I'm going to start off with some discussion of law and legal culpability.

One reason this discussion of legal theory is important in what initially seems to be a discussion about moral, not legal, responsibility, is the Nuremberg Principles. These Principles articulated what were supposed to be universal, eternal, and self-evident international crimes -- this was meant to solve the problems of jurisdiction and ex post facto laws in the trials of Nazi war criminals.

A number of war tax resisters have taken these Principles as an inspiration, and some have even adopted the conceit of saying that they are afraid that by paying taxes they may risk being prosecuted under the theory the Principles articulate.

The Principles state, in part, "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him" and "Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity... is a crime under international law."

The United States government is certainly guilty of all of the crimes listed above, so, leaving behind the practical difficulties involved in holding anyone accountable for complicity with the United States government at this stage of the game, what must one do if one wants to avoid such complicity?  Must one resist paying taxes, for instance?

Larry Rosenwald is one war tax resister who believes the answer to that question is an unequivocable "yes":

To pay war taxes is to acquiesce in building weapons of mass destruction, i.e., in what international law as derived from the Nuremberg principles arguably defines as a crime; it is also to acquiesce in whatever state violence an administration may manage to commit. It is, simply, a wrong act for any pacifist, any adherent of international law, any person fundamentally opposed to American policy; and I do not understand what keeps such people from refusing taxes...