August 20, 2025 • 31 mins
People-powered, AI-Generated
Season 10, Episode 5
In our 5th episode of season 10, we focus on the growing American Gestapo made of federal agents, national guard, and reserve and active military who are not following the law and violating civil rights. This is for those who think they will get away with it. Nuremberg tells us, they won't!
https://guywolf070425.substack.com/p/from-nuremberg-to-now-when-just-following?r=5d8qd2
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Welcome to the deep dive. You know, we're constantly
swimming in information, right? It's hard to know what really
matters. Our goal here is always to cut
through that noise, give you thevital insights.
And today we're tackling something, well, fundamental.
It shaped international law. It impacts our lives right now.
Individual accountability, specifically when that old line
I was just following orders justdoesn't cut.
(00:22):
It really isn't enough. Understanding this, I mean,
really getting it feels more critical than ever.
So our deep dive today, it, it really centers on this powerful
and honestly incredibly timely article.
It's called from Nuremberg to now when just following orders
isn't enough. It's published by Educate the
Planet, which you might rememberis Educate the Resistance.
(00:44):
And this piece, it gives us a really compelling way to look at
how history, specifically the lessons for the Nuremberg
trials, connects directly to things happening right now.
We'll be looking at accountability, especially for
people in authority. And you know what that means for
our civil liberties today. Look, it's going to be
analytical, serious stuff, no doubt, but it feels absolutely
essential to grapple with if we want to understand the world
we're in. Absolutely and our mission
(01:05):
really is to unpack how those foundational lessons, the ones
right out of Nuremberg Echo and the challenges we're facing
right this moment. We're going to explore, you
know, the lasting impact of those precedents on
responsibility, individual responsibility, particularly for
people who have power entrusted to them, and of course, the huge
implications for our civil liberties.
This isn't just like a history lesson revisited.
(01:27):
It's a deep dive into principlesthat are very much alive, very
much being tested right now. OK, so let's, let's break this
down. Let's get into it. after World
War 2. I mean, the scale of the
devastation, it's hard to even comprehend.
The world was left asking, how do we possibly hold people
accountable for atrocities committed, you know, under the
(01:47):
cover of state authority? The sheer horror demanded
something new, something bigger than the old legal boundaries.
And what came out of that? Well, it was this really clear,
powerful declaration. You can hear it around the
globe. The world basically said never
again. Never again will just following
orders be a shield for human rights abuses.
Full stop. This wasn't just talk right?
It was a massive shift in international law.
(02:07):
Whole new way of thinking about morality, saying there are
lines, ethical lines, that no order can justify crossing.
Right. And a crucial part of this is
that declaration. It wasn't just some abstract
idea floating around. It was meticulously put into law
and rigorously enforced. That happened through the
Nuremberg trials. These trials set this absolutely
clear precedent. They made it undeniable that
(02:28):
obeying authority, even the highest levels of government,
couldn't and wouldn't excuse atrocities.
It was like drawing a line in the sand, wasn't it?
Saying individual conscience, basic human morality that comes
before any order to commit inhumane acts.
And this fundamentally changed how we think about state power.
It drove home the a uniform, a badge.
(02:48):
It doesn't erase your personal responsibility.
It really signaled a new era where, you know, universal human
rights started to take precedence over national borders
in some really important ways. The Nuremberg trials, yeah,
everyone's heard the phrase. It's almost like shorthand for
justice after the war. But I think for a lot of people,
the details, what actually happened, why they were so
groundbreaking, it can still be a bit fussy.
(03:09):
Should we break that down for us?
What exactly were these trials and why are they still such a
huge landmark in legal history? What was so revolutionary?
Absolutely. Yeah, happy to.
So the Nuremberg trials, they weren't just one single trial.
It was actually a series of military tribunals.
The Allied powers, the winners of the war, set them up right
after World War 2 ended in the German city of Nuremberg, hence
(03:31):
the name. Their main goal?
To prosecute the big shots, basically the most prominent
political, military and economicleaders of Nazi Germany, the
people they saw as most responsible for, well, the
horrifying scale of everything. The human rights violation is
the Holocaust, the aggressive war itself.
It was a completely unprecedented attempt to deliver
justice on an international scale.
(03:53):
Nothing like it had really been tried before.
And the charges themselves, theywere truly ground breaking
revolutionary for the time. First, you had crimes against
humanity. This was a brand new legal idea.
It covered things like extermination, enslavement,
deportation, you know, other inhumane acts against civilians.
This was radical because it basically said there are some
wrong so profound they're everyone's business regardless
(04:14):
of borders or politics. Even if a country wasn't
technically at war, it was like building a whole new legal
framework for accountability, recognizing, you know, the basic
dignity of every single person. Then there were war crimes that
dealt with violations of the existing rules of war, like
mistreating prisoners or just wantonly destroying cities,
things people already understoodas illegal in wartime.
(04:35):
And 3rd crimes against peace. This tackled the planning and
starting of aggressive wars, another legal innovation trying
to stop future conflicts fueled by conquest.
The real genius though, wasn't just defining these things, it
was enforcing them, providing a way to actually address state
sponsored atrocities globally. But here's the crucial part, the
bit that makes these trials so incredibly relevant for us
(04:58):
today. It was the flat out rejection of
the main defense most of the accused tried to use.
The Just following orders defense.
Exactly. They all tried it.
I was just doing what I was told, and the tribe, you don't
just unequivocally shut it down,dismissed it entirely.
They established this principle.Individuals are responsible,
period, for their own actions. Doesn't matter what orders they
got. This wasn't just about punishing
(05:19):
those specific Nazis. It was about setting a lasting
legal standard, one that went beyond borders, beyond military
rank. It meant your own moral compass,
your respect for basic human rights.
That has to come before blind obedience, a really powerful
statement about individual choice, even inside rigid
systems. And the sentences?
Well, they reflected the horror of the crimes.
(05:40):
They ranged from death by hanging for the absolute worst
offenders down to long prison terms for others.
But really, beyond the punishments, the lasting impact,
you just can't overstate it. This principle, individual
accountability, even when ordered, it's been embedded,
upheld again and again in international law ever since.
You see its DNA in the Geneva Conventions, in the rules for
the International Criminal Court.
(06:01):
It's deeply influenced military justice systems worldwide.
It makes it clear soldiers, officers, anyone in authority,
they have a duty to refuse the legal orders.
It's set a universal standard for responsibility that cuts
across nations and hierarchies. It's, well, it's a bedrock of
modern international law. Wow.
OK, So definitely not just some dusty historical event.
It's a living principle, a cornerstone really for how we
(06:23):
understand justice globally. That's a powerful foundation.
But OK, the big question I thinkeveryone's asking is how does
this connect to today right now?Because our article from
Nuremberg to now, it makes a pretty stark claim.
It says, OK, Fast forward from then to now, and we find
ourselves facing, quote, similarchallenges.
It's suggesting parallels to thekind of, you know, authoritarian
(06:46):
overreach that made Nurembert necessary in the 1st place.
What exactly did the article mean by that, especially when
talking about the United States?Right.
Zooming out to that bigger picture, the article basically
lays it out. Today, similar tactics are being
employed by federal agents in the United States.
