“I was following orders” is not a defense to committing a crime.
I am equally shocked and completely unsurprised this wooden amalgamation of a parody of a human actually used the “I was just following orders” line. Not a dumb guard or a patrol agent or a desk clerk, but an actual Secretary of Homeland Security. (for whatever prestige or value is held in a position that was invented in 2003 because white people suddenly got scared of Muslims.)
And here I was just naively blaming all three of them
Kristi’s braincell: don’t say you were just following orders, don’t say you were just following orders…
“It was Stephen!”
Kristi’s braincell: nice 😎
Is that the same braincell orange cats share?
I mean… she’s not completely wrong, but she could have, you know, not have followed fascist orders too. All on them need to be held accountable
Agreed. “I was just following orders” has pretty famously been eliminated as a credible defense.
Except the Trials where that precedent was supposedly established actually allowed a great many people to escape conviction using that exact defense, then the prosecution subsequently gave up on the trials altogether. The Nuremberg trials were a travesty of justice, not because the Allies set up kangaroo courts, but because in an attempt to avoid such accusations and through unbelievable prosecutorial incompetence they let almost every Nazi who was still alive run free.
What I’m getting at is, don’t expect justice to magically administer itself.
