THE MAN - But, we don't know what was illegal yet; if no one man can dictate what is illegal with the intent of completely and utterly punish another, expecting the law to be behind him. People deserve a defense where law is recognized and respected. It seems that the law might state it, but law needs to be interpreted before someone pay for a crime (or should we just allow police to make the sole decision? There goes the jobs of millions of lawyers and judges if that's the case). Plato, Republic, book X: "one and the same object appears to vary in size depending on whether we're looking at it from up close or far away." The law represents.
Yes, yes, thetenken, law profs ALL over the country probably state the same thing that you do; but, I bet there are those who don't. One of my first questions -- I'm not a law student, remember this; and, yes, I understand that to a certain extent, not being a law student doesn't matter, because as U.S. citizens, we cannot cite ignorance of the law as an excuse -- was "name names," because I know these guys deserve their day to defend themselves if in fact this is the case. And then, lemme ask this: are there any law profs (and others in the legal profession) who saying the invasion WASN'T illegal, and can cite black letter law in doing so?
Here's my point: charges can be filed, the court of popular opinion (I've gone through that, yes?), and a whole lot of other things -- even law students and law professors and the legal profession -- can call the invasion of Iraq as illegal. They can only CALL it that. Whoever's responsible (I'm still asking for a name here) still deserves to be heard. Deserves a defense, if we're talking about interjecting the discipline of law into this matter.
Let's look at a popular legal case NOT INTENDED TO IMPLY ANYTHING to help us illustrate. When the, well, let's call it the "199_s O.J. Simpson situation" was going on, a lot of folks (let's keep bare bones here) stamped his "purported offense" as illegal. But, the law eventually said he is innocent. I'm first in line, glad living in this country -- a country based on laws, yes? -- to say that a civilized society, like ours, cannot live without laws. Everything seemed to point to O.J.'s guilt. But, the law said O.J. is innocent; so, he is, in the eyes of criminal law. He will not spend a day in jail. He has not committed any offense -- the law, the ruling says so.
There's a difference between O.J. and the present case. O.J. was never proven, never admitted, and never confessed to being the killer. There was no documented paper trail where O.J. announced his intentions to off his wife, nor were there numerous meetings held in public forums showing that intention.
In this case, the Bush administration submitted its plan to attack Iraq in 2002, then planned, argued, and ultimately gave up on the U.N. to legitimize its war for the reasons they wanted. This is in plain view of every nation and in every record of the U.N. at the time. Sure, maybe the Cato Institute felt that the legal arguments set forth by the administration was
right, but the Cato Institute doesn't determine whether or not something is illegal. The U.N. Security Council does.
Sure, we can say "we'll never know unless there was a trial" except for the fact that just about everybody knows. We can't look at all the facts and all the records and say, "Look, no court of law found this" and just shrug it off. That would be irresponsible and encourage more litigation in our already litigious society (not that I'm complaining, more future work for me :hehe:).
Anyway, no one is filing charges ostensibly for the reasons I had stated before. So no one is being "punished" for doing whatever. Just because someone is not prosecuted doesn't mean they haven't done something illegal. If I speed on the road and everyone sees me do it, but no cops come arrest me, does that mean what I did was NOT illegal?
XAVIO - Ok so, Bush or Kerry are going to be president.
Fighting with millions of dollars.
One keeps is idea, on one side what is good, on the other the bad things.
In uSA you have to learn to know the difference between politic and religions, we know how the problem is big in arabic countries.
For him terrorists AL Caida, ben Laden, all can be errase by attacking Irak. ( not for oil of course )
120 billion dollars for that planned in few years, but most of this money has already been spend...
It's true that he helps america to improve his economy, but how does he do it : He boycott other country, and if countries doesn't want to make what he says, he stopes helping this countries.
You are going to tell me.. What the problem ?
The problem is that what he does he's not democratic. He makes other country protec americans living in this country and force the other to do it, spying Europe is a good way to win contracts Airbus vs boeing. To win money he does everything he can. Richest are going to be more and more rich, and poorest more and more poor.
Boycott then, what is wrong ?
American don't give a shit of they kill environment and the earth. It's true that if they try to respect a little bit and sign the Kyoto ( contract ? ), they would loose some money. But ok, killing environment is better than losing money. Drive with your car spending 10 liters a mile to have more oil in the world.
I can't say Kerry is better than bush. But how can he be worse ? Look at what Clinton did for America, and compare to watch Bush did ?
I 'd like to be more argumentative, and what is say is bullshit, it's a speach of Moore, It's a french speak and so on... but try to mind, mind 5 minutes, days, or years, travel in the world to have another point of view and then maybe you'll keep you're idea that bush is a great man for maerica. That's ok, everyboy has his own idea, i have mine.
I'm not sure what you're really saying here, so I'm sorry if I misinterpret you. As I follow your Bush arguments in international policy, you're saying he's being anti-democratic by doing what he believes is in the United States interests (or at least his interest)? Unfortunately world and international politics as currently stated are NOT democratic. No one ever said they were. The U.N. is the biggest mess of compromises. Five nations out of over 150+ can decide to veto just about anything but a unanimous vote out of the General Assembly. One of the five nations can stymie the Security Council and cause absolutely nothing to be done. Even in the General Assembly, why does one nation get one vote? Does that mean that Tuvalu's population of just over 10,000 should be equal to China's 1.3+ billion? How is that democratic?
My point is, there is nothing democratic about world politics right now. That's just the fact. As for travelling around the world, I've done that. I never said Bush was a great man (maybe you confused me with someone else).
As for the oil for food scandal...I'm too tired to address it, and it's still a bit early in the investigation process....