It is actually, because unlikely though the name may seem to you the Nuremberg defense is actually a lot older than WorldWar II and was historically invoked for lots of other things besides war crimes. The fact that during the Nuremberg trials it was used so frequently that it got named because of them does not detract from this.
Sure. But what Ortiz is pulling here is not a Nuremberg Defense ("I was aware of the injustice, but my hands were tied"). She clearly states that she's completely fine with "severe punishment" in "appropriate cases", just that with regards to Aaron, it seemed somewhat inappropriate to her and her office. (I agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question.)
I agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question.
It isn't, though. That she comes out with this attitude afterwards is absolutely self-serving and cannot be relied on as an accurate description of her motivations. The "hey, well, that was just the press release" claptrap should be completely disregarded as a mitigating rationale for the ass-covering bullshit that it is.
This leaves us with the "hey, Congress passed these laws, don't look at me," attitude that, as Jacques astutely points out, removes her agency from her actions.
The concept and practice of prosecutorial discretion, however, casts the lie to that position. Barthes and Derrida's "death of the author" is not a force in the law, so Ortiz attempting to play The Cog role should be seen as nothing more than sarcasm.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders