Originally Posted by ricardisimo
It's not just an opinion. It's a completely uncontroversial assessment of reality. George Bush launched two thoroughly illegal wars (wars of aggression, the war crime numero uno) against the wishes of the majority back home in what is supposedly a democracy, and in complete contravention of international law.
I'm at a bit of a loss to draw the connection between Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld and assassinations overseas. The UN and the World Court adjudicate international law. International laws and treaties which the US has signed automatically become the law of the land. What's the complication here?
I had a lengthy discourse on this board in 2008 (primarily with Preacher) in which I contended W was a war criminal with regard to "enhanced interrogations" (aka torturing) of detainees in violation of the Geneva Convention - so I am not defending W
But as far as the two wars launched by W - both of them were supported by a majority of the American public and Congress when they were launched - if you have any polling data to the contrary feel free to link to it - do not confuse your views (or mine with regard to Iraq) with "the wishes of the majority back home"
And as far as international treaties, I agree the treaties are the law of the land once ratified (whether certain treaty provisions governed treatment of detainees was a big part of what Hamdan was about). I do not understand those treaties to require UN approval before the U.S,.commences military action - the US may go to the UN for PR purposes but if the UN wants to stop the US from declaring war or having Congress otherwise authorize military action (something notably missing from our current excellent adventure in Libya) I doubt the US has signed a treaty that gives the UN the right to do something about it
You and I have a different view as to what constitutes uncontroversial assessments of reality on this point insofar as you contend George W. Bush is clearly
a greater criminal than Bin Laden