Now that's a heavy statement, especially because it's drawing
a Direct Line from historical abuses of power to things being
(07:08):
observed now in a democracy. It's suggesting a pattern of
behavior that, OK, maybe it's not on the same catastrophic
scale as World War 2. Obviously not, but it still
represents, according to the article, a serious chipping away
at civil liberties and democratic norms.
The implication is, you know, weneed to recognize these patterns
early, before they get worse. It's about seeing the warning
(07:30):
signs that tragically were missed before.
Similar tactics. That's a really strong phrase,
maybe even alarming. And the article doesn't just
leave it there, it gives specifics, right?
What are some of the examples itpoints to that make this claim
feel so, well, stark? And maybe beyond just the
actions, what's the underlying thing, the effect, that makes
them echo those historical worries?
(07:51):
Yeah, the article does provide several pretty disturbing
examples of reported incidents. It paints a picture of
aggressive, often anonymous actions by federal agents.
For instance, it often mentions agents being masked and without
visible identification. Right Which?
Immediately makes you think, well, who are these people?
How are they accountable exactly?
(08:11):
That lack of identification, it raises huge red flags about
accountability, about transparency.
When agents operate like that anonymously, it can create this
feeling, this environment where maybe they feel less
constrained, less worried about oversight, more likely to act
with impunity. It definitely erodes public
trust, and it makes it incredibly difficult to hold
(08:33):
specific people responsible if something goes wrong.
That anonymity itself can encourage bad behavior.
And then, beyond just the masks,the article details specific
alleged actions, things that directly step on citizens rights
and are frankly deeply unsettling.
It talks about agents forcibly entering vehicles, apparently
without any legal basis. Just trying.
To get into someone's car, yeah.Imagine that you're in your car,
(08:56):
your private space, and agents, no warning, no clear authority,
try to force their way in. That's not just like, an
inconvenience, it's a serious violation of your personal
space, your property. It must be terrifying.
It totally bypasses the normal legal steps for search and
seizure, right? And creates this climate of
fear, of uncertainty. And then the source mentions
(09:18):
agents actually smashing car windows.
Whoa, OK. That's another level entirely
it, really. Is it goes way beyond just
property damage. It's an act of aggressive force.
Often the article yes. Without a clear warrant, without
an immediate like life or death threat justifying it, actions
like that, they escalate things dramatically.
They instill this deep fear, this helplessness.
(09:38):
It feels less like standard law enforcement trying to deescalate
and more like tactics used to intimidate to dominate.
The article also highlights detaining individuals without
warrants, Which? Is.
I mean that's fundamental, isn'tit?
Due process. Absolutely.
It's a cornerstone of civil liberties in any democracy.
Our 4th Amendment is supposed toprotect against exactly that.
Unreasonable searches and seizures, detaining someone
(10:01):
without a warrant, without probable cause.
It's a direct assault on that protection.
When people are just, you know, scooped up off the street
without explanation, their basicrights are just fundamentally
trampled. It creates a chilling effect on
freedom of movement, freedom of association, everything.
And finally, the source describes agents engaging in
practices like racial profiling.OK, that's.
(10:22):
Incredibly serious. Deeply.
Troubling. It implies these actions aren't
based on actual suspicious behavior, but are discriminatory
based on someone's race or ethnicity.
Practices like that they just destroy trust between law
enforcement and communities. They perpetuate injustice, and
honestly, they're a hallmark of oppressive regimes that try to
control certain populations by targeting them based on who they
(10:43):
are, not what they do. It suggests A systemic bias that
completely your minds equal protection under the law.
So you put all that together, right?
The masked agents, the forced entries, smashed windows,
warrantless detentions, the racial profiling.
You can see why there's widespread concern, why many
observers, civil liberties groups They argue these actions
are reminiscent of authoritarianregimes.
(11:04):
They bring up images of state power being used arbitrarily,
without the checks and balances you expect in a constitutional
Republic. The worry isn't just about
isolated incidents. It's about a potential systemic
erosion of civil liberties, the very fabric of democratic norms.
It suggests a drift towards a kind of law enforcement that
puts control above individual rights.
And that's exactly what the Nuremberg principles were
(11:26):
designed to prevent. By saying no order justifies
violating those rights. Yeah, it paints a.
Really stark picture definitely draws in comfortable lines back
to those historical concerns about unchecked power, that slow
creep of authoritarianism. It forces you to ask some tough
questions about the safeguards we think protect our freedoms.
OK, let's pivot slightly. There's something else the
(11:47):
article really zeroes in on. It's about the the internal
thinking the narrative may be going on inside some agencies
that actually quote some federalagents supposedly telling
themselves something like Trump will protect us, he'll pardon
anything we do. Wow, that's that's quite a
statement to believe. What does the article say about
how valid that belief actually is?
What are the legal facts it points to?
(12:09):
That might just shatter that whole idea, right?
The article explicitly calls this a dangerous fantasy, and it
does so because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of
how presidential power, specifically pardon power,
actually works. This belief, maybe it feels
comforting to someone thinking it, but it's built on really
shaky legal ground. It reveals a huge gap in
(12:30):
understanding the dual system ofjustice we have in the US you
know, federal versus state, a system that's deliberately set
up to prevent exactly that kind of blanket immunity because so.
Why is it so flawed? Break that down the.
Article clarifies it with one critical legal fact.
Presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes only.
Federal, not state, crimes. Exactly.
(12:50):
That's the crucial distinction. Many people might not realize
it, but it's absolutely fundamental to American law.
The president can pardon people convicted of or even just
accused of crimes against the federal government, but they
have 0 jurisdiction over state legal systems 0.
It's a core part of the separation of powers between
federal and state governments. A vital check.
(13:12):
And here's where the article points out why this fantasy is
so dangerous. In practice, much of the
misconduct we're seeing, things like unlawful detentions, racial
profiling, property destruction,happens in states where
Democratic governments hold power.
Now, that's not just a politicalpoint, it's a huge legal point.
In those states, the governor's,the attorneys general, the local
district attorneys, they operatecompletely independently from
(13:34):
the federal government. They don't.
Answer to the president, not at.All they have their own laws,
their own mandates, their own justice systems running parallel
to the federal one. So what that means is if a
federal agent does something that breaks a state law,
assault, property damage, false imprisonment, violating state
civil rights laws, that agent can be prosecuted by state
authorities. The independence of those state
(13:56):
systems is a really important check on federal power, a
federal pardon. It has absolutely no legal
weight in the state courtroom. None.
The president cannot make state charges disappear, cannot
commute a state sentence, cannotshield someone from state
prosecution. So the stark reality, as the
article puts it, is that no federal pardon can shield anyone
from state level accountability,including prison time.
(14:18):
It's a point that just can't be stressed enough.
Break a state law, you face state justice.
Full stop. Presidential pardon is
irrelevant. That agent could face the full
force of state law, felony charges, serious prison time,
completely separate from any federal issues.
It's fundamental to our federalist system.
It acts as this powerful break on potential abuses of power at
(14:40):
the federal level, especially when those abuses cross state
lines. It's like the ultimate
constitutional firewall, making sure no single person can just
erase accountability for breaking state laws.
That's. That's a really profound point,
and it completely dismantles that idea of blanket immunity.
It's like thinking your house key works on your neighbors
door. It just doesn't.
The president's power, big as itis, stops at the state line for
(15:02):
state crimes. Precisely.
