On one hand we have the criminal excesses of a totalitarian's war and on the other we have a finding of the rule of law. You don't like the finding, so what? Find your mountaintop.
Dear 68 grunt,
Well, the legal authorities of Germany had determined that it was within the law of Germany to kill certain persons, whether by starvation or other means. Those who actually did the starving were "just following orders" of their legal superiors.
But you don't recognize starving folks as "killing," just as "letting them pass." So, why would we hold the Germans who starved concentration camp occupants accountable for those deaths? They were merely letting those people pass.
Bottom line, 68 grunt, causing the death of someone via starvation or dehydration is considered to be a crime against humanity by civilized peoples and nations.
In affirming the murder of Terri, you have stepped outside of civilized humanity. Welcome to barbarism.
That someone passes a law that enables the activity doesn't make the law valid. An inherently unjust law doesn't require allegiance. That is why the folks running the concentration camps were not permitted to plead that they were just following orders, because the orders, though made through lawful means, were intrinsically evil, and thus, had no force of law.
As for totalitarianism, I think you've missed an important part of this debate. Our Constitution wasn't set up with the idea of judicial supremacy in mind. Judicial supremacy, or so thought the founders, was a particularly vile form of tyranny.
Thus, not only is what is happening illegal from a substantive point of view (even an order or law provided through legal forms is unlawful if it is fundamentally evil), but it is illegal in its process, as well, from a constitutional point of view, in that the murderer greer's orders have usurped the power of the executive, and represent judicial tyranny.
sitetest