Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

malthaussen

(18,639 posts)
16. Ah, the Nuremburg defense...
Tue Dec 29, 2015, 01:56 PM
Dec 2015

... it never grows stale.

I imagine there's a reason for that, too. The Institutional Man, the one who shows "loyalty" (whatever that is), who follows orders, who takes one for the team... this ideal is encouraged by a bureaucratic system that is more interested in "team players" than in actually getting anything done (to say nothing of right and wrong). Official cognizance must be taken, if somebody makes a loud enough noise about it, of wrongdoing, and some scapegoat or other picked (preferably from the lowest executive level possible) to appease the outrage, but nobody would ever be taken seriously who suggested reforming the whole system. Usually, it is some poor slob "just following orders" who takes the fall, too; what is ignored is that the poor slob would be out of a job, or (worst case) dead if he refused to follow the order.

Another sidelight on official recognition: three soldiers in a war somewhere raped a local bigwig's daughter, and he complained of the offense to the C.O. The advocate in charge of the prosecution was pissed at the soldiers... because they didn't kill the girl after they were done with her, and thus he had to be bothered to try them. Why didn't they just kill her? (This is rich): they said they "felt sorry for her."

-- Mal

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

When did the police become an occupying army? eom guillaumeb Dec 2015 #1
hmm, according to john ehrlichmann--during the beginning of the "war on drugs", apparently. niyad Dec 2015 #2
And William Clinton also contributed to the drug war hysteria. eom guillaumeb Dec 2015 #4
That was the plan, anyway. malthaussen Dec 2015 #9
now that you mention it, I remember that episode. always thought the hunter character was niyad Dec 2015 #11
As 1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual... malthaussen Dec 2015 #12
interesting bit about calley--synchronicities--was just reading about him as I was doing the niyad Dec 2015 #14
Ah, the Nuremburg defense... malthaussen Dec 2015 #16
I would say I feel sick, but that last statement was so typical of the utter cluelessness and niyad Dec 2015 #18
No way is this related to having 300 million guns in the USA! Human101948 Dec 2015 #3
Silly human. Guns make the US safer. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #5
Absolutely!!! That's why combat zones are noted for their safety! nt flamin lib Dec 2015 #7
Now you tell me nadinbrzezinski Dec 2015 #17
A very nice signature line. Are you really from Texas? eom guillaumeb Dec 2015 #21
Yes I am born and bred in Texas. There really are reasonable and decent people here who can think flamin lib Dec 2015 #22
Jim Hightower, the late Molly Ivins, Lyndon Johnson, and more. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #23
It's not the number of guns. It's the attitude on guns. DetlefK Dec 2015 #6
Because 4 times the guns should = 500 times as many shootings Taitertots Dec 2015 #8
All part of the same operation... Human101948 Dec 2015 #10
30 per 100....wonder who has the privilege of ownership in Germany. ileus Dec 2015 #15
I blame so of this on good old talk radio samplegirl Dec 2015 #13
I'm shocked only 9 people were killed by cops on Christmas Day. KentuckyWoman Dec 2015 #19
I have yet to see one prosecuted for assisted suicide. Downwinder Dec 2015 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Take a guess, how many pe...»Reply #16