This is so fascinating - who decides what's right, and what's not? Does an American lobby group have the right to decide the laws of Russia are inadequate?
How about war crimes? Can a majority of the nations of this planet decide that the actions of a given U.S. soldier are a crime, and make it stick?
Which of the above feels like a fairer thing to implement, given the parameters of the "lobbying group" are "correct"?
I know I'd prefer the second example to be in effect, but sadly, only the first example seems to have won through.
Then again, soldiers are supposed to follow orders, and if U.S. soldiers had to fear charges of war crimes, maybe they'd have to consider disobeying the evil orders...
And hey, I am aware of the fact that quite a few of you think I've besmirched the sacredness of your monetary discussion here, but I feel such concepts as freedom, human rights, and an independent judiciary system (just a few examples) are more important than your money.
Slashdot Mirror
How about war crimes? Can a majority of the nations of this planet decide that the actions of a given U.S. soldier are a crime, and make it stick?
Which of the above feels like a fairer thing to implement, given the parameters of the "lobbying group" are "correct"?
I know I'd prefer the second example to be in effect, but sadly, only the first example seems to have won through.
Then again, soldiers are supposed to follow orders, and if U.S. soldiers had to fear charges of war crimes, maybe they'd have to consider disobeying the evil orders...
And hey, I am aware of the fact that quite a few of you think I've besmirched the sacredness of your monetary discussion here, but I feel such concepts as freedom, human rights, and an independent judiciary system (just a few examples) are more important than your money.