Those examples show why the United States is unhappy about the court. The massacre at My Lai, in which Lieutenant Calley ordered and committed such atrocious murders, is within the memory of every Member in the Chamber. Although he went through some form of trial in the United States, following massive public pressure it became a charade, so we must recognise that even in what we consider to be proud democracies with good court structures, people sometimes fail for political reasons. We can never say that we will always be able to do that which is right. Therefore, we should submit ourselves to the international court, recognising that, even in our case, politicians, generals or subordinate officers could be subject to it in extreme circumstances, and rightly so.
Gentleman takes considerable interest in the armed forces.
When people put on the Queen's uniform, they accept obedience to their civilian masters. If he goes before a jury, he is tried by his civilian peers. The point about the international court is that legal specialists with no military experience will be able to second-guess a British legal investigative process that may have concluded that neither of those two forums would ever have convicted the man. We would be able to show that matters were being thoroughly pursued and prosecuted and that appropriate sentences would be passed. Gentleman refers to a test that must be satisfied and what he considers to be the entirely reasonable actions of our courts martial.