No. of Recommendations: 4
No it's not. We didn't place him in custody because he lost an election. We placed him in custody, ostensibly, because he was engaged in criminal activity. It doesn't matter that he's not a head of state - almost every criminal on earth isn't a head of state.
We placed him in custody because he's a narcoterrorist. The fact that he's not head of state means he's just another fugitive from US justice.
Nope, but none of those things are relevant to the rules.
LOL, sure.
I don't recall you being this upset when SEAL Team 6 literally invaded Pakistan and whacked Bin Laden. Where's your outrage? Oh, right, that's different, right? Also don't recall you raising any objections to eradicating Libya's government.
Noriega is your best argumentative path but the problem you'll have is that he made it all the way to the Supreme Court and lost and even that case doesn't line up with this one.
It's worked astonishingly well for the last seventy years or so - we've never seen a time period in human history that was so free from war and military conflict, even though the wars and conflicts that do exist are still terrible.
The post WWII order of an exhausted Europe and a polar orientation of global power centered on the US and USSR had more to do with it. Even so, you're going to be disappointed at the amount of covert activity that went on in direct contradiction to "the rules".
Of course they do, or they would have just invaded a bunch of their neighbors a long time ago.
They lacked the capability to project power. It's as simple as that. That fact is rapidly changing, however. By 2027-2029 they're going to be ready to move.
They're already engaging in asymmetric attacks on the US and have for some time. Thank God the people in charge are finally taking it seriously.
