Markenzwieback wrote:Doinize wrote:That is very technical. Its the Nuremburg defence and you know it, wrong things dont get less wrong if the institutions that made them are 'democratic'...These people have to know its wrong, or worse, they dont, orthey tell themselves "its the law" and "im just following orders", the difference is irrellevant really.
But is it really that technical? As a federal employee you have to abide by the laws and enforce those passed by the democratically eelected constitutional body. You can't just pick laws which you personally deem incorrect and not enforce them.
Ok, but consider this for one second: The laws can be wrong. Having proper democratic justification doesnt make them less wrong.
South African Apartheid, Jim Crow and the persecution of sexual minorities in western democracys were all passed and enforced by functioning democratic institutions.
But for moral reasons no civil servant is allowed to refuse the fulfillment of orders, hence why I think there is more than a technical difference.
"These were orders."
This isnt about wether or not a civil servant can legally disobey orders, its about wether or not they should.
The laws of the land can be unjust, no matter how democratic it is, that really has jack shit to do with it, but if you enforce these unjust laws, you are doing unjust things. There is no other way to put it.