|
It's pretty hilarious when people talk in some overtly legal, completely affirmative sense, like they are not wrong. But as reality would have it, it could not be further from the truth.
Excuse the unnecessary bludgeoning of a dead horse, but people here seem to have little concept of constitutional law (that little document that is the ultimate, and final legal authority of the country) or sovereign/ real politic(k).
Bush had the authority of congress to act in Iraq. As the Executive, read Commander-in-Chief, he is allowed to act in good faith the execution of all laws passed by congress. Further more your conspiracies would never hold up to legal scrutiny, regardless of how good/bad the current post Iraq War conflict is going, he was allowed to act by congress the legislative body; can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted contrary to good faith? Don't lie to yourself or me, becuase the answer is no.
To many people here carry a burdening and debilatating sense of idealism, especially in their political application. This is clearly seen in their view of American common/domestic/statuatory law. But it is further seen in their incessant attempt to somehow assert that the Iraqi conflict is illegal on some "international" scale.
Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the President affirms an oath to? Is it the UN? Maybe could someone direct as to what legal authority the UN operates under? Is there some innate legal authority? Perhaps conceded? When did America as a sovereign nation ever concede any legal authority to the UN in some capacity that would limit its own action in Iraq? To further, under what statutes would any American actors equate to war criminals? Is America treaty to the ICC?
Interesting, no?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|