Even though you didn't answer my question whether folks involved in My Lai ought to "should receive the same [military] benefits as a five-star general at 30 years," I'll be charitable and extend a courtesy to you that you didn't to me, and answer your question.
Whether the Nuremberg Principles are bourgeois or not, they seem to make sense to me; like making it illegal to murder someone, something that also formally exists under "bourgeois ideology" and which also seems reasonable. So, to answer your question, no, I don't share every assumption of bourgeois ideology. I'm unapologetically selective about it.
If in your world the outlawing of sympathy strikes is "bourgeois ideology" -- then that is an aspect of "bourgeois ideology" I do not share. Sympathy strikes ought'nt be illegal. If murder's illegality, in Catron-Land, is also "bourgeois ideology," then that is a part of bourgeois ideology I support.
In other words, there are things I agree with in or current legal system, and things I don't. It's pretty simple. I'd be surprised if you felt differently.
The McCain part I explained as id-venting.
-B.
Joseph Catron wrote:
"Do you share every assumption of bourgeois 'criminal justice' ideology, or only those affecting military service? And if the latter, why?"