Well more is coming out, and some of it demonstrated that the officer's defense will not work. One being this statement.

Quote Originally Posted by linked article
Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter.
Actually the Army Regulations state something slightly different. This would be an interpation of an Army Regulation but not the one that sends the United States to War. And its most likely the wrong interpation of the regulation. But this looks like the arguement that might be used to go to the Supreme Court after this Courts Martial.


http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...CD7ACC8652.htm

The Military Judges Ruling on the defense


http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5605/


Frankly the arguement he is trying will not work in a Military Courts Martial because of the very nature of military law. Until the case makes it into the Federal Courts that review all military appeals the LT. will not be able to justify his actions using the "Nuernberg defense" will not be allowed. Because the Military is primarily under the obligation to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief. The lawful order of the deployment comes from the Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq. So the young man has a long legal battle in front of him. It will take several appeals before it can even come close to getting reviewed by the Supreme Court.