You're missing JB's point. She agrees with you. Her point--as I understand it--is that the Iraq travesty is perpetrated in the name of the universal: Democracy, Freedom, Triumph over Evil. By positioning the U. S. war plan as battle in the ongoing war between Freedom and Tyranny, Bush is attempting to justify and extend the war. --It's an almost banal but crucial point: Appeals to universals are an effective rhetorical strategy to accomplish political goals (see also MLK Jr's constant references to Justice, Equality, and Democracy). I agree that JB could make her point more clearly, but I think she's highlighting an important practical problem with references to universals: they work via exclusion, not inclusion. Any political or social relations that do not correspond to the Universal Standard of Freedom and Democracy must be stigmatized, censured, and/or obliterated to distinguish the universal ideal from the aberration.
> It's reasonable to assume that they, and all nations,
> will build up a set of laws that accomplishes what our system does and
> it is also nearly certain that those laws will refer to ours. There is
> no particular need to re-invent Common Law because it's "Western". It
> reflects the work of generations of reasonable people trying to find
> reasonable bases for resolving disputes and it works. It's an open,
> changeable, adaptable system. It's not a "hegemony". It's a bunch of
> books.
This highlights JB's point: why on earth are existing political arrangements in our society the goal that will be reached by any thoughtful people at any time? Why couldn't other people come up with better legal systems than we currently have? There's nothing inevitable and necessary about our existing social relations and related legal systems. --Think about how much legal systems have changed in the past 500 years: it just seems silly to me to assume that this social change is going to halt at this point in history because we take it for granted that any "thoughtful" people will accept it.
Based on the historical and cultural record, I have a great deal of faith in human creativity and the potential for social change. People in the future, or in societies under different environmental conditions, will produce social and legal systems that look little or nothing like the systems we're used to. By assuming our existing legal system is the Universal Standard that all thoughtful and moral people will converge on, we shut down opportunities for innovation and change. (A pragmatic argument against appeals to universals.)
Miles