@marlin
Uniforms serve a purpose. They differentiate the civilian from the military combatant. They serve to protect civilians because only the uniformed are valid targets. When one side in a war chooses not to wear them, that side intentionally endangers its own civilian population.
When Fidel Castro had his revolution in Cuba, his people were uniformed. They were greatly outmatched by the Cuban government, yet they still won the war. The uniforms didn't cause them to lose the war. But the uniforms did keep the civilians out of the line of fire.

The key word in this is the word soldier. An American civilian who commits a crime in a European nation is subject to the laws of that nation. An American soldier, acting within his unit in wartime is subject only to the international laws regarding war and to the laws of the United States military. United States military policy is to investigate and prosecute American soldiers within its own organization. As yet, no organized international body has found these trials to be lacking or to be incompatible with international law.

Do you really think this is the case? Perhaps you don't recall that the military was already investigating Abu Ghraib prior to the news finding out about it. In this case, if the Marine's squadmates had suspected that he did something wrong, or if his commanding officer, suspected it in an after-mission briefing regardless of the existence of the news camera, he would have been investigated. Do things slip through, absolutely. Do most things? Not likely. Did you know that there have been at least 30 courts-martials in Iraq in the past year. How many have you heard of in the press? Did you know that in addition, there have been at least 70 cases that were dealt with administratively (e.g. no prosecution, but fines or even dishonorable discharge was the result)? How many has the press told you about?
If an Iraqi citizen has a complaint against a coalition soldier, he can go to his own government. The current government of Iraq will discuss this with the coalition forces leaders and an investigation will be launched. It would be inappropriate for an Iraqi policeman to arrest such a soldier, but not for that Iraqi policeman to bring the matter to the coalition commanders and this is indeed done.

I recall that some of these are to protect the military forces in the field from reports that could pinpoint their locations making them vulnerable to attack. Still others are due to the distrust that the military has of the press. I don't find it at all surprising that the military conducts its investigations without issuing press reports. This is common practice during peacetime as well (we rarely hear of someone being brought on charges in the military during peacetime, yet it does happen). The people being investigated are not public figures and if found not guilty, the press would have no basis for reporting on them. Note also that in the case of this video, the video wasn't "leaked" but was part of a press pool and the reporter had every right to release it. The military did not try at all to prevent the release.

So what I've written is blabla? When you have an argument that I find to be less than valid, I at least show you the respect of discussing it and giving examples to refute your argument. You and I haven't had many discussions, but I believe you'll find this to have been true in the ones we've had. Perhaps you simply don't have an answer for what I've written. I suggest that what I've written isn't just wasted words, but if you have predetermined to not debate when you disagree, there's really no point in discussion, is there? I will state that simply by saying that what I've written is meaningless doesn't make it so. You haven't countered my arguments with anything substantial, simply discarded them out of hand. I'm sure the others can see this, so I won't waste my time unless you want to discuss openly and with something of substance.

To address the arguments that you did make:
The United States bears guilt on this. We're also guilty of having had slaves. Also, not having given women the right to vote from the beginning. We've taken land from Mexico (although the inhabitants largely wanted us to). We've incarcerated our own citizens simply because of their ethnic background (such as the Manzanar camp during World War II). We've not always done the right thing. We're a nation made of flawed human beings, just like any other. To suggest otherwise would be wrong.
Are we that same nation today? Not really. We've grown and matured like other nations. We're still growing and maturing. We're likely to make many other mistakes as will every other nation on this Earth. Judging the United States by events that occurred tens or even hundreds of years ago would be as fair as hanging someone because their great-grandfather committed some crime, so although we've done these things. I don't think you can reasonably use that as an argument about today's situations.

Sorry, I missed what you're addressing here, can you cite a specific case? A tribe where each person gets a vote (in a council or however they're organized) would be a democracy. This isn't the same as the United States' representative system it is more like the Athenian democracy that I refer to when I use the word democracy (appropriately).

As far as I knew, we weren't talking about such a society. Did I miss such an example in your prior post? Please be specific.

In the United States, minorities are heard by contacting their representatives. By uniting together, agreeing on what their position is and then discussing with representatives and the media. In a democracy, these tactics wouldn't work. In a representative system, they do work.

