Rule of Law in Iraq & Afghanistan

[carl]

Rule of Law as opposed to Rule by Law, very elegant.

Rule of Law: all are subject to and must abide by.

Rule by Law: some are subject to and must abide by.

Is that part of it?

[Bob's World]

Mike,

My post not to argue with yours, but rather to express my concern with the concept. While I appreciate the nuance you lay out of "Rule of" vs "Rule by"; but if one needs a lawyer to explain even the name of a legal concept, it is a flawed conceptual name.

No one needs to explain "justice" to anyone. We all know when we feel we have been treated with justice or injustice intuitively. I stand by the position that this is what I want State to pursue rather than "Rule of Law;" particularly when we are on record as being against Sharia law. The implication is that we want to replace your law with our law, and there is little justice in that implication.

[carl]

No one needs to explain "justice" to anyone. We all know when we feel we have been treated with justice or injustice intuitively.

The feeling of being treated unjustly is likely to be voiced long and loud by most all people who get arrested regardless of the crime. They only rarely say "You got me and I deserve to be got." Therefore I question your premise.

[jmm99]

First, why this fails logically:

from BW
While I appreciate the nuance you lay out of "Rule of" vs "Rule by"; but if one needs a lawyer to explain even the name of a legal concept, it is a flawed conceptual name.

Lawyers (if they are able) should explain legal concepts and their names. I don't ask the guy who stayed at the Holiday Inn Express to explain medical terms; I ask my doctor.

That does not end the process because many lawyers can't explain legal concepts or their names worth diddly - and may not know the history of the concept and the reasons for it (which go back to Social Norms).

So, non-lawyers also shape these names and concepts - Marc Tyrrell, as just one example, can explain "rule of law" and "rule by law" (as I am using them here) better than I can in terms of population group dynamics. However, boiled down to their basics (as I am using them): "rule of law" is a "bubble up from the base" phenom; and "rule by law" is an "imposed from the top" phenom. Those basics require no "lawyerly" sophistry to present or understand.

Still keeping with the Lawyer Jones theme, what are more legal than the terms, "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination" ? But, moving aside from that, those terms are indeterminate. For example, someone like Maududi uses the same or equivalent terms (in English translations) to describe his Jihadist "state". The terms, "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination", are lovely words; but they mean very different things to different people.

For example, if a group of rebels bases their revolt on the terms "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination", are we to support them automatically. Sometimes, your arguments seem to say just that - other times, they do not - leaving this reader confused as to what your policy really is.

In a post or posts long ago, either Tyrrell or John T. Fishel (or both) suggested using "working definitions" - strictly for purposes of comnunications. I'm always open to that; but both sides have to agree that a "working definition" is just that - not a final, definitive agreement.

---------------------------------
To Carl:

from Carl

Rule of Law: all are subject to and must abide by.

Rule by Law: some are subject to and must abide by.

I'd say that like such (using incredible lawyerly sophistry ):

Rule of Law: We all are subject to and must abide by our rules because we established and ordained them.

Rule by Law: You all are subject to and must abide by my rules because I said so.

First example - Carl and Mike (the only members of the population group) have to agree on the rules that will govern them.

Second example - Mike tells Carl what to do.

Hey, I wouldn't let you rule me - If you tried that, I'd exercise my right to insurge based on "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination".

I suppose I should have said this to begin with and reduced the Bravo Sierra (in Finnglish - Pullsit; that's for Stan if he sees this).

So, what is the best system - Ex 1 or Ex 2 ?

BTW: Google gives 12,500,000 hits for "rule of law" - There are many, many definitions that do not agree with what I've presented here - and don't agree with each other !! This ain't the Quest for the Holy Grail.

Regards

Mike

[carl]

I'd say that like such (using incredible lawyerly sophistry ):

Rule of Law: We all are subject to and must abide by our rules because we established and ordained them.

Rule by Law: You all are subject to and must abide by my rules because I said so.

No Mike, that's not sophistry. That fine tuning the thought to give it greater clarity and precision. Sophistry would be "I am part of you and you are part of me, we are interconnected by longstanding ties of history, culture and social diversity. We cannot be separated because our diversity unites us therefore my rules are our rules; and since for you to contravene your rules would be contrary to nature if you did that I would naturally slap you up the side of the head since that is what you really want me to do."

Hey, I wouldn't let you rule me - If you tried that, I'd exercise my right to insurge based on "justice", "democracy" and "self-determination".