And the article really drives this home with a well, a pretty
poignant observation about the inevitable payback of injustice,
a lesson that echoes right from Nuremberg.
It quotes, ironically, the very same agents who now act like
they hold absolute power over U.S. citizens will one day sit
on the other side of justice. That's not just like a
(15:24):
hypothetical. Maybe.
It's a potent warning based on historical patterns.
When power goes unchecked, things change.
It highlights that cycle of power and accountability, a
chilling reminder that tables often turn.
And the imagery the article uses, it really makes it stick.
It paints this picture of a well, a brutal awakening.
That cell door will clang shut. And suddenly they're both.
The president protects me. Citizens have no rights, will
(15:47):
echo back at them. Yeah.
It's not just about the legal consequences, is it?
It's deeply human. For the first time, maybe these
individuals will truly grasp what it feels like to have
someone else decide their fate, to be stripped of their freedom,
to feel the sharp end of injustice first hand, the very
same injustice they might have dished out.
It's a moment of stark, unavoidable, maybe self
(16:07):
recognition. And this highlights a really
crucial lesson, the wheels of justice.
OK, sometimes they turn slowly, but they often do turn.
History is full of examples. That principle of
accountability, Senate Nurembergreinforced over and over since
then. It's not just theory.
It has real teeth, real consequences.
And those who operate outside the law, even if they think
they're protected, they often face A reckoning.
(16:29):
It's a powerful reminder that abused power rarely lasts
forever without consequences. The system eventually is
designed to correct itself, to hold people accountable no
matter their rank, no matter their uniform.
That is a truly chilling thought, but also a vital one.
It helps understand the deep moral and practical consequences
of acting outside the law, especially when you're in a
(16:49):
position of public trust. The consequences are real, very
real, and they can boomerang back in ways you might never
expect, hitting you a deeply personal level.
Now, it seems like a common assumption, maybe even
understandable, that if you're afederal agent, or maybe National
Guard or active duty military, but somehow that status gives
you a shield. Like the uniform itself is an
(17:10):
invisible cloak protecting you from personal consequences for
things you do on duty. Is that assumption right, or
does the article push back hard against that idea?
Oh. It pushes back very hard.
The article directly refutes that assumption.
Flat out states this is not true.
The uniform, the badge, the federal status, none of it
grants blanket immunity. Especially not when state laws
(17:33):
are broken or fundamental civil rights are violated.
This is a critical point the article really hammers home.
It's trying to debunk any mistaken ideas about
unquestioned authority or protection.
It's basically saying that's a fundamental misread of how our
legal system with its checks andbalances is supposed to work.
And it's really worth underlining that when state laws
get broken, the the accountability, the
(17:54):
consequences, that can go way beyond just prison time.
They're incredibly broad. They can completely alter your
life, affecting every single aspect of your future.
It's not just about maybe endingup in jail, it's about
potentially seeing your whole professional and personal life
dismantled. Losing the security probably
took for granted. OK, so beyond prison, what kind
of life altering consequences are we talking about here?
(18:16):
The article gets specific, doesn't it?
It? Does it meticulously lists
several severe, potentially lifedestroying consequences for
agents who abuse their authorityand braid state laws?
First off, there's the loss of pension and retirement benefits.
Wow, that's huge. It's.
Catastrophic. It means years, maybe decades of
service of contributions just wiped away.
(18:37):
Gone. For many people in those roles,
their pension is their financialsecurity for retirement.
Losing it can throw them into severe economic hardship, affect
their ability to just live securely when they're older.
Secondly, the article points to the forfeiture of veterans
benefits even. VA benefit, yes.
For those who served honorably in the military before or
alongside their federal service,these benefits are hard earned.
(19:00):
They're invaluable. They provide access to
healthcare, education, help, housing assistance, other vital
support. Losing them can be devastating,
especially for veterans relying on them for critical medical
care or just keeping a roof overtheir head.
It's like a profound betrayal oftheir past.
Service and sacrifice basically erases the recognition for that
dedication. Thirdly, they face permanent
(19:20):
damage to their career and professional licenses.
So. Even if they to avoid prison,
their career could be over. Absolutely.
Many law enforcement and federaljobs require specific
certifications licenses to operate.
A conviction, especially for crimes involving abuse of power
or civil rights violations, can lead to those licenses being
permanently revoked. That effectively ends their
(19:42):
career in law enforcement or anyrelated field needing those
credentials. It just slams doors shut on
future employment in their chosen profession, forces a
complete career change, often with really limited options.
And 4th, there's the looming threat of civil lawsuits with
significant financial liability.So.
Getting sued personally. Personally.
Exactly. Even if criminal charges don't
(20:03):
stick or often happening at the same time as criminal cases, the
people who were harmed by the agents unlawful actions can sue
them directly in civil court. These lawsuits can result in
massive financial judgments against the individual agent.
We're talking potentially seizure of assets, having your
wages garnished, being saddled with crippling debt for years,
(20:23):
maybe decades. It means their personal
finances, their home, their savings, everything they've
built could be severely at risk.The consequences just ripple out
far beyond a potential jail sentence.
And then, looking at the most extreme outcomes, the article
details some pretty chilling possibilities for those who
really abuse their authority. They could literally find
(20:43):
themselves on the street, potentially homeless.
Seriously, it's not hyperbole. If you've lost your career, lost
your benefits, and you're maybe buried under huge civil
judgments, that financial stability you had?
It can completely vanish, leaving them in truly dire
straits. And here's a really chilling,
ironic twist the article mentions They could become
subject to the very same racial or social profiling they might
(21:04):
have inflicted on others. Yeah, once they're stripped of
the uniform, the authority, they're just another citizen,
vulnerable to the same biases, the same discriminatory
practices they might have perpetuated.
If their actions were rooted in discrimination, they could find
themselves on the receiving end,experiencing that dehumanization
they once may be dished out. It's a powerful, almost karmic
(21:26):
kind of reversal. And all this just hammers home a
fundamental legal truth the article underscores.
The law ultimately is supposed to be blind.
It doesn't differentiate betweensomeone in a uniform and an
ordinary citizen when it comes to accountability for criminal
actions. Sure, there are protections for
officers acting lawfully within their duties, but those
(21:47):
protections evaporate the momentlaws are broken.
The very system designed to protect civil rights is also
designed intentionally to turn the tables when those rights are
violated by people in power. It's a mechanism built right
into our legal framework to ensure power isn't absolute and
that justice eventually is for everyone.
That. Really lays bare the entire
spectrum of sequences, doesn't it?
(22:07):
It's so much more than just a flap on the wrist.
It's a potential complete life upheaval for anyone who thinks
they can operate above the law just because of their job title
or uniform. It really highlights the immense
responsibility that comes with that power and the incredibly
severe repercussions when that responsibility is just
abandoned. OK, so given this pretty
(22:29):
sobering reality of accountability, what about
solutions? What are the concrete mechanisms
the article points to for actually upholding this
accountability? How do we make sure these
principles aren't just words on paper, but are actively
enforced? How do we give real teeth to
those lessons from Nuremberg? Well.
A really key insight from the article is that the courts are
playing their role. They've been consistently
(22:50):
reinforcing that Nuremberg principle.
It specifically notes that courts have consistently ruled
that just following orders is not a valid defense for unlawful
actions. The.
Judges aren't buying that excuse.
