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

Latest Breaking News

anciano

(2,022 posts)

3. This doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut "black and white" issue....

Reply to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Nov 12, 2025, 07:40 PM

Wednesday

it's murky at best. Military personnel often have to carry out orders with limited facts and little, if any, knowledge of intelligence assessments. So unless what they are being ordered to do is clearly and blatantly unreasonable and illegal at their level of knowledge, then IMO immunity makes sense.

Cannot edit, recommend, or reply in locked discussions

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

DOJ drafts legal opinion backing immunity for US troops involved in boat strikes, sources say [View all] highplainsdem Wednesday OP

What if they're illegal orders to just murder people at whim? ananda Wednesday #1

Think of Nuremburg NotHardly Wednesday #2

This doesn't seem to me to be a clear cut "black and white" issue.... anciano Wednesday #3

Would they need immunity if it was legal ? Deuxcents Wednesday #4

Obviously the DOJ knows it is not Bayard Thursday #5

After alert to hosts, locking. Emile Thursday #6