Here is an exceptional blog entry by Wretchard quoting an excellent article by John Keegan.
Both discuss the use of civilian courts instead of military courts when bringing infractions from the field of battle to trial. Keegan is talking directly to the use of the ICC against British soldiers. He also states that the America may have been right in not joining the ICC.
I agree with both Wretchard and Keegan on their discussion. The country owes something to its soldiers for their service of defense or action against an enemy. By allowing a civilian court in any form to have oversite of the military is to invite politics and anti-war animosities to control justice. That in itself isn't justice.
Read both articles, I think they provide some very strong points, especially in view of the recent media outrage concerning Guantanamo Bay and the Koran.
I agree with both Wretchard and Keegan on their discussion. The country owes something to its soldiers for their service of defense or action against an enemy. By allowing a civilian court in any form to have oversite of the military is to invite politics and anti-war animosities to control justice. That in itself isn't justice.
Read both articles, I think they provide some very strong points, especially in view of the recent media outrage concerning Guantanamo Bay and the Koran.
No comments:
Post a Comment