Is That Lawful?

I got a chuckle at this one. Carl Herman, a 9-11 nutbar who bills himself as the LA County Non-Partisan Examiner, wrote a series of posts on his attempts to convince people at a "conservative 9-11 event" that US wars are unlawful.

Consistent with my last two years of writing articles to explain, document, and prove current US wars aren’t even close to lawful and all based on lies, nobody at this event of mostly current and former US military could defend current US wars as lawful, even in subsequent e-mails and in their consultation with the group’s “Constitutionalist.” I challenge anyone to explain, document, and prove in the comments section below that US war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and/or Iran is legal (you can put what you say in more than one comment). I will likely demand anyone making such argument to refute my longer explanation of US war law that I will reference in my comment responses from my article, “Open proposal to US higher education.”

Okay, so I'm not really interested in debating whether the US wars in Afghanistan are lawful or not because a) I'm not a lawyer, and b) it's kind of like the debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But I did have to laugh at this part of an email to Tom, one of the "conservatives" that Carl encountered:

I agree with you, Tom, that we should not depend on our government or police, but be prepared to defend our families and ourselves. And yes, legal self-defense allows one to shoot-to-kill if under imminent threat of lethal attack. Believe me, my wife, my daughter, and I would disable or kill anyone instantly who was even a credible threat to our dog.

I am going to go out on a limb, here, Carl, and say that it is not lawful to kill anyone instantly who is even a credible threat to your dog. I mean, seeing as how you're so concerned with lawful actions and all.