It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Rosha
If the military action is externally illegal to begin with, and so 'from the top down' is therefore a crime being justified and perpetuated internally, how does a convenient set of internal laws derivied by those same perpetrators of the crime 'make it right' ?
Originally posted by Rosha
Originally posted by aptness
First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?
No...I wasnt addressing that question.
Originally posted by aptness
Originally posted by Rosha
If the military action is externally illegal to begin with, and so 'from the top down' is therefore a crime being justified and perpetuated internally, how does a convenient set of internal laws derivied by those same perpetrators of the crime 'make it right' ?
Rosha, I wasn’t addressing (or disputing) the question of legality, or not, of the Iraq (or any other) war in the context of international law. I was just pointing out that these are two separate issues.
I understand what you are saying but, first and foremost, the US military courts in question cannot rule on the legality of the Iraq (or any other) war. A question of that nature is outside their jurisdiction.
Then there is the practical matter that, even if the war was illegal the bodies that potentially have jurisdiction over that question haven’t ruled it so. Again, I’m not disputing or asserting the legality or not of the war.
And then, as another member has pointed out, Lt. Col. Lakin’s orders pertain to operations in Afghanistan. If we followed your rationale, that the external military action would ‘poison’ the legality of the orders, then the orders given to Lakin are undoubtedly legal: both from an internal perspective — Congress authorized operations in Afghanistan — and external as well — authorized by a UN resolution (contrary to the one in Iraq).
I hope I was able to explain myself efficiently.
Originally posted by Rosha
Originally posted by aptness
First, you are assuming Obama was not eligible and is holding office ‘illegally.’ When was this proven? Did I miss something?
No...I wasnt addressing that question.
Please accept my apologies that I misunderstood the reason why you claimed the orders were illegal.