reality policing is defined as prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order.
What other purpose can the military be utilized against the general public other than to maintain public order?
First of all, the national guard are not active duty military personnel and can and are utilized in state policing actions. Secondly, laying down shields is not disobeying a direct order. Lastly we have historic examples of national guard members committing massacares against non violent protestors.
My point was that international law a kin to those laid down by the Nuremberg trials do not protect us from fascist utilizing the military against us.
Your claim was that we were granted protections via the establishment of the Nuremberg principals…the Nuremberg principals are now moderated by the ICC via the 1999 Rome statute.
You are just proving my point for me. Internal laws are subject to interpretation via those who currently hold power (fascist), and external laws are inventions of convenience that we do not and have never allowed to truly moderate our countries behavior. My original claim stands, that we are not really in a much different scenario than in Hitler’s Germany.
What does any of that have to do with my original point of Trump not the necessary having abject loyalty of the military to use it as force against the people? You’re arguing a completely different point now about technicalities, and haven’t substantiated a counterargument against my point. Are you just in the debating mood?
Lol, my response was that you do not need abject loyalty in order to have the military use force against your own population. As I already stated Hitler never achieved abject loyalty over the military and regularly used the SS to oppress dissonance within Germany.
You then went on to claim that America is different because the Nuremberg trial made it to where soldiers could refuse illegal orders. I then responded with examples of why that wasn’t a valid argument.
Every one of my rebuttals have been direct responses to your claims, I even quoted what I was responding to…
You’re missing the part where the non-loyal German soldiers would face harsh consequences, including execution, for failing to follow orders. That returns us to my original point about the top-down military.