First off, as Boxley stated a "legitimate regime" is "legitimate" because it is recognized as "legitimate" by a sufficient number of other "legitimate" regimes.

But I will give you the benefit of a doubt and guess that you're attempting to define some criteria for which regimes the US should view as "legitimate" and which should be "illegitimate".

1. A functional rule of law as the general case for all citizens and members of government.

Nazi Germany would meet those criteria. Fucking Jews. Gotta keep them out of government. Better relocate them. And get rid of those damn darkies, too.

How about if you remove the stipulation of "citizens"? A rule of law applicable for ALL people living in that nation. Equal.

2. Basic human rights for citizens given substantial practical support.

Again, Nazi Germany. When you get to define who is and is not a "citizen" and "basic human rights" only apply to "citizens".....

Well, we've already established that you're a fascist wannabe.

Why is it that you keep including "citizen" in your criteria?

3. A working mechanism by which widely unpopular leaders can be removed, explicitly because they are unpopular with the citizens.

Again, you define who a "citizen" is. Then those "citizens" can determine who will be their leader. I've already posted a history of Nazi Germany showing how they were LEGALLY ELECTED.

Of course, those "citizens" who disliked him were, usually, "traitors".

It seems to me that you're trying to create criteria that match your views of which regimes are "legitimate" and which aren't.

The problem is that you don't know enough history to do anything more than bungle your way through this.

You have to put the US on the "good" side and the people you don't like on the "bad" side.

But, thoughout history, "bad" regimes have done the same things that the US is doing now.

But I've gone over this in the past.

It all comes down to you wanting to believe that the US is "good" and that people who don't agree with us are "bad".