A king or a tyrant holds the position, but it isn't necessarily by the will of the people that the king or tyrant have this title. An elected representative has at least a significant portion of the people behind him. This is one of the things that democracy and a representative system have in common.

And what position or power did the general public have?

And what recourse did dissidents have? They have a recourse in a representative system.

While not a bad argument, you forget (or dismiss) the fact that an autocratic leader may not (and likely will not) be benevolent. Such a leader may only work for his own good and not for the nation's or for the good of any minority. There is no way to check such a leader or remove him from power if the leader does indeed act contrary to the interests of the nation or its citizens. Sure, if a minority manages to take such a command, that minority group will likely prosper, probably to the detriment of another minority group. Which leads us to:

And here I'm starting to understand your misconception. A representative in the United States is not required to be beholden to the viewpoints of the people who elected him during his term in office. This seemingly innocuous statement means that a representative in the United States can easily listen to minority viewpoints (or non-party viewpoints) as that representative sees fit. This happens all the time in the United States. The Civil Rights act of 1964 would not have passed if representatives did not listen to minorities and if President Johnson (a Democrat) didn't go against his party's wishes to sign it. Both groups listened to minority viewpoints for this legislation. Sometimes minorities are not heard quickly. There is no guarantee that they will be heard at all, but they can be heard and often are. Once a single representative hears and agrees with such a minority group, that representative can do what is necessary to make certain that other representatives can also hear the message and can eventually change things in favor of the minority. In an autocracy or even a democracy, such a thing is much harder or impossible to achieve.

Ahh, but my point is not about God or religion, but about values, the subject of this thread. You are indicting the United States' "democratic" values based on the assumption that "democracy" is the source of those values. If it isn't, then your thread and your argument falls apart. This is the appropriate place to discuss the source of such values, or for you to show that any values you attribute to the United States are specifically "democratic".

Granted, however if they are truly universal, then "non-democratic" lands would also agree ("non-democratic" lands being part of the universal set). That is unless the "non-democratic" lands or some of the "democratic" lands had an ulterior motive for not agreeing (such as oil-for-food). At least I can see how you arrived at your conclusion.
As to that being part of the reason for entering the war, I wouldn't be surprised to find humanitarian aid being part of that reason (e.g. protection of the Kurds, a minority, and the emancipation of women and so on), although I didn't notice it as a major part. I notice that you mentioned these issues as related to universal values, do you then agree that these issues were indeed based on universal values and not strictly "democratic values"?

Your logic doesn't exactly follow. I accept that humanitarian aid and defending universal values are minor parts of the reason for the war in Iraq (not an excuse), but the fact that the United States doesn't enter other countries doesn't mean that defending universal values are an excuse, only that by themselves they are not compelling enough or that the United States is not convinced that other methods of defending these values won't bear fruit.

Answered above, you're living in the past. Slavery doesn't exist in the United States and we are trying to get other nations to quit the practice. Women are free to self determine and lead industry or achieve great status in the United States and we are trying to get other nations to allow them these same freedoms. The American Indians and the United States government have reached agreements. The United States hasn't abrogated those agreements in my lifetime (that I'm aware of). We were the bad guys on this one, yes (not to state that the American Indians are completely blameless either). Are we still? Not according to the American Indians (sorry, not politically correct, I know, but Native American is an imprecise term, I was born here, so I'm a Native American too). If you are going to judge us, judge us for who we are today, not who we were before I was born.

I cannot argue that nearly everyone uses the term democracy in regards to the United States. In fact dictionary meanings have been changed to refer to the United States in the definition of democracy. I know that my position is not widely supported or even widely understood. Nonetheless, democracy carries with it several negatives, many of which don't exist in the United States. That makes the usage imprecise and inaccurate. If one refers to the word democracy, these negatives are assumed and unless one knows the United States system, those negatives are assumed to exist in the United States which is not the case. As such, indicting the United States due to the negatives of democracy would be improper. This is why I argue that the United States is not a democracy and although that term has been used as a convenience to describe the United States, it is inaccurate. I know that much of your posts talk about democracy and I've often seen you use the term "democratic us" (please capitalize in the future) in the same sentence as other "democracies" which have different governmental, social, economic and cultural systems and foundations. By using the word democratic to describe both, you suggest that they are the same when they are clearly not. Your arguments depend on the very inaccuracy that I'm referring to. That smacks of self-serving propaganda, not truth or objectivity.

