This message was self-deleted by its author

[HardTimes99]

79. Thank you for your balanced and civil tone. With reference to your second paragraph, the

U.N. Charter provides that member nations may use military force to protect themselves against the threat of 'imminent attack'. In international law, this is called a 'preemptive war' (to head off an imminent attack). Member nations, however, may not engage in 'preventative war' (heading off a future attack), unless specifically authorized by the U.N. Security Council. This U.N. Security Council resolution is precisely what Bush failed to obtain, making his subsequent invasion and occupation illegal under international law. The Congress' actions in authorizing miltiary force have no bearing, as international laws were violated in the invasion. Likewise, Bush's possible reliance on faulty intel has no bearing for the same reasons. Long story short: if you want to commit preventative war (as opposed to pre-emptive war), you have to secure the approval of the U.N. Security Council. Otherwise, you are a rogue nation, subject to all available international legal sanctions.

Likewise international law (specifically the Geneva Conventions) cover the treatment of captured combatant and non-combatant forces. There were massive violations of Geneva committed with Bush administration assertions that Geneva no longer applied, although we did not withdraw from the Convention.) Again, Congress' acts authorizing military force have no bearing on violations of Geneva.

As for fraud committed against the peoples of the U.S., there's much evidence to show that Bush lied and knew he was lying when he lied. Bush should of course be allowed to present evidence that he was relying upon faulty intelligence. But a jury should make the final determination as to whether that faulty evidence (if it indeed exists) creates reasonable doubt on the fraud count.

I hate to think that history will be the only judge of GWB even as I fear you may be correct in your prediction.