"I was only following orders!!"-Sashini

 “I was only following orders!” This phrase has been used so often, in so many circumstances, that today it is its own parody. The legal, moral, and personal implications of those words are rooted in man’s wartime conduct, as well as being his appeal for understanding and absolution. It is a plea mouthed by both the relatively innocent junior soldier and the duplicitous battlefield murderer. Does the phrase merit serious legal consideration? Is it a legitimate defence to war crimes today? Was it ever a legitimate defence to war crimes? Should morality trump the demands of economic or political competition? Pondering the dilemma of the soldier who must, for her own safety, obey orders but also know when to disobey them, may prompt the kind of conflict that produces advances in personal moral development ... Let me explain with an exampleA famous American case is that of Mitchell v. Harmony, 54 U.S. 13 How. 115 115 (1851), a civil suit growing out of the Mexican War [1846 - 1848]. An American Army officer in Mexico illegally seized the goods of a trader in occupied territory. When later sued for the price of the goods, he claimed to have acted under orders of a superior officer. The court refused to consider this plea. Chief Justice Taney of the United States Supreme Court declared: “It can never be maintained that a military officer can justify himself for doing an unlawful act by producing the order of his superior. The order may palliate, but it cannot justify” the deed. There is a strong argument against the officers of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS at the post-World War II Nuremburg Trials in which those who issued orders that led to the killing of about 12 million civilians. The main argument for defence, as the music mentions in hir writeup and the node title subtly gives away, was "I was only following orders." During the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, a Prussian officer defended himself from reprimand by arguing that he was simply following orders. His commander, Prince Frederick Charles, reportedly replied: “His Majesty made you a Major because he believed you would know when not to obey his orders.” It’s a simple vignette, but the question that it raises is anything but simple: When should a military officer disobey orders? I have always believed that those who answer, “only when those orders are illegal,” have probably not thought hard enough about the question. An officer’s oath of office, professional ethics, and obligation to subordinates may at times require him to dispute or even disobey a legal order. It is often said, we have been given a mind to think and a heart to feel. Let’s use it to make decisions that do not go against humanity, and not the other way around. We all are equal and none of us are inferior to others to be controlled by others. We have all rights to disobey an order if its against humanity. It’s better to disobey the order and face the consequence rather than putting millions of life at stake. Being noble in word doesn’t suffice but also through your actions. Every military officer swears an oath upon commissioning in the United States of America. That oath is not to obey all orders. It is to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”