Role Modeling Justice

Today the civilian trial for Steven Green, the alleged mastermind and leader of a barbaric incident of violence conducted by US troops against Iraqi civilians, will begin in US District Court.  Time Magazine has covered the incident extensively with early news coverage reporting the incident, news coverage of today's trial, a story about the victim, and commentary on the US policy guiding prosecution of US soldiers in sovereign territories.

The policy typically guiding the US government has been to offer US soldiers immunity from prosecution by foreign governments (regardless of the US's stance toward that government). The US uses the military court system to prosecute offenses committed by personnel abroad, and only recently began initiating civil trial for former personnel, citing the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act . 

This case has brought debate about exposing military personnel to civilian juries, with argument that a civilian-composed jury would not be a jury of peers, due to its inability to sympathize with the actions of a man under the stress of war-time.  [The local coverage has been quite informative, providing good legal coverage and relevant facts of the case.]

Our step toward taking crimes of our citizens abroad seriously is a significant one, and handing down just punishments to offendors is critical to credibly maintaining a military force abroad, but advocates of a more egalitarian foreign policy approach should start to question the assumption implicit in the current policy.

Is it fair for the US justice system to retain authority that supercedes foreign authority in their own territory?   Does this communicate that we believe our system of justice is always more fair than foreign systems?  How does that look to other governments?  Would the US allow another country to take this stance if it were their military personnel operating in our territory?