NationStates Jolt Archive

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

- Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you consider this to be a true assessment?

How about crimes against peace and humanity if you feel you are working for the greater good?

Do you consider this to be a true assessment?

Yes, and it's still in force today. "I had no choice, I was obeying X" is not an excuse for crimes against humanity - just look at the Balkans.

How about crimes against peace and humanity if you feel you are working for the greater good?

Ah! But that's where the closing argument of the Declaration of Human Rights comes in: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Yes, and it's still in force today. "I had no choice, I was obeying X" is not an excuse for crimes against humanity - just look at the Balkans.

What about situations where individuals perform the actions under duress? Is fear of punishment a valid excuse?

What about situations where individuals perform the actions under duress? Is fear of punishment a valid excuse?

That would have been covered by the "following orders" defense. If you don't follow orders, you could possibly even get shot. It is still no excuse.

What about situations where individuals perform the actions under duress? Is fear of punishment a valid excuse?

Nope. It didn't work as an excuse for Nazis, and it still doesn't work as an excuse for anyone.

That would have been covered by the "following orders" defense. If you don't follow orders, you could possibly even get shot. It is still no excuse.

So someone is responsible for a crime if they are forced to do it?

You have mixed up actions which are genuinely for the greater good with the usage of the concept of doing something immediately evil for "greater good".

Doing something evil for the genuine greater good is good. For instance if you start a war which may end the lives of 200000 people, but end a despotism that if left untouched would kill and subjugate millions in the future, you are doing good. Even though you have killed 200000 people.

Standing around and doing nothing whilst people are being tortured is as bad as torturing them yourself. Cops who shoot hostage takers and save hostages are not prosecuted for murder due to this fact. It is simple mathematics. You kill a conspiracy to murder, but save 5 innocent people. 5 - 0.01 = 4.99. Positive.

"Genuine" is difficult to define however and here are many ideologies and religions that take advantage of this.

So someone is responsible for a crime if they are forced to do it?
They are, but the punishment is not the same. Nazi soldiers who were found guilty of war crimes didn't get the death penalty but some time in jail. Nazi leaders who ordered and organized war crimes were given the death penalty.

You have mixed up actions which are genuinely for the greater good with the usage of the concept of doing something immediately evil for "greater good".

Doing something evil for the genuine greater good is good. For instance if you start a war which may end the lives of 200000 people, but end a despotism that if left untouched would kill and subjugate millions in the future, you are doing good. Even though you have killed 200000 people.

Standing around and doing nothing whilst people are being tortured is as bad as torturing them yourself. Cops who shoot hostage takers and save hostages are not prosecuted for murder due to this fact. It is simple mathematics. You kill a conspiracy to murder, but save 5 innocent people. 5 - 0.01 = 4.99. Positive.

"Genuine" is difficult to define however and here are many ideologies and religions that take advantage of this.

What if torturing one small group of people leads to the safety of a large group of people?

They are, but the punishment is not the same. Nazi soldiers who were found guilty of war crimes didn't get the death penalty but some time in jail. Nazi leaders who ordered and organized war crimes were given the death penalty.

Contracts that are agreed to under duress are considered invalid, so why would other actions under duress be considered valid.

If someone holds a gun to your head and says "Execute this prisoner", can you truly be held accountable for your actions?

Doing something evil for the genuine greater good is good. For instance if you start a war which may end the lives of 200000 people, but end a despotism that if left untouched would kill and subjugate millions in the future, you are doing good. Even though you have killed 200000 people.

The problem is that you can't know how bad such a despotic regime will really be. You don't know what the long term consequences of war will be. You can assume, you can imagine, you can project, you can hope, but you can't know.


Standing around and doing nothing whilst people are being tortured is as bad as torturing them yourself. Cops who shoot hostage takers and save hostages are not prosecuted for murder due to this fact. It is simple mathematics. You kill a conspiracy to murder, but save 5 innocent people. 5 - 0.01 = 4.99. Positive.

Crime and police interventions to commit a crime are not a breach of human rights, and they're treated in a completely different way. Whenever cops shoot someone there's an investigation to determine whether that was the best action to take. Of course there's no prosecution unless there's good reason to believe that the police acted negligently or criminally.

I think fass is a fascist type, one of these people who think soliciting murder is not murder.

If you are unfortunate enough to be living in a despotism and you are conscripted and orderred to shoot prisoners of war, refusing to shoot them and getting executed yourself for not following orders does no good whatsoever. You won't be seen as a martyr, you will be seen as a traitor and those who do see you as a martyr are about to be shot. In terms of doing the most good, you would have to pull that trigger and wait for an opportunity to do something that actually makes a difference.

