The Curse of the Lemming
Lessons From Nuremberg
The end of World War II saw a theretofore unprecedented event: criminal trials levied against the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and others who committed heinous atrocities against human beings. The upshot of the Nuremberg trials is that government officials at any level cannot fall back on an “I was only following orders” excuse. Each of us, individually, is responsible for our action!
Uuhhhh, That Pesky Constitution
As Americans, we have a document that serves as the foundation for our structure of law, government, and civil rights. It is entitled The Constitution of the United States. Not only is it the foundation, but it also serves as the guard-rail for government activity.
Many perceive the U. S. military as one of the most restrictive sub-cultures in the U. S. Yet within the Uniform Code of Military Justice is a recognition of the invalidity of “I was only following orders.”1 Military members are obligated to follow lawful orders, only. They are not subject to disciplinary action if they do not comply with an unlawful order.
Implied in any oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States,” or similar wording such as that which a sworn law enforcement officer takes, is that the oath-taker will act on lawful orders, only. That is, he or she will act on an order only when the order given does not violate the guard-rails established by the Constitution.
No Executive Exemption in the Bill of Rights
Although the range of authority granted by states to their governors varies in delineation and scope, the Bill of Rights grant only one exception to the rights reserved to the people. Amendment III grants that soldiers may be quartered in citizens’ homes only with their permission “in a manner to be prescribed by law.” No other suspension of the right of the people listed in the Bill of Rights is codified in the Constitution. Uuhhhh, that pesky Constitution, again.
So, it seems as though no government official can suspend any right of the people, and order subordinates to enforce unlawful commands. At best, where it concerns the right of the people as codified in the Bill of Rights, pleas for voluntary compliance are the sole recourse.
Oh, by the way: 18 U.S. Code § 242 “Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. . . .”
It seems that not only is a sworn official not obligated to enforce unlawful commands, under U. S. law he or she can be prosecuted for doing so.
Not The Only One To Think This Way
I am not the only one to think this way. Take a look at what Officer Greg Anderson has to say, here.
1The Uniform Code of Military Justice, or UCMJ, is federal law defined by Congress that defines the military justice system and lists criminal offenses under military law.