You wrote:
> Even if Bush was actually elected. Big IF, there is a larger context
> within which the judge the legality of this war. One such context are
> the international conventions against unilateral, unprovoked aggressive
> warfare such as the invasion of Iraq two years ago or Hitler's invasion
> of Poland sixty years ago.
There really isn't any question that Bush was elected. Whether he was elected by a fully legal process is actually an adjudicable question under the law and nobody has made a serious case that the election was not legal in any of the dozens of places they could have.
There also really isn't a larger context to judge the *legality* of this war. The international conventions you cite are just treaties and they are understood to be subject to the administrations and legislatures that created them. They don't pre-exist or supercede constitutions of the signatory governments because they are the product of those consititutions and governments.
> There was once a law that upheld slavery in this country. Would you
> thank the soldier who captured a runaway slave and returned him to his
> owner?
Yeah, we actually split the nation in half over that question. You know, when the troops in the South decided to take it on their own authority to do what they thought to be the moral thing and defend slavery. So, unless you are suggesting that we have a civil war over the question of Iraq, it is not exactly an apt comparison.
boddi