Quote:
|
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.
|
if i operated with the assumption that the american judicial system had a monopoly on due process, then i would maybe agree with you, kma. but i dont. i do not see where the assumption would come from that the icc would be a kangaroo court, that it would employ multiple standards, reserving a particularly unfair one for americans--i do not see it. were i a more cynical fellow, i might see this concern as projection: under the bush administration, it is the american judicial system that has de facto condoned the denial of basic features of due process to people held prisoner under the veil of the war on terrorism---the suspension of habeas corpus for folk held at guantanamo comes immediately to mind here. so i do not understand where this assumption comes from.
more generally, i can see how i might have given the impression that my criticism is directed exclusively at the states--but that is a function of the nature of most debates in this space that i choose to participate in, which are focussed on american politics, usually to the exclusion of all else. so there is no occaision to talk about how i might view other places--but to give an indication--most of what i work on concerns france since ww2--which includes, for example, the period of the algerian war--which you cannot look at and maintain any illusion that it is only the americans who commit appalling acts--at times---under the cloak of nationalism. so no, i do not think americans alone have done this stuff. but to introduce material that would broaden the frame of discussion requires that you step back a little from the debate--the occiasions for which are infrequently presented--spaces like this, when others declare the thread to be simply twisting in circles provide something like that....