Second, you are forgetting about a little something called the presumption of innocence. It's basic legal/ethical thinking.
Your argument actually presumes that these soldiers doing the equivalent of following illegal orders. It would be ethically wrong to make that presumption even if you had a legal basis for your argument. It's doubly wrong since you don't have one.
Finally, you have not put forward any rational concept of international law at all. I suggest you look at the very serious thought put forward about creating real international law attendant to the establishment of a European federal state.
boddi
On 11/28/05, Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote:
> boddi satva lbo.boddi at gmail.com
> Mon Nov 28 21:00:19 PST 2005:
>
> > Right, Yoshie, except we use the English way. American soldiers are
> > held responsible for following illegal orders. We got out system
> > FROM the British. Our soldiers swear to protect the Constitution.
> > Soldiers are only protected if they follow LEGAL ORDERS ONLY (is
> > this really a point you cannot understand?) . Thus your little
> > quote proves my point.
>
> And yet you say you run up to any old guy in uniform and thank him
> for his service, when you know NOTHING about whether the man actually
> followed "LEGAL ORDERS ONLY."
>
> Besides, your contempt for international law is as deep as John R.
> Bolton's ("Is International Law Really Law?" <http://www.fed-soc.org/
> Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/internationalnews/in020101.htm>).
>
> Yoshie Furuhashi
> <http://montages.blogspot.com>
> <http://monthlyreview.org>
> <http://mrzine.org>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>