DIGRESSION THREE- please explain,?

FABULOUS, AND WHY? The news items on the Bloomberg news site about the conviction of the Fabulous Fab seemed to generate a significant interest from the general public, based I what I saw in terms of the comments which were posted. The majority of the comments seemed to say that he deserved the jury verdict, but then typically commented that a number of other people must also be similarly culpable, particularly his superiors who had given him the product to sell. I can understand that the US, in its inimitable fashion, would have a navel-gazing session about the jury system after the recent Trayvon case, but I just listened to a Bloomberg video, where the "talking head" was paying out on the jury's decision in Tourre's case, saying that he was just some foot-soldier in the Wall Street world of their version of "he was only following orders", so the implied comment being that he was not guilty. Let me get this right...it was a civil case where the fraud he was being charged with, was the fraud he committed against Goldman clients. Forget that Goldman paid for his defence, so impliedly supported his fraudulent behaviour, but the heart of the issue was deception/dishonesty. If Tourre was a foot soldier, and according to the Bloomberg expert, not responsible for his deception/dishonesty, then can I ask, " who was?" I really don't care that much for the use of the media to try to establish apologists positions, and I would hope that the typical Bloomberg audience is sufficiently intelligent to also look through these sorts of ruses for what they are...but the wording used by the videoed correspondent along the lines that as a foot-soldier, he needed to follow orders or he might die.....is starting to invoke metaphors and imagery which need to be more carefully considered next time. I would have thought that the " I was only following orders" defence was correctly demolished during the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. What I find so sadly ironic, and faux poetic, about the apologists position this time, is the reason the "only following orders" defence was correctly demolished was because the population was seen as being required to operate to a higher moral code, and even under pain of real death, the population was expected to ignore immoral orders/behaviours as part of its broader obligations to the human race through the social contract. Fab was found guilty of dishonesty/fraud.....he could have not followed orders, and possibly been sacked. If it is the orders which are at heart here, then there are a number of more senior Goldmans people who should also be up on charges, and so, a number of the general public comments on the Bloomberg site, would have some validity, about seeking out others within the Goldmans business, and its diaspora, and similarly charging them. That might be a much more effective way of trying to get the community to believe that the social contract still has some value, and is worth maintaining. I also must admit, I find it outrageously ironic if the Nuremberg defence is attempted to be invoked by people who worked for Goldmans. Not only has honesty seemingly been abandoned, but even irony sometimes disappears, when the pursuit of profit is the only thing that matters!