The "I was just following orders" defense should not shield soldiers from criminal culpability.

Thanks for taking this debate CiRrK - your reputation precedes you and I'm honored to debate this topic with such an esteemed opponent.There are two primary reasons that individual soldiers should be held responsible for following the directives of their authorized commanders: first, because soldiers have the capacity to reason and make moral choices. The force of this argument is very straight-forward, as it is the basis on which any decision to disobey authority is and can be justified. True, knowing when to disobey authority is a classic problem in Western philosophy, but the relevant issues at stake in this debate are hardly in debate. It is well-established that soldiers should disobey orders when those orders are morally impermissible. The authorization for massacres, abuse, and dehumanization of those victimized may come from military and civilian leaders, but it is front-line soldiers who choose to commit and produce these atrocities.This was the implicit reasoning behind the refusal of the Nuremberg Tribunal to accept the superior orders defense. The judges at Nuremberg believed that defendants were responsible unless they lacked a "moral choice" - a personal capacity to act differently without risking one's own life or the safety of one's family. The counter-argument that says soldiers cannot always be expected to know when they have a "moral choice," to know when they are engaged in impermissible abusive conduct, fails because ignorance of the law does not justify breaking the law. The correct assumption to make in the context of war is that every soldier should have a sense of basic decency, regardless of how well they understand the application of international and domestic law to particular orders. As such, the "just following orders" defense is a non-starter, as the defense implies soldiers do not have (or require for service) a sense of acceptable standards and basic decency.The second reason individual soldiers should be held responsible is because excusing them sends a wrong and dangerous message to other soldiers, the nation, and the world. Symbolic legal acts (such as allowing the superior orders defense) have measurable social effects. If we allow soldiers to use the "just following orders" defense, it increases the risk of catastrophic abuses commited by soldiers because it communicates disregard for individual responsibility and human decency. The effect of telling soldiers that they are not individually responsible for commiting atrocities as long as it was ordered by someone higher in the chain of command would give soldiers who want to commit atrocities a greater incentive to do so. As such, there is a tangible symbolic and pracical value to sending soldiers a message that they will be held responsible for acts even when performed under orders from their superiors.What's more, the message of individual responsibility in the context of war conveys democratic ideals of participation, individual autonomy, and freedom of expression. The message conveys a national and international desire to prevent military atrocities. If soldiers are allowed to use the "just following orders" defense, it is likely that soldiers will commit a greater number of immoral actions. Think about it from the perspective of a soldier: if a solder knows they can get away with abusive conduct using the superior orders defense, the decision to obey or disobey illegal orders is more likely to go in the direction of obeying because it comes at no legal harm to the soldier. On the other hand, if the soldier knows they can be prosecuted for abusive conduct regardless of whether it was ordered by their superiors or not, then soldiers will have greater incentive to disobey illegal orders because they will have to weigh the legal harm associated with immoral action.I think I've said enough for now. I'd like to see my opponent's objections first before I counter them, so I'll turn it over to CiRrK now.