posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 10:21 AM
This is a trick question thread.
There is no way to answer this but to agree with the poster.
As his obvious stance is that anything the president does is legal or that congress does is legal or that the supremes state is legal, as long as he
likes what they did.
Sure. Legal. Fine. If that is as high as your morale and ethical standards go then I am truly scared for anyone that crosses your path and comes up on
your bad side.
That means you agree with everything Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Omar Khadaffi, etc, etc, etc did, because it was legal for
them to do it according to their laws.
If that's the truth, then why are we invading/opposing/fighting those people or types? If "is it legal" the only standard, we have not a leg to
So, make the choice, morale/ethical or legal? One way or the other, Bush and Cheney are going to be wrong.
Morally and ethically they were all kinds of wrong. Legally they created what are called "loop holes" and "catch-22" situations to wriggle out of
their illegal activities.
Unfortunately that kind of ethical standing does not match up well with a Republic or a Democracy, but lines up well with a Dictatorship or a Divine
Right of Kings.
Making up the rules as you go along and stretching every previous legal and morale standard to do so, until they are so warped as to be unrecognizable
is only the rule of law in a very cynical way.
Truly it is the rule of man and not the rule of law, which is exactly what our constitution was founded to put an end to.