Which is? And, why do you believe it?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This is directly quoted from the Declaration of Independence. I agree with them because they make sense (the Creator bit notwithstanding, since that is not within the scope of this thread).
The populace of which country? Different countries have different forms of government. Even the US does not operate by 'majority decision' of the populace, and never has done.
The populace of
any country. Even those which are not democratic in nature. The populace of a country that does not remove its government from power when it no longer fulfills the will of the people, is giving tacit approval to the continuance of the government. Therefore, it is the will of the masses that keep governments in power.
You have utterly failed to answer my original query though, which I will restate: Do you think it is morally permissible for all of the people in your neighbourhood to demand a large swimming pool, and confiscate part of your income to pay for it? Why or why not?
That is the same as the populace of a city demanding maintenence on its roads, and city government charging taxes to pay for those roads. Even on those who do not drive. Yes, it is morally permissible.
It pretty soundly refutes your ridiculous claim that soldiers are held to higher standards than civilians.
How so?
Soldiers
are held to a higher standard. They are held to standards of behavior under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as civilian law. They are held to the standards put forth by those in command over them. They are required to do things that civilians are not, simply because they are soldiers. Civilians also have many things that they are allowed to do that soldiers are not, for example, protesting, or operating their own business outside of work, or taking a sick day.
You said previously that the government rules by the consent of the governed, and the government in turn expresses the will of the people. If the 'people' commit atrocity through the mechanism of government, who pays the price? Or is it swept under the rug completely?
The people ultimately pay the price, due to the fact that if their government is performing atrocities with their approval, then other countries will come in and put a stop to it, ultimately resulting in either the economic ruin of their nation via sanctions, or the obvious problems of war. Just look at Nazi Germany. The government was performing atrocities, the people of Germany did not put a stop to it, so other countries took action.
It is one thing for CNN or Fox or NPR or the Podunk Times to report that the approval rates of certain actions of the government are down, but ultimately, it does not mean anything. If the people do not actively put a stop to their government's actions, then they are approving those actions.
To sum it all up:
Soldiers act in the will of the Government, Governments act in the will of the people. Therefore, since it is the will of the people that both gives the authority and the instruction to kill, a soldier killing an enemy combatant is not murder. It is only when the soldier acts outside the will of his country that he is guilty in the eyes of his country. Concordantly, it is the responsibility of the people to ensure that their government is acting appropriately, else other countries will step in.
