>>>>I agree, but not all military crimes are 'war crimes.' I think they should go through the military court martial process and if it is deemed to be a war crime, be moved to the international court.
>>>
>>>And court martial is organized by which unbiased entity?
>>
>>The proceedings are open to the public.
>
>So the public decides which cases are brought to court, and which court? I'm talking about authorization to prosecute or not, not whether it's covert or overt, open or closed. Who chooses whether a case brought to a military court should be tried in an international court? The military itself? And one of a country which recommends international courts left and right but not to itself.
>
>C'mon.

This situation has already happened. When the Nuremberg trials were going on, the U.S. was all for the idea of an international court trying war crimes, but when the Mai Lai massacre happened, all that went out the window. It was a U.S. affair and no international court was going to be allowed to be involved.

In spite of that, Lt. Calley was sentenced to life. Nixon pardoned him (a truly disgusting act), and ultimately he was re-sentenced to about 4 1/2 months. Of course, considering that everybody else involved (who hadn't already died) walked away free, I guess 4 1/2 months was a big deal.