I don't know what makes another solider any more fair and unbiased than your average citizen. I think the principle of "conflict of interests" is an important one here, and I think collusion among fellow soldiers to minimize, rationalize and explain away difficult situations, to outright lie to save a comrade who has perhaps saved your life or done great acts of heroism in the past...is a serious concern. Allow the solider his day in court, no doubt- but make it a court of citizens.Frank: who is doing the Judging? There are scarce few people who I would agree have knowledge or common sense enough to truly understand and evaluate the combat actions of a soldier. Even the justified killing of enemy combatants is loathsome to the average citizen. Furthermore most have never had to make life and death decisions in a fraction of a second. I do not believe that any one who hasn't has the ability give a fair and unbiased judgment over an action of that sort.
Furthermore, if we follow your line of reasoning, it seems we can't judge anyone of anything- because none of us fully understands what another person has gone through, nor can we ever really see it from their eyes and totally within their perspective. Since very few, if any of us, really understand the pressures that invade upon, say, a serial killer, then how can we possible judge his behavior...without being a serial killer first? In his eyes there may be a barrage of stressors, constraints, threats, outright assualts against his safety that he feels no choice but to engage his deadly deed...following your reasoning, it seems, unless he is tried by a jury of fellow serial killers, then there is no way for anyone to fairly address his crimes...we can't possible understand what he is up against or why he decided the way he did. Therefore, we can't judge his behavior.
[/quote]