Regarding Glenda Windham's Sept. 5 letter: She writes that the United States should withdraw from the United Nations because she objects that American troops might be prosecuted on charges raised by the International Criminal Court after a year has elapsed.
I disagree with that point and raise this question: Why should American service people be exempt from the same standards that the peacekeeping forces of other nations are being held to?
If a service person commits a crime that breaks international law, shouldn't an international court be entitled to deal with that problem? It is my opinion that the American government should have enough confidence in the legality of its actions and its armed forces' actions to be willing to face international law and, if necessary, international prosecution.
After all, with its current proposed action against the government of Iraq, the United States seems to be quite willing to pursue the enforcement of American governmental ideals and expectations upon other regimes. It seems to pursue this course of action without regard to global repercussions.
If the United States is willing for its policies to have an international effect, why shouldn't members of its armed forces, who are accused of a crime, have to face prosecution by the ICC?
Alain Sykes, Augusta