They're not. And this isn't some new idea.
It's established legal precedent.
Confirm time and again it means judges are rejecting the
argument that someone could justpass the buck to a superior when
(23:12):
their actions break the law or violate fundamental rights.
It really highlights the judiciary as that vital check on
power. And what's more, the article
adds that recent rulings have reinforced this principle,
actively holding individuals accountable for rights
violations. Not just old precedent, it's
happening now. Exactly.
That's crucial because it shows the legal system isn't static.
(23:34):
It's actively applying and strengthening these principles
right now in response to currentevents.
It signals that the judiciary iswilling to step in and make sure
individual accountability happens.
Regardless of someone's positionor the political winds.
These rulings are setting powerful new precedents.
They empower victims, they act as a deterrent, and they make it
clear the legal landscape is adapting to ensure justice.
(23:56):
But it's not just the courts. There's a vital role for public
awareness, for advocacy, that's crucial in any democracy.
The article highlights the powerof civil society.
It notes that organizations and communities are actively
documenting and protesting unlawful actions by federal
agents. People on.
The ground taking action? Absolutely.
Essential. I mean, citizens aren't just
sitting back and watching, they're actively gathering
(24:17):
evidence, speaking out, organizing and that
documentation, that detailed recording of events can be
absolutely critical later on forlegal cases.
It provides solid evidence, and it also brings public pressure.
It forces authorities to actually address the abuses
instead of sweeping them under the rug.
The article gives a really specific, powerful example of
this. Families have filed complaints
(24:38):
after incidents where ICE agentssmashed car windows and detained
individuals without warrants. This shows how that abstract
idea of rights violations becomes incredibly real and
personal when people decide to fight back.
Filing those complaints, even ifthey don't lead to immediate
arrest, is a critical first step.
It builds a case, raises awareness, gets official
(24:58):
investigations started. It shows resolve, A refusal to
just let abuses slide. It sends a message.
We're watching and then steppingback, looking at the bigger
picture. There are also efforts to
implement specific policy changes, reforms designed to
boost transparency and accountability.
The article talks about proactive measures like pushing
for policies that restrict the use of masks by federal agents
(25:21):
during operations. Getting rid of the anonymity
problem exactly. The goal is straightforward but
profound. If agents are clearly
identifiable, they're much more likely to be held accountable
for what they do. Anonymity breeds that dangerous
sense of impunity. Clear identification promotes
responsibility, helps build trust or rebuild it, and allows
(25:41):
for proper oversight. This is a direct response to
those concerns about masks and agents.
It's a tangible step towards preventing future abuses and
creating a more transparent, more just system.
OK. So we've got the lingo system
upholding accountability backed by recent rulings, and we have
citizens organizations on the ground documenting, advocating,
(26:02):
pushing for policy change. That feels like a powerful makes
that top down and bottom up pressure.
So for someone listening right now, maybe feeling like, OK, I
need to be part of this solution.
I need to uphold these principles.
What are the specific actionablethings the article suggests they
can do right? The article's action section
gives some really clear, concrete steps that you, the
listener, can take right now. First, and this is maybe the
(26:27):
most fundamental, it advises youto stay informed.
This means actively educating yourself, and maybe others too,
about your rights when you encounter law enforcement.
Knowing your rights, like your right to remain silent.
You're right not to consent to asearch without a warrant.
You're right to have a lawyer. That's your first most crucial
defense against potential overreach.
Understanding these rights empowers you to navigate those
(26:48):
situations more effectively, more safely, to protect yourself
and your community. Second, the article stresses how
critically important it is to document incidents record.
Things if you can, if it. Is safe to do so, yes.
Record interactions you witness involving federal agents or any
law enforcement that could mean using your phone to video
record, maybe taking pictures oreven just writing down detailed
(27:09):
notes right after something happens.
What you saw, who was involved, badge numbers if visible times
locations. This documentation creates a
record that's hard to deny. It's vital evidence if legal
action is needed later. And crucially, the article also
says report any misconduct to appropriate authorities, file
those formal complaints with internal affairs, independent
(27:31):
oversight boards, civil liberties groups like the ACLU.
Documentation is power. It provides that concrete
evidence so incidents aren't just dismissed or forgotten.
And thirdly, it encourages you to engage in advocacy.
Get involved actively support the organizations that are
working day in day out to protect civil liberties, to
promote transparency, to demand accountability from law
(27:51):
enforcement. These groups often have the
legal know how the resources is the public platform to really
challenge unlawful actions effectively and push for real
policy changes locally, statewide, nationally.
Your support, whether it's volunteering time, donating
money, or just amplifying their message, it directly fuels their
vital work, work that safeguardsdemocratic principles and our
(28:13):
individual freedoms. These collective actions,
they're all about empowering individuals to be watchdogs,
right, to gather that crucial information and to make sure the
principles of justice and accountability aren't just
abstract ideas, but are activelydefended in our communities
every single day. So when?
We boil it all down. What does this all mean for us
here now as we wrap up this deepdive?
I mean, the main take away from from Nuremberg to now, it feels
(28:36):
incredibly clear. It's a lesson history just keeps
shouting at us. Those who committed justices,
those who abuse power thinking they're immune.
They can't hide behind authorityforever.
That excuse, just following orders.
It's been totally rejected by international law, by military
justice, by, frankly, the world's moral conscience.
That Seldor, to use the article's image again, it will
(28:56):
eventually clang shut. It's a stark reminder that
accountability somehow finds itsway.
And that's. Exactly the point the Nuremberg
trials. They stand as the stark,
permanent testament to the world's commitment, or at least
aspiration, towards justice and accountability.
They cemented a principle that echoes down the generations.
No one is above the law. Individual responsibility for
(29:19):
your actions, especially when they violate human rights, is
paramount. So when we face today's
challenges, the kinds of tacticswe've been discussing, we have
to actively uphold these principles.
We must ensure that actions taken today by anyone with power
don't go unchallenged. Complacency just isn't an option
when civil liberties are on the line.
Vigilance. That's our best defense against
the erosion of democratic norm. So for.
(29:40):
You listening right now? Here's something you can do
today. Something immediate, something
impactful. Learn your rights.
Know what they are during encounters with law enforcement.
Be empowered by that knowledge. If it's safe.
Document incidents you witness for that it happened to you.
That evidence is just invaluable.
And please support local and national organizations that are
out there fighting for civil liberties.
(30:01):
Your engagement, your support. It truly makes a difference in
upholding the very foundations of our society and.
Here's something powerful you can share a message that really
cuts through the noise, reinforces A timeless truth.
No one is above the law. Just following orders is never
an excuse. Share that message with friends,
family, your community posted online.
(30:21):
Let it be a reminder to others that accountability is coming
for those who abuse power. That justice, yeah, might take
time, but it often prevails. You can also, if you want, join
the broader conversation, talk with fellow plant aid protectors
on Blue Ski. You can find them at
https.bski.aprofileeducatetheplanet.bc.socialandforevenmorefreeglobalciviceducationresourcescheckouthtps.github.com/freeciviceducation.
(30:44):
Lots of good stuff. There we are.
Really grateful you joined us for this deep dive.
Truly, if you found this discussion valuable, if you want
to keep getting these kinds of crucial insights, please think
about subscribing to Educate thePlanet.
