quote:

---

La Cour suprême de justice argentine a déclaré inconstitutionnelles, mardi 14 juin, les lois d'amnistie qui ont permis à un millier de militaires, coupables d'atteintes aux droits de l'homme sous la dernière dictature (1976-1983), d'échapper à la justice.

Les lois dites du "Point final" et du "Devoir d'obéissance" avaient été votées en 1986 et 1987 pendant l'administration du président radical Raul Alfonsin, sous la pression des militaires. Avec ces lois, le gouvernement d'Alfonsin prétendait calmer la colère des militaires qui grondait suite aux premières convocations judiciaires d'officiers et de sous-officiers de l'armée argentine.

---

quote:

---

Isn't the US using the "Duty to obey" against their deserters. i.e. people refusing to participate any longer in an illegal war?

---

Yes, they are, but in a different sense than here.

The Argentine law said that soldiers could not be prosecuted for committing war crimes because they had a "duty to obey" their superiors. (Actually, as I recall, they could theoretically refuse "manifestly illegal" orders.)

In other words, the "duty to obey" law in Argentina was a defense against allegations of war crimes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:

Yes, they are, but in a different sense than here.

The Argentine law said that soldiers could not be prosecuted for committing war crimes because they had a "duty to obey" their superiors. (Actually, as I recall, they could theoretically refuse "manifestly illegal" orders.)

In other words, the "duty to obey" law in Argentina was a defense against allegations of war crimes.

In the American example, the basic position seems to be: "You signed up, so you have to do what the President orders." No defences offered.

---