I think it’s important to admit what is obvious- often times though in being individuals with distinct personalities and opinions those elements take precedence over the obvious.
It isn’t enough to be dismissive of murder for example on the grounds that it resulted from “paranoia”- if that were truly the case then those who go on shooting sprees in malls, schools, where they work, or elsewhere who are usually defined as being mentally ill with paranoia as a symptom would have their actions dismissed.
If a man suspected his wife of infidelity and murdered her, as has happened, should the suspicion or his paranoia be grounds for transferring the blame of having taken her life to his wife?
Not in my opinion, no more than it is to say AIM really isn’t to blame for the murders they committed.
If a wife or husband cheats the logical course is to split the sheets and move on- if AIM suspected people of being informants the logical thing to have done would have been to ban them.
A course AIM chose not to take for fear of exposure- paranoia or self preservation?
If paranoia as a defense in such cases is valid then the same would have to be allowed for anyone afraid a criminal act would be exposed.
I don’t believe that is an option many would support- some do though, and in doing so their words and motives should be examined.
Or maybe after offering multiple “defenses” those in the AIM leadership who authorized murder should plead insanity.