It's free, you'll get their new posts, and you'll support their
vital mission. You're informed, active
participation. Honestly, that's the most
powerful force we have for upholding the principles that
(31:05):
protect all of us, for making sure the lessons of history
actually guide our path forward.Thanks for listening.
Welcome to the deep dive. You know, we're constantly
swimming in information, right? It's hard to know what really
matters. Our goal here is always to cut
through that noise, give you thevital insights.
And today we're tackling something, well, fundamental.
It shaped international law. It impacts our lives right now.
Individual accountability, specifically when that old line
I was just following orders justdoesn't cut.
(00:22):
It really isn't enough. Understanding this, I mean,
really getting it feels more critical than ever.
So our deep dive today, it, it really centers on this powerful
and honestly incredibly timely article.
It's called from Nuremberg to now when just following orders
isn't enough. It's published by Educate the
Planet, which you might rememberis Educate the Resistance.
(00:44):
And this piece, it gives us a really compelling way to look at
how history, specifically the lessons for the Nuremberg
trials, connects directly to things happening right now.
We'll be looking at accountability, especially for
people in authority. And you know what that means for
our civil liberties today. Look, it's going to be
analytical, serious stuff, no doubt, but it feels absolutely
essential to grapple with if we want to understand the world
we're in. Absolutely and our mission
(01:05):
really is to unpack how those foundational lessons, the ones
right out of Nuremberg Echo and the challenges we're facing
right this moment. We're going to explore, you
know, the lasting impact of those precedents on
responsibility, individual responsibility, particularly for
people who have power entrusted to them, and of course, the huge
implications for our civil liberties.
This isn't just like a history lesson revisited.
(01:27):
It's a deep dive into principlesthat are very much alive, very
much being tested right now. OK, so let's, let's break this
down. Let's get into it. after World
War 2. I mean, the scale of the
devastation, it's hard to even comprehend.
The world was left asking, how do we possibly hold people
accountable for atrocities committed, you know, under the
(01:47):
cover of state authority? The sheer horror demanded
something new, something bigger than the old legal boundaries.
And what came out of that? Well, it was this really clear,
powerful declaration. You can hear it around the
globe. The world basically said never
again. Never again will just following
orders be a shield for human rights abuses.
Full stop. This wasn't just talk right?
It was a massive shift in international law.
(02:07):
Whole new way of thinking about morality, saying there are
lines, ethical lines, that no order can justify crossing.
Right. And a crucial part of this is
that declaration. It wasn't just some abstract
idea floating around. It was meticulously put into law
and rigorously enforced. That happened through the
Nuremberg trials. These trials set this absolutely
clear precedent. They made it undeniable that
(02:28):
obeying authority, even the highest levels of government,
couldn't and wouldn't excuse atrocities.
It was like drawing a line in the sand, wasn't it?
Saying individual conscience, basic human morality that comes
before any order to commit inhumane acts.
And this fundamentally changed how we think about state power.
It drove home the a uniform, a badge.
(02:48):
It doesn't erase your personal responsibility.
It really signaled a new era where, you know, universal human
rights started to take precedence over national borders
in some really important ways. The Nuremberg trials, yeah,
everyone's heard the phrase. It's almost like shorthand for
justice after the war. But I think for a lot of people,
the details, what actually happened, why they were so
groundbreaking, it can still be a bit fussy.
(03:09):
Should we break that down for us?
What exactly were these trials and why are they still such a
huge landmark in legal history? What was so revolutionary?
Absolutely. Yeah, happy to.
So the Nuremberg trials, they weren't just one single trial.
It was actually a series of military tribunals.
The Allied powers, the winners of the war, set them up right
after World War 2 ended in the German city of Nuremberg, hence
(03:31):
the name. Their main goal?
To prosecute the big shots, basically the most prominent
political, military and economicleaders of Nazi Germany, the
people they saw as most responsible for, well, the
horrifying scale of everything. The human rights violation is
the Holocaust, the aggressive war itself.
It was a completely unprecedented attempt to deliver
justice on an international scale.
(03:53):
Nothing like it had really been tried before.
And the charges themselves, theywere truly ground breaking
revolutionary for the time. First, you had crimes against
humanity. This was a brand new legal idea.
It covered things like extermination, enslavement,
deportation, you know, other inhumane acts against civilians.
This was radical because it basically said there are some
wrong so profound they're everyone's business regardless
(04:14):
of borders or politics. Even if a country wasn't
technically at war, it was like building a whole new legal
framework for accountability, recognizing, you know, the basic
dignity of every single person. Then there were war crimes that
dealt with violations of the existing rules of war, like
mistreating prisoners or just wantonly destroying cities,
things people already understoodas illegal in wartime.
(04:35):
And 3rd crimes against peace. This tackled the planning and
starting of aggressive wars, another legal innovation trying
to stop future conflicts fueled by conquest.
The real genius though, wasn't just defining these things, it
was enforcing them, providing a way to actually address state
sponsored atrocities globally. But here's the crucial part, the
bit that makes these trials so incredibly relevant for us
(04:58):
today. It was the flat out rejection of
the main defense most of the accused tried to use.
The Just following orders defense.
Exactly. They all tried it.
I was just doing what I was told, and the tribe, you don't
just unequivocally shut it down,dismissed it entirely.
They established this principle.Individuals are responsible,
period, for their own actions. Doesn't matter what orders they
got. This wasn't just about punishing
(05:19):
those specific Nazis. It was about setting a lasting
legal standard, one that went beyond borders, beyond military
rank. It meant your own moral compass,
your respect for basic human rights.
That has to come before blind obedience, a really powerful
statement about individual choice, even inside rigid
systems. And the sentences?
Well, they reflected the horror of the crimes.
(05:40):
They ranged from death by hanging for the absolute worst
offenders down to long prison terms for others.
But really, beyond the punishments, the lasting impact,
you just can't overstate it. This principle, individual
accountability, even when ordered, it's been embedded,
upheld again and again in international law ever since.
You see its DNA in the Geneva Conventions, in the rules for
the International Criminal Court.
(06:01):
It's deeply influenced military justice systems worldwide.
It makes it clear soldiers, officers, anyone in authority,
they have a duty to refuse the legal orders.
It's set a universal standard for responsibility that cuts
across nations and hierarchies. It's, well, it's a bedrock of
modern international law. Wow.
OK, So definitely not just some dusty historical event.
It's a living principle, a cornerstone really for how we
(06:23):
understand justice globally. That's a powerful foundation.
But OK, the big question I thinkeveryone's asking is how does
this connect to today right now?Because our article from
Nuremberg to now, it makes a pretty stark claim.
It says, OK, Fast forward from then to now, and we find
ourselves facing, quote, similarchallenges.
It's suggesting parallels to thekind of, you know, authoritarian
(06:46):
overreach that made Nurembert necessary in the 1st place.
What exactly did the article mean by that, especially when
talking about the United States?Right.
Zooming out to that bigger picture, the article basically
lays it out. Today, similar tactics are being
employed by federal agents in the United States.
Now that's a heavy statement, especially because it's drawing
a Direct Line from historical abuses of power to things being
(07:08):
observed now in a democracy. It's suggesting a pattern of
behavior that, OK, maybe it's not on the same catastrophic
scale as World War 2. Obviously not, but it still
represents, according to the article, a serious chipping away
at civil liberties and democratic norms.