In every language, when new ideas arise, the dilemma of labeling the new idea also arises. In the case of the United States system, the United States arose in the 18th century. As it had just rejected leadership by a King (or monarch), it was, by definition a republic. At the time, nearly all known republics were also democracies, so it was inevitable that the term "democracy" would be applied to the United States. It is also true that the United States representative system shares some of the traits of democracy (I never claimed that it didn't). As such, the term "representative democracy" could be applied to the United States system. Of course, that devolves into the term "democracy" fairly easily and again leads to the imprecision and prejudice that must be avoided when honestly discussing the reality of the United States. A better term, "representative republic," avoids that imprecision and is accurate in describing the United States. This term has not achieved widespread use, but it is used and is closer to the truth than "democracy" in regards to the USA.
Now your arguments on this suggest that you are willing to accept the widespread use of the term "democracy" (can you say majority rule), instead of the minority held but more accurate use of a term like "representative republic", despite evidence that supports the minority held opinion. You realize, of course, that in doing so, you are acting just like the "democratic people" that you hold in such contempt.

Then by definition you are either not an undemocratic person (since you've referred to universal values that you clearly hold), or your statement here is inaccurate. If there are no universal values, nothing at all that everyone believes in, then why would an "undemocratic person" be offended by the war in Iraq? After all, if there are no universal values, then valuing the sovereignty of the Iraqis would be meaningless, as would valuing the lives of the citizens of Iraq, valuing their "right" to be left alone, etc. If one didn't value these things and consider them universal, then one wouldn't have a basis (or even a reason) to oppose the coalition war in Iraq. The United States values these things and it is clear (to us) that removing Saddam Hussein from power did more to protect these values than leaving him in power would have. That said, alone, that wasn't enough for war, but it is part of the supporting rationale.

Ok, I'll go into a bit more detail (for the benefit of those who didn't read this on blackpearl). A kid raised in a refugee camp has choices in life. So does everyone else. That kid may not have been dealt the same hand that you or I, but what he does with it is his repsonsibility (at least from the time that he knows right and wrong). Most children, well before they are 10, know that murder is wrong. They know that other people's lives have value, not just their own. This is true even in refugee camps. When a kid in a refugee camp, or a solider in uniform, or any other person decides to ignore these lessons and take a civilian's life intentionally (not in self defense), that person has become a terrorist and, as such, an enemy of the concept of civilization. If that kid is truly unaware of right and wrong, if the kid is completely isolated from universal values, then he might be excused on that ground, but the ones responsible for his state would bear the responsibility. I submit that this is not the case of at least 99% of terrorists.

Uniforms would be a start. Beyond that, they had and were granted those rights. Insurgents in Iraq are, when possible, taken prisoner and treated humanely according to the Geneva Conventions even though they don't have the right to it. When they surrender, they are being treated well by any standard. When they continue to fight, they are treated just as any other military force would (e.g. they are fought). Is the press full of daily and consistent abuses? Do you have information about mass disregard of the rights of these people? Or, do you instead try to condemn the coalition actions based on a few isolated events?


Of course it is reasonable, and the coalition they are fighting against (who is currently there at the request of the sovereign Iraqi government) will of course fight back. They can choose to be uniformed or not and to be organized or not. They can choose to follow the Geneva Conventions or not. They can choose an open fight away from civilians or not. They can choose to target civilian targets or military. Their choices determine how they are treated and even so, they are treated humanely when captured.
A uniform must be clearly different from the dress of the average civilian to be a uniform. If it isn't, then it provides no protection by distinguishing the wearer as a combatant different from a civilian. In the photos that I've seen, while the insurgents do have a similarity of dress, it is clearly not significantly different from the clothings of civilians.

Despite your sarcasm, a uniform has purpose. It provides protection of the civilian population. It confers rights to the wearer.

