Its not Turoks standards of reason, the courts
made it very clear this is indeed the case.
So yes.... the soldier will still be held accountable for obeying
obviously immoral orders.
You can disagree with the courts all you want, but it doesn't
change the facts.
For example, if you REALLY think a soldier should not be held
accountable for shooting a baby in the head at point blank range,
because he was ordered to, or because of war time stress, then
I think you will find many people, the law, and the courts are
going to disagree with you.
You may call it hogwash if it makes you feel better though
peace
axeman
made it very clear this is indeed the case.
So yes.... the soldier will still be held accountable for obeying
obviously immoral orders.
You can disagree with the courts all you want, but it doesn't
change the facts.
For example, if you REALLY think a soldier should not be held
accountable for shooting a baby in the head at point blank range,
because he was ordered to, or because of war time stress, then
I think you will find many people, the law, and the courts are
going to disagree with you.
You may call it hogwash if it makes you feel better though

peace
axeman
Quote from fofumfee:
Those who expect a marine who experienced the trauma of war as described, who participated in the killing of civilians while following orders should be held to Turok's standards of reason and consistency?
Hogwash.
[/B]
