All right. I'll make the effort. I'm deliberately choosing not to interpret this as meaning that you think the solider is guilty only if he believes he is guilty, even if that would serve as a very illustrating bit for the entire democratic/universal thingy. Instead, I want to think that you mean there has to be a careful consideration of all the facts and a proper proceeding in order to find out what most likely has happened, perhaps involving a prosecutor who will claim that the solider is a murderer, while the defending part might claim that there is mitigating circumstances, such as that there is a war going on. That is good. This is how it should be done. Also, I wish to think that when you say that a case must be "looked at and reviewed", you mean that every case case must be seen as independent from any other and that under no circumstance should guilt be presumed without evidence. It is close to think so for me since that is the basis for every kind of legal process. It has been so since ancient Greece and more ancient Persia. It's really considered pretty obvious.

Further, I do not wish to interpret the example you're giving from the west- bank that you mean this aforementioned principle of independent prosecution law should be thrown away. So I will interpret it another way - that the entire situation is all cause and effect and therefore must be considered one case. That is certainly a point of view (even though I don't think you will be on the favoured part if you went to Haag with a case to prosecute the palestinians for causing human rights violations on themselves).

So basically, I am not criticising ancient principles of law. And I do not doubt for a second that if the system you're briefly schetcing and the values we wish to associate with it is upheld, there is no cause for concern. That makes me a patriot of sorts, I think. And I am happy to say that at least as much as can be expected seems to be done to honor this standard by the military forces in Iraq at the moment. My concern is that a suprisingly high number of people can instantly tell that this is the case without knowing. Then there is the catch that presuming this leads to easily write off most incidents as first improbable or even impossible. Also, as you actually say, you don't expect other /cultures/ to follow any conduct even remotely on the same level, also without really knowing. Now, I appreciate that there are differences between different cultures, but it is not very - what should I say - reassuring to see that you demostrate how easily it is possible to suddenly disregard everything about individuality and about presuming guilt by creating on the one hand "americans" while on the other "other cultures". I could of course be nice and interpret this as if you're simply saying this for convinience, and that you do not really think that "the others" have no rights whatsoever until they formally become americans(or democratic and free, possibly). But the more you're writing, the more difficult it becomes to think like that.
That's called... reason, isn't it? hm... Oh, and welcome to the board. ;)