|
O.K. roach, I can understand that.
The only problem I see with your historian comment is the fact that it can be applied to any nation. Pretty much everybody has things in their past that are not necessarily worthy of being heralded. Not to dilute your point, it is just that it cannot be focused on one country alone.
Anyway....
I still stand by my original argument. The international community cannot get past their own differences/cultures/religion/etc. enough to even order a pizza without squabbling over it. Why would I think that they could do a better job investigating/prosecuting our soldiers. Especially with the obvious slant they would come to the table with.
We have already proven that we will investigate and prosecute our own. We may not do the best job at it, but at least we are willing to do it. This so-called International Communtiy has done nothing to even remotely convince me that they could even do as well as we do.
As a soldier, I would rather face my own peers. At least I know that they have an inkling of the place I would be coming from. I have no doubt that, if I had done something, I would at least be given a chance for a fair trial. I may be convicted and go to BFE Kansas, but I couldn't say I didn't get a fair shake.
I would never want to stand trial in another country, any country. I would also never want to stand trial having my judges be a motley assortment pulled from various countries. There would be absolutely no notion of "innocent until proven guilty", many people would automatically assume guilt because the soldier is American--just to prove a point.
|