It's sort of like that politician in that american party who accepted some bribe, but didn't do what they were bribed to do, reported the conspiracy to the FBI and gave all the money to charity. They may have accepted a bribe, but their actions made a difference. Who knows where that money would have gone if he didn't accept the bribe.

I hear they bribe politicians after they perform their task nowadays..

What if torturing one small group of people leads to the safety of a large group of people?

Still a violation of Human Rights, and, thus, still unacceptable. The ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html) would want to have a word with you.

I think fass is a fascist type, one of these people who think soliciting murder is not murder.

You take that back, and you take that back right now! I have been arguing nothing of the sort, and I demand an apology for that comment! :mad:

I think fass is a fascist type, one of these people who think soliciting murder is not murder.
*laughs at you*

Contracts that are agreed to under duress are considered invalid, so why would other actions under duress be considered valid.

If someone holds a gun to your head and says "Execute this prisoner", can you truly be held accountable for your actions?
I'm not familiar with the law or precedent for these cases, but I imagine that the punishment is very light when something like this happens. I suppose there's still some punishment because they don't want it to become a excuse in future cases.

The trials in Rwanda are proving groundbreaking and precedent setting for this kind of acts.

Still a violation of Human Rights, and, thus, still unacceptable. The ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/about.html) would want to have a word with you.

I know your stance on that, I just wanted to see what argument he/she would put up.

The opening post brings up a good question...But as you know USA has the right to bear arms. The whole reason we have that law is so we can rise up against our government if it abuses it's power, thats what the founding fathers intended it to be so we have the responsibilty with what we put up with and cooperate with.

You take that back, and you take that back right now! I have been arguing nothing of the sort, and I demand an apology for that comment! :mad:

There you go being a fascist again. :p

Contracts that are agreed to under duress are considered invalid, so why would other actions under duress be considered valid.

If someone holds a gun to your head and says "Execute this prisoner", can you truly be held accountable for your actions?


...yes. You can choose to do nothing, get shot and someone else will execute the prisoner. Or you can pull the trigger, kill a man, and get shot at a later time.

Either way, outcome is essentially the same, but in one you decided to kill another person and in another you didn't.

Legally however... that's a tough one. I don't think there's a clear answer, which is why questions like these are so profitable to law services.

...yes. You can choose to do nothing, get shot and someone else will execute the prisoner. Or you can pull the trigger, kill a man, and get shot at a later time.

Either way, outcome is essentially the same, but in one you decided to kill another person and in another you didn't.


But concerning military service, the outcomes are actually far different. When serving your country, following along often leads to reward, while obstructing sometimes would automatically mean death.

You sound very much like generals who were responsible for war crimes and tried to shift the blame to their soldiers, the type of thing that deserves a *cough*bull*cough* during the tribunal.

Whether it was some paranoid soldier or genocidal general, whoever made the decision should be punished, you can't just blame the people who pulled the trigger. Of course as Santa Barbara said, finding out who was responsible is the hard part.

I agree with the sentiment behind the statement. It's simply nice to think that we can transcend our base concerns of life and limb, and be courageous and compasionate beings.

But, technically speaking, no we do not have a duty. In the U.S., we usually do not even have a duty to our fellow citizens, forget citizens of other nations.

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience…therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

- Nuremberg War Crime Tribunal, 1950
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you consider this to be a true assessment?

How about crimes against peace and humanity if you feel you are working for the greater good?

I somewhat disagree and agree-if my goverment is commiting a wholesale massacre, I would peacefully protest. However, if it was wholesale executions of someone who deserved it-you know who-I'd say go ahead, no trouble from me.

I somewhat disagree and agree-if my goverment is commiting a wholesale massacre, I would peacefully protest. However, if it was wholesale executions of someone who deserved it-you know who-I'd say go ahead, no trouble from me.

But how can you decide who deserves it? The WW II Germans decided, in their own perverse way, that the Jews deserved wholesale executions.

So someone is responsible for a crime if they are forced to do it?
If you rob a store under the threat of physical violence, you can be excused. If you murder someone under the same threat, I think the majority rule is that you are responsible. It may be mitigated, but the idea is that you should die rather than commit a murder.

If you rob a store under the threat of physical violence, you can be excused. If you murder someone under the same threat, I think the majority rule is that you are responsible. It may be mitigated, but the idea is that you should die rather than commit a murder.

I can say affirmatively that I would rather kill a stranger than die.

I agree with the sentiment behind the statement. It's simply nice to think that we can transcend our base concerns of life and limb, and be courageous and compasionate beings.

But, technically speaking, no we do not have a duty. In the U.S., we usually do not even have a duty to our fellow citizens, forget citizens of other nations.


Well, technically the duty does exist, americans are just guilty of its craven, shameful dereliction :)