"Idealogues".

Hagopian, The Vietnam War in American Memory, p. 58.

But commanders have an obligation to investigate and punish crimes. Unpunished violence against civilians was endemic among the Americal Division. Medina covered up a crime before the massacre. Isn't the dereliction of officer responsibility relevant to the violence?

I agree the violence cannot be _reduced to_ legality but that is another straw person, isn't it? Like "only a small part". Who says that legality is the whole of the historical question?

Historically the Hutto case judgment shows that the current disrespect for the Nuremberg standard is not entirely new, although it is arguably more flagrant. Not worthy of the interest of a historian?

As the U.S. government is threatening U.S. senators for saying that a soldier need not (should be MUST NOT) obey an illegal order, the concept of superior orders remains historically salient, given the disrespect for the Nuremberg standard. I'd welcome a conversation in another context.

As I am working on command responsibility and the My Lai massacre, I am interested to know where that discourse is going strong. Would you mind sending any references or links, please, Kim? Thanks.

It's flouting, for heaven's sake.

The problem is that barriers to voting are not evenly distributed.

Go to your local recycling centre. Look in the small appliance shed. Take your pick from the selection there!