If you insurged I'd have my nephew ambush you at night while you were walking to your insurge venue; or I'd build you a school so you'd like me, or maybe both depending.

[Bob's World]

(Somehow I know Mike is double billing someone for this...probably me)

I like the distinction as you explain it in "of" vs. "by"; I just don't think 99.5% of those who hear, use, or are expected to employ the term will recognize the difference. This is such a critical aspect of stability and good governance I'd hate to see the battle lost in the nuance of a 2-letter word.

KISS to me is "Justice"; and that is how one feels about how the law is appled to them; not a nuance of how one applies the law to others. Key is to get the implementers to assess their effectiveness from the perspective of the aggrieved populace that should be the focus of the engagement where insurgency exists; or the populace as a whole where one is seeking to prevent insurgency from ever manifesting to dangerous levels in the first place.

I think your concept is both brilliant and clever, and yes, that is a compliment; I just prefer brilliant and simple. (I really like Einstein's thinking on understanding vs knowledge; and the imporance of simplicity). Simple is just so damn hard, it is what I aspire to.

Bob

(And yes, Carl, as a former prosecutor I appreciate fully that prisons and jails are full of "innocent" men. But trust me, very few do not know exactly what laws they broke and know that if they were held to account for all their sins they would never see the light of freedom again. For that matter, most of us would be in there with them if all of our sins were counted as well.) You know what justice is, as does everyone. It varies between people and culture, but we all know it when we see it.

[carl]

Bob:

You say

(And yes, Carl, as a former prosecutor I appreciate fully that prisons and jails are full of "innocent" men. But trust me, very few do not know exactly what laws they broke and know that if they were held to account for all their sins they would never see the light of freedom again. For that matter, most of us would be in there with them if all of our sins were counted as well.) You know what justice is, as does everyone. It varies between people and culture, but we all know it when we see it.

and you also say

From everything I hear and read about the US Corrections system it raises a very high alert as to a fading perception of justice among critical populaces from which insurgency could emerge. We have rule of law though.

So on the one hand you say, the hoods know that they broke the law and imply they don't feel they are victims of an injustice but on the other hand you seem to say the hoods broke the law but are feeling they have been unjustly treated.

I am confused.

[Bob's World]

My point was not to confuse you. My point was that even in America we need to never lose sight of how important perceptions of justice are to maintaining a stable populace; and that we are drifting toward instability because we are not focusing on ensuring we have justice in how we apply the rule of law across the populace.

[jmm99]

I'll nail Jones next and double b!££ the he££ out of him (since he raised the issue).

First Point

Here is why you are a friend, even though at times you and I may espouse different policies - no Pullsit here:

Sophistry would be "I am part of you and you are part of me, we are interconnected by longstanding ties of history, culture and social diversity. We cannot be separated because our diversity unites us therefore my rules are our rules; and since for you to contravene your rules would be contrary to nature if you did that I would naturally slap you up the side of the head since that is what you really want me to do."

Besides you are nuts enough to put aircraft into very, very lousy landing fields; take out Hankooki Pu$$!; and are one of my three "Stallion" all-around pilots (excluding military jet jockeys) - the other two have Italian ancestry (you ?).

Second Point

If you insurged, I would neutralize you - not a dodge (neutralize = kill, detain or convert). But, the emphasis depends on the governance.

In example #1 - my "rule of law", a constitutional process exists for change (majority rule for "ordinary stuff"; 2/3 or 3/4 for extraordinary). So, the probabilities of an insurgency are lessened in what I see as a "true democracy" (as I have defined "Rule of Law"). Note that a "Rule of Law Democracy" might be quite nasty as to the minority that refuses to accept the "constitutional rule of law" - including the death penalty. That all depends on that group's accepted Social Norms. But, the thrust of "neutralize" would likely be to convert, detain, kill in that priority order.

In example #2 - my "rule by law", I (as dictator) have some choices. Based on the probabilities (and given my resource capabilities), my better choices in priority order are kill, detain, convert. None are excluded; but I as dictator want to completely control the situation and every aspect. You and I have not lived under that - kowalskil has - please read his autobio (yup; he's an old ba$tard like Ken - and I'm getting there - live with it).

My point is that "true democracies" (using my construct of the "Rule of Law") and "true autocracies" (using my construct of the "Rule by Law" and applying it without pity) are not as likely to be insurged - opinions differ as to what their respective probabilities are. The governments that are "in between" get butchered on a much more regular basis.

