Because Kopp broke the law? And Bush, who has gotten approval from Congress (and, as he believes, from the UN through previous resolutions), is not?
If Congress and the Supreme Court said the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military was not authorized to wage war in Iraq, and he still did so, then I might be more inclined to side with your analogy. Or, if Congress and the Supreme Court said that all abortion is illegal AND Kopp was in a position where only immediate intervention could save a life, then your analogy might hold water.
This is not meant to be a pro-war statement. This is only to place your analogy, yme, in the proper context.
Kopp stalked Slepian, visited the neighbourhood on at least two prior occasions (substantiated by witnesses- he admitted to six), hid in the woods behind his house and shot him in the back after Slepian came home from a memorial service for his father.
This is in stark contrast to the well-publicized warnings. I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the war, but announcing weeks, or even days, in advance that you’re going to invade a country and wage war in accordance with the applicable rules of international conflict is just a bit different from shooting someone in the back.
I hope you can also see the difference in the methods of dealing with a matter of public policy (abortion) as opposed to relations between two countries.