It is just a different viewpoint, not arrogance. The U.S. in many cases does the same for other countries. I have been part of a taskforce to 'escort' people of other countries that have broken the law in the U.S. but the U.S. allowed them to be extradicted to their home country for prosecution. Some are prosecuted here, but most are actuallly sent home. That is seldom the case for U.S. citizens though - we have Americans in prison in many countries. Some were soldiers committing crimes in the off-duty time and some are just ignorant tourists. It is a policy the U.S. wants and I agree with it.


>Tracy,
>
>> I will never agree with any international court having jurisdiction over an american citizen before the U.S. courts.
>
>While I think the tendency to stand up for every of your citizens [Iran embassy comes to mind] is applaudable and to be preferred to giving in to terrorists [buying out from africa of german tourists a few months back], I think this is formulated too extreme or encompassing.
>
>What about acts of US citizens abroad ? Why should every [act even if not commited in the US] be judged by US standards ? I realize you spoke about "international courts" probably talking about Den Haag, but why shouldn't a US citizen caught with dope in turkey be judged by that countries harsher sentences for that particular crime, to give a slightly off base argument ?
>Any reason to put US standards always first ?
>Sounds a bit arrogant to me ;-)
>
>regards
>
>thomas