So, if a "Rule of Law", I'm going to do my most to convert Carl. If a "Rule by Law", putting Carl alongside the long-tail in his avatar would be a high choice.

That's a long bunch of Bravo Sierra (hi Stan ) to confirm your second point.

Cheers

Mike

[Bob's World]

Ok, I need to read Mike's post in detail before I reply to it. For Carl:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

46% of those are African American.


Carl you counter actually makes my point. As I study the history of insurgency, rarely does the counterinsurgent recognize the perceptions of the insurgent, but rather relys on his own legality and upon the facts he uses to rationalize his actions.

Law and facts just don't matter much in COIN. Justice and perceptions are everything. The persective that matters on both of those is that of the insurgent segment of the populace.

[carl]

Mike:

Nice explication of why the in between places have more than their share of insurgencies.

[jmm99]

we need a Retainer Contract - I will charge you (a double bill - you wish !!!).

We'll start with what I've charged Polarbear1605 and John T. Fishel. Since you retired a grade higher than them, that's a double-up. Now, since you are also a lawyer in a prior life, that's a triple-up. Since you come from the Pacific NW, that should be another bump. But, I am Merciful and Compassionate.

You can check with the Great White One and the ES Wonder to determine the mammoth proportions of your bill - it will be huge.

And, if we can't resolve that, I will call in the SNCOIC to settle the affair and make both of us talk to the crickets - which would be true justice.

What We Will Fight About

We will fight about legal and legal history issues, national security policy issues, the interface between civilian policy and military strategy. We will attempt to develop "working definitions". We will prefer communicating with each other - and forego isolated conversations with the crickets.

What I Won't Question, But Will Check You

In your military area (SF and SOF), I'm not about to contradict you. You have provided me with huge insights on direct action and the concept of AQ's use of unconventional warfare (affiliated groups, which should not be the primary target).

In fact, you set me off on looking at Giap and Vietnam in a way that is contrary to what you say, but accords with what I thought - he won in Vietnam; we won in Southeast Asia (that's a History Argument ).

----------------------
But then, I even check Custis - my standard on the Corps' current strategy and tactics. Won't contradict him, but I'll send him a PM to ask "why ?".

This post is probably too long and personal (maybe better a PM; but that was my choice, right or wrong).

The problem is that I like you - and we've had too many arguments which should have gone to the crickets - at least, for me.

You remind me of another serving Quaker (this guy, counsel to LTG Peers and the My Lai Inquiry - a man I was privileged to know and work under).

Best Regards

Mike

PS (added) - Carl and BW should talk to each other - skip the crickets and me - try a PM and find that each of you has more in common than not in common. If not, go see the bugs.

[Stan]

Hei Mikko !
I admire your constraint and use of the phonetic alphabet to express your views

That's a long bunch of Bravo Sierra (hi Stan ) to confirm your second point.

Cheers

Mike

[carl]

Bob:

You say knowing what justice is varies between people and cultures. Yet you also use the variance between US and world rates of incarceration to imply the US system is unjust. How can you legitimately use world rates to question the justice of US rates if the peoples and cultures of the US are very different from that of the world?

When you say 46% of the prison population is African American you are implying that that is unjust because that is less than the % of African Americans amongst Americans. From that you seem to conclude that, correct me if I misstate your position, that African Americans believe the America is unjust. It is a fact that most victims of African American hoods are African Americans and it is quite likely that the victims greatly outnumber the hoods. In view of this I think it unlikely the African American community at large views the justice of the system (shades of 60s talk) in the same light as the hoods do.

My counter could make your point. The other possibility is that you are wrong and there is nothing there.

[Bob's World]

Carl,

Is this thing on?

You want to argue facts. I feel like I am talking to a block of wood. You are not either a prisoner, nor an African American, correct? My point in wheeling out the statistics is that they indicate a potential problem. What you must do is be able to put yourself in the shoes of a member of the African American populace in general (this would help you to understand the perspective of a potential base to the inshsurgency. How the mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters feel). Then you must be able to put yourself into the shoes of an incarcerated African American (or latin American) and visualize how they might feel.

If all you can do is look at them as "hoods" you are the classic counterinsurgent. Send the navy and the army to Boston and enforrce the rule of law. We'll show em this time, by god!