I'm sorry. It is very difficult for me to take you seriously when you immediately compare someone to Hitler. The discussion has barely started and Godwin's Law has already been proved true.

Still, I figured I would at least read through the articles you listed, but they lost me pretty quick too. From the article by Kessel:

The novel repeatedly tells us that Ender is morally spotless; though he ultimately takes on guilt for the extermination of the alien buggers, his assuming this guilt is a gratuitous act. [...] In this Card argues that the morality of an act is based solely on the intentions of the person acting.

Already it seems the author of the article has read a different book than the Ender's Game I read. Ender is not "excused" from the guilt of his actions because his intentions were good, he is excused because he did not know that the war he was fighting was real-life. He was told, and had every reason to believe that they were exercises, a game. His teachers spent a lot of effort to maintain this deception because they understood that if Ender knew it was real he would not kill like they wanted him to. By the author's logic we are all guilty of murder when we play violent video games.

The very next reference to an actual scene from the book is wrong again:

On the very first page of the novel an adult lies to Ender about something that is going to hurt him: the doctor removing the surgically implanted monitor that Ender has worn while being evaluated by the IE training agency swears that the removal “won’t hurt a bit.”4 But in the event it is excruciating.

The author implies that the adult purposefully lies to Ender and knowingly inflict pain beyond what is normal for a doctor's visit. First: children learn quickly that when adults say "This isn't going to hurt a bit" they are usually lying, as it will hurt a bit. So this white lie is a very relate-able experience for children, not "relentless, undeserved torment" as the author states one sentence before. The doctor certainly did not expect it to be severe pain:

"It's designed to be removed. Without infection, without damage. But there'll be some tickling, and some people say they have a feeling of something missing. You'll keep looking around for something. Something you were looking for, but you can't find it, and you can't remember what it was. So I'll tell you. It's the monitor you're looking for, and it isn't there. In a few days that feeling will pass."

When Ender experience severe pain as a result, the doctor is almost as surprised as Ender. He is unprepared for the violence of Ender's pain, is obviously upset at how much pain Ender has endured, and is upset with himself about it:

The doctor was trembling; his voice shook as he spoke. "They leave these things in the kids for three years, what do they expect? We could have switched him off, do you realize that? We could have unplugged his brain for all time. [...] Could have unplugged him forever. I don't have the brains of a bugger."

But notice that he does not express any misgivings about it until after Ender has his violent reaction. Surely he has never seen this reaction before or he would have been more prepared to deal with it.

Already the author's arguments are resting on very shaky readings of the source text, but I'll keep going a little further.

His next several paragraphs focus on further examples of how Card subjects Ender to "relentless, undeserved torment" with the implication that this is done simply to make the reader sympathetic to Ender. Here are some excerpts of his examples:

When Ender is not being lied to by authorities, he is being bullied. [...]

From where I sit, this is is very common in schools. Kids are lied to by authority figures and bullies in schools act with impunity regularly. Sure, this is making Ender out to be a sympathetic character for many kids, but not because he is being subjected to extreme, unusual torture, but because he is facing things they face everyday in real life.

The family offers no haven from assault. [...]

Again, this form of "relentless, undeserved torment" is sadly not atypical.

Yet, for reasons that are never made clear, Ender never tells his parents; he learns early to hide his fear and hurt. [...]

Again not atypical.

One might ask where Ender’s parents or teachers are when Ender is physically assaulted. This question reveals a second mechanism Card uses to generate sympathy: in Ender’s Game, adults or authority are never there to protect.

Again, not atypical. In fact, this is a key point in the book. Ender is being manipulated to believe he will always have to solve his own problems. I find it hard to believe Card is sneakily trying to manipulate the reader into feeling sympathetic for Ender when he tells the reader about this directly in the book.

The author of the article seems to be trying to make the point that Ender was morally culpable for his actions regardless of his intention of the circumstances. At this point I think he is trying to set the groundwork for the argument that Card is purposefully manipulating the reader into being so sympathetic to Ender as a character that we are willing to forgive him for his crimes. So far the author's biased treatment of the source has biased me against his article to such a degree that I do not know if I can continue reading with an open mind. His argument as I understand it so far seems to have trivial flaws. Are we always responsible for the results of our actions, even when we are purposefully manipulated into circumstances where we have been deceived about what the outcome will be?