The implication is, you know, weneed to recognize these patterns
early, before they get worse. It's about seeing the warning
(07:30):
signs that tragically were missed before.
Similar tactics. That's a really strong phrase,
maybe even alarming. And the article doesn't just
leave it there, it gives specifics, right?
What are some of the examples itpoints to that make this claim
feel so, well, stark? And maybe beyond just the
actions, what's the underlying thing, the effect, that makes
them echo those historical worries?
(07:51):
Yeah, the article does provide several pretty disturbing
examples of reported incidents. It paints a picture of
aggressive, often anonymous actions by federal agents.
For instance, it often mentions agents being masked and without
visible identification. Right Which?
Immediately makes you think, well, who are these people?
How are they accountable exactly?
(08:11):
That lack of identification, it raises huge red flags about
accountability, about transparency.
When agents operate like that anonymously, it can create this
feeling, this environment where maybe they feel less
constrained, less worried about oversight, more likely to act
with impunity. It definitely erodes public
trust, and it makes it incredibly difficult to hold
(08:33):
specific people responsible if something goes wrong.
That anonymity itself can encourage bad behavior.
And then, beyond just the masks,the article details specific
alleged actions, things that directly step on citizens rights
and are frankly deeply unsettling.
It talks about agents forcibly entering vehicles, apparently
without any legal basis. Just trying.
To get into someone's car, yeah.Imagine that you're in your car,
(08:56):
your private space, and agents, no warning, no clear authority,
try to force their way in. That's not just like, an
inconvenience, it's a serious violation of your personal
space, your property. It must be terrifying.
It totally bypasses the normal legal steps for search and
seizure, right? And creates this climate of
fear, of uncertainty. And then the source mentions
(09:18):
agents actually smashing car windows.
Whoa, OK. That's another level entirely
it, really. Is it goes way beyond just
property damage. It's an act of aggressive force.
Often the article yes. Without a clear warrant, without
an immediate like life or death threat justifying it, actions
like that, they escalate things dramatically.
They instill this deep fear, this helplessness.
(09:38):
It feels less like standard law enforcement trying to deescalate
and more like tactics used to intimidate to dominate.
The article also highlights detaining individuals without
warrants, Which? Is.
I mean that's fundamental, isn'tit?
Due process. Absolutely.
It's a cornerstone of civil liberties in any democracy.
Our 4th Amendment is supposed toprotect against exactly that.
Unreasonable searches and seizures, detaining someone
(10:01):
without a warrant, without probable cause.
It's a direct assault on that protection.
When people are just, you know, scooped up off the street
without explanation, their basicrights are just fundamentally
trampled. It creates a chilling effect on
freedom of movement, freedom of association, everything.
And finally, the source describes agents engaging in
practices like racial profiling.OK, that's.
(10:22):
Incredibly serious. Deeply.
Troubling. It implies these actions aren't
based on actual suspicious behavior, but are discriminatory
based on someone's race or ethnicity.
Practices like that they just destroy trust between law
enforcement and communities. They perpetuate injustice, and
honestly, they're a hallmark of oppressive regimes that try to
control certain populations by targeting them based on who they
(10:43):
are, not what they do. It suggests A systemic bias that
completely your minds equal protection under the law.
So you put all that together, right?
The masked agents, the forced entries, smashed windows,
warrantless detentions, the racial profiling.
You can see why there's widespread concern, why many
observers, civil liberties groups They argue these actions
are reminiscent of authoritarianregimes.
(11:04):
They bring up images of state power being used arbitrarily,
without the checks and balances you expect in a constitutional
Republic. The worry isn't just about
isolated incidents. It's about a potential systemic
erosion of civil liberties, the very fabric of democratic norms.
It suggests a drift towards a kind of law enforcement that
puts control above individual rights.
And that's exactly what the Nuremberg principles were
(11:26):
designed to prevent. By saying no order justifies
violating those rights. Yeah, it paints a.
Really stark picture definitely draws in comfortable lines back
to those historical concerns about unchecked power, that slow
creep of authoritarianism. It forces you to ask some tough
questions about the safeguards we think protect our freedoms.
OK, let's pivot slightly. There's something else the
(11:47):
article really zeroes in on. It's about the the internal
thinking the narrative may be going on inside some agencies
that actually quote some federalagents supposedly telling
themselves something like Trump will protect us, he'll pardon
anything we do. Wow, that's that's quite a
statement to believe. What does the article say about
how valid that belief actually is?
What are the legal facts it points to?
(12:09):
That might just shatter that whole idea, right?
The article explicitly calls this a dangerous fantasy, and it
does so because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of
how presidential power, specifically pardon power,
actually works. This belief, maybe it feels
comforting to someone thinking it, but it's built on really
shaky legal ground. It reveals a huge gap in
(12:30):
understanding the dual system ofjustice we have in the US you
know, federal versus state, a system that's deliberately set
up to prevent exactly that kind of blanket immunity because so.
Why is it so flawed? Break that down the.
Article clarifies it with one critical legal fact.
Presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes only.
Federal, not state, crimes. Exactly.
(12:50):
That's the crucial distinction. Many people might not realize
it, but it's absolutely fundamental to American law.
The president can pardon people convicted of or even just
accused of crimes against the federal government, but they
have 0 jurisdiction over state legal systems 0.
It's a core part of the separation of powers between
federal and state governments. A vital check.
(13:12):
And here's where the article points out why this fantasy is
so dangerous. In practice, much of the
misconduct we're seeing, things like unlawful detentions, racial
profiling, property destruction,happens in states where
Democratic governments hold power.
Now, that's not just a politicalpoint, it's a huge legal point.
In those states, the governor's,the attorneys general, the local
district attorneys, they operatecompletely independently from
(13:34):
the federal government. They don't.
Answer to the president, not at.All they have their own laws,
their own mandates, their own justice systems running parallel
to the federal one. So what that means is if a
federal agent does something that breaks a state law,
assault, property damage, false imprisonment, violating state
civil rights laws, that agent can be prosecuted by state
authorities. The independence of those state
(13:56):
systems is a really important check on federal power, a
federal pardon. It has absolutely no legal
weight in the state courtroom. None.
The president cannot make state charges disappear, cannot
commute a state sentence, cannotshield someone from state
prosecution. So the stark reality, as the
article puts it, is that no federal pardon can shield anyone
from state level accountability,including prison time.
(14:18):
It's a point that just can't be stressed enough.
Break a state law, you face state justice.
Full stop. Presidential pardon is
irrelevant. That agent could face the full
force of state law, felony charges, serious prison time,
completely separate from any federal issues.
It's fundamental to our federalist system.
It acts as this powerful break on potential abuses of power at
(14:40):
the federal level, especially when those abuses cross state
lines. It's like the ultimate
constitutional firewall, making sure no single person can just
erase accountability for breaking state laws.
That's. That's a really profound point,
and it completely dismantles that idea of blanket immunity.
It's like thinking your house key works on your neighbors
door. It just doesn't.
The president's power, big as itis, stops at the state line for
(15:02):
state crimes. Precisely.
And the article really drives this home with a well, a pretty
poignant observation about the inevitable payback of injustice,
a lesson that echoes right from Nuremberg.
It quotes, ironically, the very same agents who now act like
they hold absolute power over U.S. citizens will one day sit
on the other side of justice. That's not just like a
(15:24):
hypothetical. Maybe.
