[hawkharris]

This raises a complicated question: assuming that the SWAT members are part of an immoral cause — not necessarily true, but let's assume it — should we blame the SWAT members...or the policymakers who command them to the front lines?

The same can be said for U.S. soldiers who volunteer to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Maybe they were unaware of the thousands of civilian deaths that would occur as a result of the American occupation of those countries. Maybe they were swept into a whirlwind, powerless to prevent those casualties, because of policymakers.

I expect that this will be a very unpopular statement, but maybe holding those on the front lines (e.g. soldiers and SWAT members) accountable will help create pressure against immoral government crackdowns. Maybe we should be critical of both those on the front lines and those making the strategic decisions.

[masklinn]

> This raises a complicated question: assuming that the SWAT members are part of an immoral cause — not necessarily true, but let's assume it — should we blame the SWAT members...or the policymakers who command them to the front lines?

Going with military rules and Nuremberg precedents, likely both.

Command responsibility doctrine makes superiors responsible for the crimes of their troops (let alone for their own unlawful orders) and superior orders defences started falling after WWII, especially during the Nuremberg trials:

> The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

the 1998 Rome statute tends to confirm, although a superior order defence may still work under it:

> 1. The fact that a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been committed by a person pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior, whether military or civilian, shall not relieve that person of criminal responsibility unless:

> (a) The person was under a legal obligation to obey orders of the Government or the superior in question;

> (b) The person did not know that the order was unlawful; and

> (c) The order was not manifestly unlawful.

Superiors ought be held accountable either way, boots can escape if they demonstrate that the order was not manifestly unlawful.

[scarecrowbob]

Just anecdotally, most of the folks my age who joined the military did so not out of a sense of duty, but strictly to better their chances, for the same reason they might go to college.

I don't have a lot of respect for that particular decision, and that is not a popular sentiment where I live. I believe that mercenaries, which is more or less what they are, are morally culpable. But I, too, made bad decisions when I was 20, and it's even cloudier when there are a lot of folks telling you that you're making a good decision and that the nay sayers are basically cowardly traitors.

That said, I don't know how useful it is to attack the problem from that direction; between the entrenched fantasies about how legitimate that violence is and the real social and economic circumstances that push people into those kinds of decisions.

There is plenty of blame to go around, if we are okay saying that this use of force is in fact immoral, but in my opinion it doesn't do a lot of good to blame anyone, beyond analysis... all we can really do is look at what we ourselves are doing and decide what we change directly or in concert with our fellow travelers.

[joshdick]

This question was asked and answered at Nuremberg: It is not a valid dense to say you were "just following orders."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_Orders#Nuremberg_Trial...