Legal or Not

The macro viewpoint of what is legal should echo the micro perspective.

For example, in the micro perspective, if an individual named George unleashes his viscious dogs on an old man with the express purpose of killing the old man because George thinks the guy is dangerous, George probably would be found guilty in a court of law of attempted murder. If the old man died as a result, George would be guilty of murder. In either case, George would be viewed as a criminal.

In the macro view, if George, the leader of a country, unleashes the country's military in an invasion of another country with the express purpose of killing the leader of that country because George thinks the guy has weapons of mass destruction, George probably would be found guilty in a politically corrupt and morally bankrupt political party of regime-change. If thousands of his own troups died as a result of his folly and tens of thousands of people in the occupried country died, George would be found guilty in a politically corrupt and morally bankrupt political party of regime-change. In either case, somehow George is not viewed as having broken any laws.

Something is wrong. In the second scenario, George should be subject to imprisonment, but he's not.