Don, thank you for that post. I feel it rather echoes what I have seaid, although I have no interest in US domestic law which may not run outside its borders.

Keith, I am reasonably confident that I have nowhere on this thread confused law with justice. If I have I would wish to correct such an impression. Your view on UK law is flawed. It turns first on having lawful authority (a still slightly moot point here) and second reasonable cause (a very moot point here) and is not a matter of international law nor relevant when there is an issue as to the existence of a state of war or a combatant role or otherwise. Few people wish to defend the met's barber shop (doing Brazilians for nothing) and while I am not inclined to rush to judgement on that issue I am concerned at your continued advocacy of shoot on sight and to kill policies.

No, I have not been on the Libya thread. It is increasingly obvious that illegal regime change was the be-all and end-all of the US NATO and UK (etc) operation. The operation was excused by a false assertion as to what Gadaffi threatened. It was very arguably ultra vires NATO or the UN. The attack on CG's family was transparently in terrorem.

My concern is to make it plain that the fact that the US has at present the biggest guns does not give it the lawful right to rule the world, nor to kill people outwith its jurisdiction. As Bob Dylan said "If God's on our side, then we'll start the next war". Invade my country, USA, and I will be in the hills as long as my legs can carry me. You do not rule the world, and the rest of the world will oppose you.


By the way - Gaddafi and ObL were both nasty shits. But I'd rather they lived than that the USA might claim precedent to assert that it could invade the UK or without UK due process kill people in the UK.

Who else elects people like Schwarzenegger or Eastwood to office based on their fictitious persona for vigilante "justice"?