,he did not pull the trigger, flip the switch etc. If I ordered you to shoot someone don't you have enough freewill to refuse my command. If you do not then do so are you more or less reponseable for that sin (ie murder) as the person who commanded you to do so
2007-01-03 17:31:09 · 15 answers · asked by Mr Hex Vision 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In a military world, a soldier can refuse to carry out an immoral order, but they are not responsible if they do carry it out. Carrying out an order is the chief rule of military command structure. When a soldier declares an order to be immoral, they risk the consequences of retribution by their commander, and in many cases around the world, they would be instantly killed.
Ultimately, it is the commander who bears responsibility for the orders he issues. This is why the Nuremburg trials were held for Nazi war criminals, and why the European Court is holding trials for the commanders who led the forces in the Balkans that committed ethnic cleansing.
2007-01-03 17:33:47 · answer #1 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
1. The person who orders the murder is guilty, of course.
2. If anybody didn't do what Saddam ordered, he could be killed. So some people might have committed murder only to save their own lives. They may still have some responsibility, depending on the situation, but to a lesser degree because they didn't want to do it.
3. Many of Saddam's people were very willing and even took the initiative. They are as guilty as Saddam, but they are not responsible for as many murders as Saddam was.
2007-01-04 01:39:11 · answer #2 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
anyone in political power or acting as a leader for a group of others MUST be responsible for the actions of thier underlings or the actions of the nation. Basic tenet of responsibility and governing.
If you make a decision you must be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision, whether you are a leader or not. Without great risks one can not speak for others.
Mr. Hussein, being the sole governing power of his location, dealt with numberous other nations as a lawmaker and peacebringer even governing body. His decsions on certain topics must have come at great price to him. However, knowing the global law and doing something that opposses global law knowingly are not the same thing. Accountability my friend. Do you not hold the American President liable for anything the American military does?
Same thing.
2007-01-04 01:37:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, in military terms, the leader who gave the order is the one responsible. The person following orders usually DOES NOT have a choice. Disobedience in the military in general is highly punishable. In certain countries including Iraq, the punishment for disobedience can be a death-sentence.
While we are talking about Saddam, here is something interesting about his crimes against the Kurds. Makes you not know who to believe anymore: http://youtube.com/watch?v=N3hRaDye4zA
2007-01-04 01:37:32 · answer #4 · answered by the secret is in the pudding 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
saddam was apparently the only one that could control those crazy arabs. i think they need to be ruled with an iron fist. a democracy will never work over there. you've got all of these clans, the shiites, the sunis, the kurds, and they all want to kill each other. they've been doing it for centuries. i think the united states should get out of way. start selling guns and ammo to all of the groups and let them thin themselves out for a few years. when there are a lot fewer of them, they should be a lot easier to handle.
2007-01-04 01:38:30 · answer #5 · answered by notmyrealname 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You ae freiking nuts. Hello, anyone home? He was responsable for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent poeple. Thousands of KIDS are orphans because of him. Thousands of soilders arn't coming home because of him.He should have been tortured first. The other poeple who actually physically did the deed, such as highjacking a plane and blowing them selfs up with it obviously didn't have anything to lose. That doesn't mean thay are any less guilty though.
2007-01-04 01:36:26 · answer #6 · answered by theskysthelimit 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If people wouldn't kill in his name, they themselves would be killed or tortured. It's a consequence of dicatorship. If you're leader of a country, then you're responsinble for the things in that country that happen in your name. But if you had the chance to fled the country when you're ordered to kill other people, then you should do it. Problem is to find a country which will take you.
2007-01-04 01:40:44 · answer #7 · answered by · 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam is not totally guilty. Allah & Muhammad are the main culprits.
If there was no islam, do you think saddam would behave the way he did? If there was no islam, do you think there would be so much chaos in the middle east? If there was no islam, would there be bombing in Bali and NY? If there was no islam, would people be fighting islamic terrorism today?
No. its all because evil first existed.
2007-01-04 01:34:12 · answer #8 · answered by Torchbearer 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of coarse he is, the people that did it would have been following orders for their government and if it wern't for sadam no one would have died..
2007-01-04 01:34:05 · answer #9 · answered by Melissa 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think saddam is guilty but the people who did the killing are too.
2007-01-04 01:33:45 · answer #10 · answered by teagan d 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