UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW, IT IS ILLEGAL TO ATTACK ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT U.N. RESOLUTION

Under settled concepts of international law, it is illegal for one country to attack another by invading its territorial space. When Colombia under Uribe attacked a FARC camp within Ecuador two years ago, that was illegal, notwithstanding Condoleeza Rice's imprimatur. And now some believe that Israel's war planes attacked and killed two men in a Hyundai within Sudan. If so, it too violates the law of nations.

See this report from the BBC webpage.

SUDAN CONDEMNS EIGHT TO DEATH BY HANGING

Sudan, notorious for its treatment of Black non-Muslims in Darfur, has condemned eight rebels to death by hanging. In a court specifically designed to try these insurgents, the judged pronounced the verdict guilty.

So then, what's the difference between Bush's military tribunal at Guantanamo and the Sudan special court? There is no difference. When a government or regime wants to punish those fighting against it, it sets up a special court and renders a death sentence usually by hanging.

Consider Bush's latest move with the death penalty. He has just approved a death sentence against an Army private for killing and rape.

I don't care whether it is Saddam Hussein or Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The state should not be allowed to impose the death penalty. It is barbaric and cruel and it offends against the Eighth Amendment barring cruel and unusual punishment.

The U.S. under Bush is not all that different from Sudan under Oram al-Bashir or Iran under Ahmadinejad. All three countries approve and utilize the barbaric and cruel death penalty to punish offenders.

RUDY DEBATES MITT AS TO WHO IS MOST CLUELESS ABOUT ISLAMIC WORLD

I don't know who is the greater threat to world peace, Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani. The New York Times publishes a verbatim transcript of last night's G.O.P. debate, and here is Giuliani talking about Iran:

"Iran is a threat, a nuclear threat, not just because they can deliver a nuclear warhead with missiles. They’re a nuclear threat because they are the biggest state sponsor of terrorism and they can hand nuclear materials to terrorists. And we saw just last week in New York an attempt by Islamic terrorists to attack JFK Airport; three weeks ago, an attempt to attack Fort Dix. "

First of all, someone tell Giuliani that Iran currently has no nuclear warheads. Therefore, the Iranians cannot deliver "a nuclear warhead." Secondly, Iran has no missiles that can deliver nuclear warheads. Thirdly, Iran supports Hezbollah not because it wishes to foment "terrorism" but because Hezbollah is a Shiite organization as is Iran for the most part. Iran looks on its support in the same way as Irish Catholics in the U.S. support their co-religionists with money and aid in Northern Ireland. Fourthly, the "attempt" by "Islamic terrorists" on JFK airport is at this point in time only alleged, meaning it may or may not be true. Fifthly, the attempt on Fort Dix has not been proved in a court of law. Sixth, Giuliani seems to conflate all Islamic terrorism as if it all emanated out of Iran. The 9/11 conspirators all were Sunnis, sworn enemies of the Shia in Iran. Therefore it makes no sense for Giuliani to imply that non-Arabic Shiite Iran is behind Sunni insurgents and/or terrorists.

The same lack of awareness of historical, ethnic and religious difference pervades Mitt Romney's view of the Islamic world. Here is Wolf Blitzer asking Mitt how he feels about attacking Iran:

"Governor Romney, I want to get you on the record. Do you agree with the mayor, the governor, others here, that the use of tactical nuclear weapons, potentially, would be possible if that were the only way to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb?

"MR. ROMNEY: You don’t take options off the table. But what you do is stand back and say, “What’s going on here?” Do you see what’s happening in Sudan and Afghanistan, in Iraq and Iraq? All over the world we’re seeing the same thing happening, and that is, people are testing the United States of America."

Mitt seems to be saying here that we can view the Islamic movement as one unified whole, raising it anti-American head in Sudan (Sunni African/Arabic), Afghanistan (mostly Sunni tribesmen), Iraq (Sunni but mostly Shia Arabic) and Iran (Shiite Persian). Mitt is clueless. Perhaps he has been too busy earning fees from mergers and acquisitions at Bain & Co.

If any of these guys, Romney or Giuliani, is elected president, we will have four more years of Bush-lite "know nothing" muddled and catastrophic foreign policy towards Islamic countries.