Talk:Nuremberg Defense

- Boyd Reimer (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge of nuremberg defense
Peersonally, I am against this move, since the nuremberg defense is, as far as I am aware, the legal term for this form of defense. The aformentioned article is also more international in it's tone as it currently stands. Rather, the merge should be in the opposite direction, making "Just following orders" a redirect to the nuremberg defense. LinaMishima 00:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to keep things organized, I propose that this discussion should occur all in one place (in the Talk Page of only one article, not two). To that end, to participate in this discussion, please follow this link: Talk:Superior_Orders. Thank you - Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eichmann

 * Adolf Eichmann, Wilhelm Keitel, and other Nazis tried at Nuremburg unsuccessfully used the defense during their trials.

This should be rephrased; Eichmann did not stand trial at Nuremberg, but in Israel in the 60's. I'll try to think of something. Naphra 21:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Keitel and Jodl

 * Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, and other Nazis

Rephrased this, neither Keitel nor Jodl were Nazis (their Nazi sympathies notwithstanding). Naphra 20:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Command responsibility
Reading Command responsibility and Nuremberg Defense side-by-side is confusing, not because they are so contradicting, but because neither really effectively called attention to the moral conflict. Each article should have a secion explaining the conflict in doctrines, and how this conflict is resolved in practice (ie, the scope of each etc). And if I'm really confused and there isn't actually conflict between the two ideas, this should also be made explicit enough to be understandable by a non-expert (like me!) --gwc 23:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest you read the article Victor's justice then. that should clear up any confusion that you may have. (nope, i am not cynical at all. ;)) --161.50.48.2 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it a correct term to use outside of a military context?
I had an argument with my local police as they set up roadblocks to randomly stop people and draw blood to test for drunk drivers. I felt that was unconstitutional as they weren't doing it based on erratic driving or some other reasonable suspicion. One of the officers offered a defense based on new laws like John Warner defense act and Patriot act, but the rest said exactly "I'm just following orders".

Is it correct to describe these officers as offering a nuremberg defense, or is this only a wartime thing, for more serious acts like killing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagonwheel99 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)