It's a potent warning based on historical patterns.
When power goes unchecked, things change.
It highlights that cycle of power and accountability, a
chilling reminder that tables often turn.
And the imagery the article uses, it really makes it stick.
It paints this picture of a well, a brutal awakening.
That cell door will clang shut. And suddenly they're both.
The president protects me. Citizens have no rights, will
(15:47):
echo back at them. Yeah.
It's not just about the legal consequences, is it?
It's deeply human. For the first time, maybe these
individuals will truly grasp what it feels like to have
someone else decide their fate, to be stripped of their freedom,
to feel the sharp end of injustice first hand, the very
same injustice they might have dished out.
It's a moment of stark, unavoidable, maybe self
(16:07):
recognition. And this highlights a really
crucial lesson, the wheels of justice.
OK, sometimes they turn slowly, but they often do turn.
History is full of examples. That principle of
accountability, Senate Nurembergreinforced over and over since
then. It's not just theory.
It has real teeth, real consequences.
And those who operate outside the law, even if they think
they're protected, they often face A reckoning.
(16:29):
It's a powerful reminder that abused power rarely lasts
forever without consequences. The system eventually is
designed to correct itself, to hold people accountable no
matter their rank, no matter their uniform.
That is a truly chilling thought, but also a vital one.
It helps understand the deep moral and practical consequences
of acting outside the law, especially when you're in a
(16:49):
position of public trust. The consequences are real, very
real, and they can boomerang back in ways you might never
expect, hitting you a deeply personal level.
Now, it seems like a common assumption, maybe even
understandable, that if you're afederal agent, or maybe National
Guard or active duty military, but somehow that status gives
you a shield. Like the uniform itself is an
(17:10):
invisible cloak protecting you from personal consequences for
things you do on duty. Is that assumption right, or
does the article push back hard against that idea?
Oh. It pushes back very hard.
The article directly refutes that assumption.
Flat out states this is not true.
The uniform, the badge, the federal status, none of it
grants blanket immunity. Especially not when state laws
(17:33):
are broken or fundamental civil rights are violated.
This is a critical point the article really hammers home.
It's trying to debunk any mistaken ideas about
unquestioned authority or protection.
It's basically saying that's a fundamental misread of how our
legal system with its checks andbalances is supposed to work.
And it's really worth underlining that when state laws
get broken, the the accountability, the
(17:54):
consequences, that can go way beyond just prison time.
They're incredibly broad. They can completely alter your
life, affecting every single aspect of your future.
It's not just about maybe endingup in jail, it's about
potentially seeing your whole professional and personal life
dismantled. Losing the security probably
took for granted. OK, so beyond prison, what kind
of life altering consequences are we talking about here?
(18:16):
The article gets specific, doesn't it?
It? Does it meticulously lists
several severe, potentially lifedestroying consequences for
agents who abuse their authorityand braid state laws?
First off, there's the loss of pension and retirement benefits.
Wow, that's huge. It's.
Catastrophic. It means years, maybe decades of
service of contributions just wiped away.
(18:37):
Gone. For many people in those roles,
their pension is their financialsecurity for retirement.
Losing it can throw them into severe economic hardship, affect
their ability to just live securely when they're older.
Secondly, the article points to the forfeiture of veterans
benefits even. VA benefit, yes.
For those who served honorably in the military before or
alongside their federal service,these benefits are hard earned.
(19:00):
They're invaluable. They provide access to
healthcare, education, help, housing assistance, other vital
support. Losing them can be devastating,
especially for veterans relying on them for critical medical
care or just keeping a roof overtheir head.
It's like a profound betrayal oftheir past.
Service and sacrifice basically erases the recognition for that
dedication. Thirdly, they face permanent
(19:20):
damage to their career and professional licenses.
So. Even if they to avoid prison,
their career could be over. Absolutely.
Many law enforcement and federaljobs require specific
certifications licenses to operate.
A conviction, especially for crimes involving abuse of power
or civil rights violations, can lead to those licenses being
permanently revoked. That effectively ends their
(19:42):
career in law enforcement or anyrelated field needing those
credentials. It just slams doors shut on
future employment in their chosen profession, forces a
complete career change, often with really limited options.
And 4th, there's the looming threat of civil lawsuits with
significant financial liability.So.
Getting sued personally. Personally.
Exactly. Even if criminal charges don't
(20:03):
stick or often happening at the same time as criminal cases, the
people who were harmed by the agents unlawful actions can sue
them directly in civil court. These lawsuits can result in
massive financial judgments against the individual agent.
We're talking potentially seizure of assets, having your
wages garnished, being saddled with crippling debt for years,
(20:23):
maybe decades. It means their personal
finances, their home, their savings, everything they've
built could be severely at risk.The consequences just ripple out
far beyond a potential jail sentence.
And then, looking at the most extreme outcomes, the article
details some pretty chilling possibilities for those who
really abuse their authority. They could literally find
(20:43):
themselves on the street, potentially homeless.
Seriously, it's not hyperbole. If you've lost your career, lost
your benefits, and you're maybe buried under huge civil
judgments, that financial stability you had?
It can completely vanish, leaving them in truly dire
straits. And here's a really chilling,
ironic twist the article mentions They could become
subject to the very same racial or social profiling they might
(21:04):
have inflicted on others. Yeah, once they're stripped of
the uniform, the authority, they're just another citizen,
vulnerable to the same biases, the same discriminatory
practices they might have perpetuated.
If their actions were rooted in discrimination, they could find
themselves on the receiving end,experiencing that dehumanization
they once may be dished out. It's a powerful, almost karmic
(21:26):
kind of reversal. And all this just hammers home a
fundamental legal truth the article underscores.
The law ultimately is supposed to be blind.
It doesn't differentiate betweensomeone in a uniform and an
ordinary citizen when it comes to accountability for criminal
actions. Sure, there are protections for
officers acting lawfully within their duties, but those
(21:47):
protections evaporate the momentlaws are broken.
The very system designed to protect civil rights is also
designed intentionally to turn the tables when those rights are
violated by people in power. It's a mechanism built right
into our legal framework to ensure power isn't absolute and
that justice eventually is for everyone.
That. Really lays bare the entire
spectrum of sequences, doesn't it?
(22:07):
It's so much more than just a flap on the wrist.
It's a potential complete life upheaval for anyone who thinks
they can operate above the law just because of their job title
or uniform. It really highlights the immense
responsibility that comes with that power and the incredibly
severe repercussions when that responsibility is just
abandoned. OK, so given this pretty
(22:29):
sobering reality of accountability, what about
solutions? What are the concrete mechanisms
the article points to for actually upholding this
accountability? How do we make sure these
principles aren't just words on paper, but are actively
enforced? How do we give real teeth to
those lessons from Nuremberg? Well.
A really key insight from the article is that the courts are
playing their role. They've been consistently
(22:50):
reinforcing that Nuremberg principle.
It specifically notes that courts have consistently ruled
that just following orders is not a valid defense for unlawful
actions. The.
Judges aren't buying that excuse.
They're not. And this isn't some new idea.
It's established legal precedent.
Confirm time and again it means judges are rejecting the
argument that someone could justpass the buck to a superior when
(23:12):
their actions break the law or violate fundamental rights.
