| > 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. |