Richard Sisk
They started calling it the “Nuremberg defense” when lawyers for Lt. William Calley at his court martial argued that he was only following orders in the March 1968 slaughter of hundreds of Vietnamese in what became known as the My Lai Massacre.
George Latimer, Calley’s main lawyer, cited Nuremberg in his summation, telling the court, “I could hardly stand here and tell you in good conscience that people, like at Nuremberg, could be excused or justified” in mass murder by claiming they were acting on the orders of a superior, according to court documents.
“But I think when you put untrained troops out in areas and they are told to do certain things, they have a right to rely on the judgment and the expertise [of their leaders],” Latimer said. “Then you are bound to give credence in effect to orders from their company commander.”
The argument for Calley, in what was the most high-profile court martial to come out of the Vietnam War, did not hold up. It also didn’t work at the end of World War II for the defendants at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal, including Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, who cheated the hangman by taking cyanide on the night he was to be executed.
Calley had taken the stand in his own defense to state that Capt. Ernest Medina, his company commander, had told him to kill everybody in the village. They were all Viet Cong or sympathizers, Calley said he was told, and Medina’s order was to “waste them.” Medina was later tried at court martial and acquitted.
No comments:
Post a Comment