It really highlights the judiciary as that vital check on
power. And what's more, the article
adds that recent rulings have reinforced this principle,
actively holding individuals accountable for rights
violations. Not just old precedent, it's
happening now. Exactly.
That's crucial because it shows the legal system isn't static.
(23:34):
It's actively applying and strengthening these principles
right now in response to currentevents.
It signals that the judiciary iswilling to step in and make sure
individual accountability happens.
Regardless of someone's positionor the political winds.
These rulings are setting powerful new precedents.
They empower victims, they act as a deterrent, and they make it
clear the legal landscape is adapting to ensure justice.
(23:56):
But it's not just the courts. There's a vital role for public
awareness, for advocacy, that's crucial in any democracy.
The article highlights the powerof civil society.
It notes that organizations and communities are actively
documenting and protesting unlawful actions by federal
agents. People on.
The ground taking action? Absolutely.
Essential. I mean, citizens aren't just
sitting back and watching, they're actively gathering
(24:17):
evidence, speaking out, organizing and that
documentation, that detailed recording of events can be
absolutely critical later on forlegal cases.
It provides solid evidence, and it also brings public pressure.
It forces authorities to actually address the abuses
instead of sweeping them under the rug.
The article gives a really specific, powerful example of
this. Families have filed complaints
(24:38):
after incidents where ICE agentssmashed car windows and detained
individuals without warrants. This shows how that abstract
idea of rights violations becomes incredibly real and
personal when people decide to fight back.
Filing those complaints, even ifthey don't lead to immediate
arrest, is a critical first step.
It builds a case, raises awareness, gets official
(24:58):
investigations started. It shows resolve, A refusal to
just let abuses slide. It sends a message.
We're watching and then steppingback, looking at the bigger
picture. There are also efforts to
implement specific policy changes, reforms designed to
boost transparency and accountability.
The article talks about proactive measures like pushing
for policies that restrict the use of masks by federal agents
(25:21):
during operations. Getting rid of the anonymity
problem exactly. The goal is straightforward but
profound. If agents are clearly
identifiable, they're much more likely to be held accountable
for what they do. Anonymity breeds that dangerous
sense of impunity. Clear identification promotes
responsibility, helps build trust or rebuild it, and allows
(25:41):
for proper oversight. This is a direct response to
those concerns about masks and agents.
It's a tangible step towards preventing future abuses and
creating a more transparent, more just system.
OK. So we've got the lingo system
upholding accountability backed by recent rulings, and we have
citizens organizations on the ground documenting, advocating,
(26:02):
pushing for policy change. That feels like a powerful makes
that top down and bottom up pressure.
So for someone listening right now, maybe feeling like, OK, I
need to be part of this solution.
I need to uphold these principles.
What are the specific actionablethings the article suggests they
can do right? The article's action section
gives some really clear, concrete steps that you, the
listener, can take right now. First, and this is maybe the
(26:27):
most fundamental, it advises youto stay informed.
This means actively educating yourself, and maybe others too,
about your rights when you encounter law enforcement.
Knowing your rights, like your right to remain silent.
You're right not to consent to asearch without a warrant.
You're right to have a lawyer. That's your first most crucial
defense against potential overreach.
Understanding these rights empowers you to navigate those
(26:48):
situations more effectively, more safely, to protect yourself
and your community. Second, the article stresses how
critically important it is to document incidents record.
Things if you can, if it. Is safe to do so, yes.
Record interactions you witness involving federal agents or any
law enforcement that could mean using your phone to video
record, maybe taking pictures oreven just writing down detailed
(27:09):
notes right after something happens.
What you saw, who was involved, badge numbers if visible times
locations. This documentation creates a
record that's hard to deny. It's vital evidence if legal
action is needed later. And crucially, the article also
says report any misconduct to appropriate authorities, file
those formal complaints with internal affairs, independent
(27:31):
oversight boards, civil liberties groups like the ACLU.
Documentation is power. It provides that concrete
evidence so incidents aren't just dismissed or forgotten.
And thirdly, it encourages you to engage in advocacy.
Get involved actively support the organizations that are
working day in day out to protect civil liberties, to
promote transparency, to demand accountability from law
(27:51):
enforcement. These groups often have the
legal know how the resources is the public platform to really
challenge unlawful actions effectively and push for real
policy changes locally, statewide, nationally.
Your support, whether it's volunteering time, donating
money, or just amplifying their message, it directly fuels their
vital work, work that safeguardsdemocratic principles and our
(28:13):
individual freedoms. These collective actions,
they're all about empowering individuals to be watchdogs,
right, to gather that crucial information and to make sure the
principles of justice and accountability aren't just
abstract ideas, but are activelydefended in our communities
every single day. So when?
We boil it all down. What does this all mean for us
here now as we wrap up this deepdive?
I mean, the main take away from from Nuremberg to now, it feels
(28:36):
incredibly clear. It's a lesson history just keeps
shouting at us. Those who committed justices,
those who abuse power thinking they're immune.
They can't hide behind authorityforever.
That excuse, just following orders.
It's been totally rejected by international law, by military
justice, by, frankly, the world's moral conscience.
That Seldor, to use the article's image again, it will
(28:56):
eventually clang shut. It's a stark reminder that
accountability somehow finds itsway.
And that's. Exactly the point the Nuremberg
trials. They stand as the stark,
permanent testament to the world's commitment, or at least
aspiration, towards justice and accountability.
They cemented a principle that echoes down the generations.
No one is above the law. Individual responsibility for
(29:19):
your actions, especially when they violate human rights, is
paramount. So when we face today's
challenges, the kinds of tacticswe've been discussing, we have
to actively uphold these principles.
We must ensure that actions taken today by anyone with power
don't go unchallenged. Complacency just isn't an option
when civil liberties are on the line.
Vigilance. That's our best defense against
the erosion of democratic norm. So for.
(29:40):
You listening right now? Here's something you can do
today. Something immediate, something
impactful. Learn your rights.
Know what they are during encounters with law enforcement.
Be empowered by that knowledge. If it's safe.
Document incidents you witness for that it happened to you.
That evidence is just invaluable.
And please support local and national organizations that are
out there fighting for civil liberties.
(30:01):
Your engagement, your support. It truly makes a difference in
upholding the very foundations of our society and.
Here's something powerful you can share a message that really
cuts through the noise, reinforces A timeless truth.
No one is above the law. Just following orders is never
an excuse. Share that message with friends,
family, your community posted online.
(30:21):
Let it be a reminder to others that accountability is coming
for those who abuse power. That justice, yeah, might take
time, but it often prevails. You can also, if you want, join
the broader conversation, talk with fellow plant aid protectors
on Blue Ski. You can find them at
https.bski.aprofileeducatetheplanet.bc.socialandforevenmorefreeglobalciviceducationresourcescheckouthtps.github.com/freeciviceducation.
(30:44):
Lots of good stuff. There we are.
Really grateful you joined us for this deep dive.
Truly, if you found this discussion valuable, if you want
to keep getting these kinds of crucial insights, please think
about subscribing to Educate thePlanet.
It's free, you'll get their new posts, and you'll support their
vital mission. You're informed, active
participation. Honestly, that's the most
powerful force we have for upholding the principles that
(31:05):
protect all of us, for making sure the lessons of history
actually guide our path forward.Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.