The inter­roga­tor on tri­al for killing a cap­tured Iraqi gen­er­al was con­vict­ed of neg­li­gent homi­cide, and not of murder.

He wrapped the gen­er­al up in a sleep­ing bag and tied him up with elec­tri­cal wire. He said he was act­ing with­in the reg­u­la­tions. The jury clear­ly accept­ed that.

Now imag­ine you were in Col­orado Springs, not west­ern Iraq. You and a group of large, strong men and women beat some­one repeat­ed­ly, then wrap him up in a sleep­ing bag, tie him up, and let him suffocate.

You’re sit­ting on a jury, hear­ing these facts. Is this pre­med­i­tat­ed mur­der or mere neg­li­gence? Odds are, you vote for murder.

The dif­fer­ence is that this offi­cer assert­ed he was act­ing on orders. The jury bought it. That means that some of the respon­si­bil­i­ty for this death, a clear vio­la­tion of the Gene­va Con­ven­tion, moves fur­ther up the chain of command.