It makes sense that rule breakers would use the following-orders defence since the rules are made by those declaring the orders.
Only if you are on the winning side. And also in this case I am not sure that if you follow an illegal order the defence works.
I don’t think it matters that much if you are defending yourself or not. The idea of following orders concerns what you are doing at any given moment. If I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I received an order to do something I might as well do it. I have this justification of following orders that suits my role.
In fact the defense still works.
Quote from wikipedia: “Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley’s sentence was reduced because Calley believed that what he did was a part of his orders”
As for when you’re confronted with not being on the winning side, many people in the united states think that large parts of the Wehrmacht and Japanese army are absolved of their crimes because “they had no other choice”, even in cases where it’s very clear that someone gleefully committed crimes.
[2]
I don’t think it matters that much if you are defending yourself or not. The idea of following orders concerns what you are doing at any given moment. If I was stationed at Abu Ghraib and I received an order to do something I might as well do it. I have this justification of following orders that suits my role. In fact the defense still works. Quote from wikipedia: “Secretary of the Army Howard Callaway was quoted in the New York Times as stating that Calley’s sentence was reduced because Calley believed that what he did was a part of his orders” As for when you’re confronted with not being on the winning side, many people in the united states think that large parts of the Wehrmacht and Japanese army are absolved of their crimes because “they had no other choice”, even in cases where it’s very clear that someone gleefully committed crimes.