@Boozha I've tried to catch up on this thread and want to make a couple of comments. Although I can accept that countries (not just the USA) act in was that seem morally wrong, there may be deeper questions to be asked about those actions. Whilst it may be "fact" that these actions have been carried out, that does not shut down discussions on the validity of those actions. The act of joining the army does not make you responsilble for any crimes commited by that army or the associated heads of the army, nor should this ever be the case. It is perfectly acceptable for a person to join the military whilst NOT supporting the current policies of the current heads of state. I honestly think the two things can be seperated and SHOULD be seperated. However, I do agree that the general public should take a much more active interest in how their government represents them. BUT, this does not simply apply to the military. It applies to the multitude of policies which impact on the world, from foreign aid, to the laws being passes, to the welfare state and beyond. That's all for now, the wife is demanding I cook dinner... over and out.
In a democracy the public, being the souvereign, is resposible for the actions of the government. This has been used by the US as judical procedure and thus they can hardly deny it anymore. And if you join an organization you are, too, responsible for the actions of that group. Otherwise, joining a gang or a terrorist organization would not constitute a crime, would it. Joining an organization implies intent on acting in the interests and in the usus of said organization.
This is true. But, would you accept that you can be part of an organisation for what you perceive as the good that the organisation does, whilst not supporting every aspect of an organisation? I can be part of the "green" movement, whilst condeming some of the more extreme actions undertaken in its name. The gang/crime examples you give have no "greater good" which members can be upholding. However, I think people could join the army with the view of upholding the "greater good" of protecting liberty, freedom, etc... You may say that they are being naive, but is it really fair to condem them?
To play the advocatus diaboli, what about those that join Daesh in order to uphold order in the regions they occupy and organize the infrastructure? What about those that join a gang to protect their neighbourhood (which is how multiple gangs started)? What about those that joined the Wehrmacht because they thought they had to avert threats from Germany? In for a penny, in for a pound, as the saying goes.
Then I would argue the reasons for joining are valid. AND the individuals should be judged on the actions they take or the actions they are activley involved in. If you're involved in a beheading or torture, or you condone such actions, then you should be held morally/legally accountable. If you are part of a group to benefit your society and oppose some elements within that group, then I don't think you are responsible for the actions your group takes, that you oppose. In truth, I think individual cases will be very complicated and me trying to generalise isn't very accurate. But in short, I think you could make a case for being part of any organisation IF it had SOME overall morally positive goal. AND, you opposed any morally negative aspects of the organisation. Also, the overall aims and goals of the organisation would have to be considered. If the goal is world dominance - then any good is outweighed by this.
I don't think the US military would make your cut. But you are right with the notion of treating people by their actions - recently someone coming home from Daesh was sentenced to two years in prison while on Reddit they were screaming for crucifixion with foam on their muzzles because there was no evidence that he had done anything evil and his story checked out.