Yes, I do equate democracy with popular vote. That is the meaning as it has been. Any set of ideals that you assign to it are likely attributable to something other than government (such as religion, culture, economics, etc.) If you feel like looking at such a set, then you must recognize that the set would be different for different nations and perhaps even for different regions within a nation. Trying to say "democracy" is all this, that or the other, disregards all of this, is imprecise, inaccurate and self-serving. What it appears that you have done is to use a shorthand for all of the ills you see in other nations. That shorthand is the word "democracy". By using such a word, you can easily (and inaccurately) extend it to many nations where it simply doesn't apply. I've encouraged you before to not generalize to such an extent because it opens your arguments to disproof by a single case in any of the areas where your generalized shorthand doesn't apply. I urge you again to be more precise.

I agree with your statement regarding taking responsibility, but in my statement I didn't blame the actions of the coalition on the actions of others. The United States takes responsibility for its actions regardless of how any opponent acts. That is exactly why the Marine is being investigated, to determine if there is responsiblity to be taken. That is why the guards at Abu Ghraib are/were prosecuted and convicted and are serving time for their actions.
If someone doesn't sign a treaty or believe in values, that doesn't absolve them from responsibility, only from the explicit letter of that treaty or value system and only to a certain extent. A person cannot simply claim he doesn't believe in life as a value and then kill other people without responsibility. A group cannot simply claim they've never signed the Geneva Conventions and then disobey the rules of war without responsibility. For them to later claim protection or decry the actions of their adversary would be hypocrisy.

Yes, I did mean that there does indeed have to be a careful consideration of all the facts and a proper proceeding. As with criminal cases against civilians, the prosecutor will have to determine if he has enough information to make a case before charges are brought. Just as in civilian criminal cases, the prosecutor has within his rights, the ability to not pursue a case that hasn't enough evidence or to pursue a case. If the prosecutor pursues it, a courts-martial will be convened or, depending on the prerogative of the commanding officer, an administrative punishment (effectively a summary judgement) may be imposed (often including dishonorable discharge which still counts as a felony on the soldier's civilian record). This "commander's prerogative" is something that is part of the tradition of the military going back hundreds of years. I'm not a fan of it, but it is the system that we have. I've read that it is being reviewed and may be removed at some point in the future.
Yes, each case must be taken independently and innocence must be presumed until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I presume you're referring to the law in many US states that says that if while someone is in the commission of a crime, someone else is injured or killed, the criminal is responsible for that injury/death. One way that law is applied in the US is that if a criminal is in the commision of a crime and the police accidentally injure someone while trying to apprehend the criminal, it is the criminal, and not the police who is responsible for the injury. Another application is that if a criminal takes a hostage and the hostage dies of a heart attack that would have been treatable otherwise, the criminal is responsible for murdering that hostage. I extended that law to suggest that if a group acts criminally in warfare (such as ignoring the Geneva Conventions, fighting from civilian areas or not wearing uniforms), and as a result civilians are injured/killed, that group is responsible for those injuries/deaths. I think it is obvious that if these same people did not ignore the rules of war, the civilian population would be much safer.
I definitely don't favor disregarding the idea that each prosecution is independent of any others. We don't hold one person guilty for the crimes of his neighbors or for crimes previously committed by anyone else.

Let me help to clarify. Each culture has its own laws. Most cultures believe that certain things are right and certain things are wrong (universal values). For example, in every culture that I'm aware of, murder and stealing are considered wrong (although some cultures define murder differently than others). Beyond that, different cultures disagree on many other issues and what one culture believes, another may not (non-universal values). I don't expect other cultures to accept all of the values that are unique to my culture or to any culture that isn't theirs other than the universal ones that are alluded to in this thread. That doesn't mean that other cultures are better or worse than my own, just different. I accept and appreciate this difference as part of the diversity that makes this world interesting. I don't presume guilt on any individual or culture without evidence, nor do I state that any culture is guilty of anything. I suspect that most of what the media reports on are the aberrations and not the mainstream. The mainstream in most nations and cultures are people who simply want to live and prosper.
Of course "the others" have rights. It would be folly, especially if you'd read many of my arguments (the bulk of which are on another website that is no longer active), to suggest that I would feel otherwise. If there is a problem in understanding my writings and my intent, it is likely because I am not the best writer. I'll admit that in reading your post, the possible negative interpretations of what I had written, that you inferred, surprised me because they were far from my intent.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan