Talk:Superior orders

message: This article is still being written. Please excuse the abrupt death.--Carboxy's moron (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone end the thought on the last sentence? I don't know what the author intended and don't wish to "Guess a completion". Xphill64x (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Construction!

message: I have initially assessed this article to be a start class and of mid-importance within the scope of wikiproject law.  Assessment ratings are developed by consensus on article talk pages, and so the assessment of others is encouraged and appreciated. Legis Nuntius (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Did the Nurenburg Trials not abolish this defense, i.e. befehl ist befehl is no longer a valid excuse?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it didn't. The defense was limited, which is not the same as it being abolished - it can no longer be used to escape liability, but it is a mitigating factor in the determination of sentence, and is valid in some domestic jurisdictions.Carboxy's moron (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Could you please quote where those people or any other of the accused did actually use the "following orders" defense? Because I can not get it in the transcripts --41.19.195.227 (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that can't be shown from the transcripts the article should be changed in this regard. --41.146.3.221 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl  

message: Something stuck in my craw about the way this was worded; with the history of Soviet show trials and the alleged toast by the Russian judge before the beginning of the Nuremberg Trials ("To the speedy conviction and execution of all defendants!") saying they wanted fair trials (which I think is implicit) seems excessive. Historian932 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Soviets (Eastern Allies) wanted a show trial (for propaganda reasons) and the Western Allies gave it to them. --105.14.57.197 (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviets really wanted trials? 

message: This article is about a plea; a plea in a court of law that a soldier not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a politician. Sometimes the politician is inferior and therefore it would be misleading to file the article here. Redirect to plea.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.58.30 (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to Plea 

message: The lead: lots of blabla, not coming to THE POINT, which is what I highlighted with bold letters: no longer considered enough to escape punishment; but merely enough to lessen it. (I am sure some "superior orders" fanatic will remove the boldening 'cause of some WP guidelines...). Who has the time & patience to reformulate, for the benefit of the regular user? I.e.: put the essence at the top - "superior orders" not a valid defense, one's responsability to think with his own head is never suspended; ethics & moral obligations are not suspended by orders coming from superior ranking officers. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead is not concise enough - come to the point!

message: I don't know how, who does? The search word "Blindly following orders" should redirect here. Very common way of describing what lawyers call "Nuremberg defense" or "defense of superior orders". Btw, the search word "Defense of superior orders" also doesn't have a redirect to the page. "Superior orders" without "defense of ..." or "... argument" can mean anything to a layman, first and foremost the actual, legitimate obligation in any institution to follow orders coming from a hierarchically superior clerk or officer (as long as...). I was actually looking for this page and couldn't find it. Had to go through the Nuremberg Trials page to discover under what name it's been hiding. Thanks, ArmindenArminden (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird title! Add at least redirects for commonly used terms

message: If someone tells a computer to do something and the computers do it are they liable or not because they or ai do not have common sense...? Robots killing under orders are they liable... Common sense is key Slinkyw (talk) 02:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computers with no common sense 

message: Should this be included into the superior orders page? The offices who shoved Martin Gugino used this defense, I remember trying there was a change to it that had that addition, or was it all shoved into the Buffalo police shoving incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.39.166 (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Buffalo police shoving incident 

message: Why are firefighters listed as a distinct group alongside police, military and general civilians?
In what way is being ordered to commit war crimes or crimes against humanity likely to be part of a firefighters tasks in a state that commits such acts?
On the other hand such regimes often ordered military, police or prison personnel to commit them.
Do they mean crimes or omission (failing to put out fires?) AverroesII (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefighters committing war crimes?