[blml] ...have we really come to this??? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Ed Reppert]

On Aug 7, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Tim West-Meads wrote:

> Illegal regulations are not binding on TDs and "interpretations of
> law" by bodies other than the WBFLC have no legal standing.

It has been a fundamental principle of military law since that  
subject was first discussed that a soldier is to obey the orders  
given to him. At Nuremburg, however, "I was only following orders"  
was thrown out, and now the principle is that one is not required  
(indeed must not, in practice) obey illegal orders. The problem, of  
course, is that what makes an order illegal is nowhere defined. So  
you disobey an order at your peril (one hopes the old practice of  
shooting out of hand a subordinate who refuses to obey an order is no  
longer extant, but who knows?)

In parallel with this principle of modern military law one could  
argue that a TD should not be bound by "illegal" regulations, but who  
decides whether they are illegal? And does the parallel really make  
sense in the context of a game, anyway?

In any case, such regulations and interpretations *are* binding and  
*do* have legal standing if the WBFLC says they do (I am not claiming  
the WBFLC has done so).