[smokincrater]

I think everybody is missing the point. Wether something is legal or illegal is best left to lawyers. From what I understand of the American legal system. Someone can be tried for murder in a US court for a crime that was committed off the Great Barrier Reef that was found guilty in that country`s soverign court (Australia`s state of Queensland) for manslauter.

A skewd interpretation of the right to bear arms permits any citizen in the US to have arms whatever the situation, when the original intention was a very narrow and specific use of arms.

Whether anything is legal or illegal can only be tested in court. But who`s court?

The International Military Tribunal featured leaders of a soverign state charged with crimes that prior to 1948 were not international crimes. The Tribunal should have and did punish those charged and found guilty for turly horrible crimes. But as a legal study retroactive charging has been conviently forgotten about. It was noted at the time by senior allied military figures that thanked the creater of the christian church that they were on the winning side.
The charges of Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity could leveled with some justification at the Soivet government, It was with some chargin to the Nazis`s that when the asked about planning for the Poland invasion of September 1939 the Soviet delegation would often want the questioning stopped or only asked in such a way that the answer could not involve them.

The only international body that has any claim of the right to try anyone of any country it is the International Crime Tribunal, which does excellant work.

Will Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Bush Senior and Jr be taking a vacation to The Hague I doubt it. As the ICT would like to ask them a few questions .