Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MuadDib
It never came to a vote before the Security Council. The US/UK dropped their proposal when it became clear that it was would get vetoed by one of several permanent members. 678 is still valid international law and in the absence of said explicit no, it would still validate the action. Point is, regardless of whether you agree with the legal argument or not, I don't think Congress is blame for the illegality of the initial action they had no say in nor the later illegalities that came as a result of White House (or otherwise executive) policies.
|
I never said they
voted no, I said they said no. And yes the US and UK dropped it. And we did it anyway. If 678 were valid, why would we have brought it before the UN? We wouldn't have. Congress should have had the knowledge of US law and treaties to see that their vote was illegal. Just as Illegal as banning free speech or bypassing warrants.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Will, I knew you would have a good reason for any position you took.  My major objections to Senator Clinton are her votes in support of military action in both Iraq and Iran. Even so, if she becomes the nominee I will support her over McCain.
I'm curious about the "Hate Hillary" crowd and how they justify their opposition to her. |
I'd take a giant dyslexic prawn running on a Christian Falangist Party of America ticket over McCain. I'd rather vote for Paris Hilton.