You're gonna need a whole lot of rope
 

For reference.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part1.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part2.jpg
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d6...an/00part3.jpg

"The law of nations is a part of the law of the United States unless there is some statute or treaty to the contrary. International law is a part of the law of the United States only for the application of its principles on questions of international rights and duties. It does not restrict the United States or any other nation from making laws governing its own territory. A State of the United States is not a "state" under international law, since the Constitution does not vest it with a capacity to conduct foreign relations."


http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/international_law





Powers of The Congress:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8






(Iraq round two)
International law
Further information: United Nations Charter and International law

'[/i\\i]There have been no findings by any legal tribunal with both legal authority and legal jurisdiction that any laws were violated. There are only two legal tribunals with both authority and jurisdiction to make such a finding: (1) The US federal courts and (2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them. There are no relevant advisory opinions or legal finding regarding the legality. The United Nations security council has made no findings on the issues.

[edit] International law - right of pre-emptive self defenseThere is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self defense.[44] "The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[45] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[46]'[/i]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_R...s_Against_Iraq


(also keep in mind that Iraq (round one) ended in a conditional ceasefire)




"The origins of al-Qaeda as a network inspiring terrorism around the world and training operatives can be traced to the Soviet war in Afghanistan (December 1979 – February 1989).[2] In May 1996 the group World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders (WIFJAJC), sponsored by Osama bin Laden and later reformed as al-Qaeda, started forming a large base of operations in Afghanistan, where the Islamist extremist regime of the Taliban had seized power that same year.[3] In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwā, as the head of al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel,[4][5] later in May of that same year al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the US and the West.[6][7]

Following the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania,[8] US President Bill Clinton launched Operation Infinite Reach, a bombing campaign in Sudan and Afghanistan against targets the US asserted were associated with WIFJAJC,[9][10] although others have questioned whether a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was used as a chemical warfare plant. The plant produced much of the region's antimalarial drugs[11] and around 50% of Sudan's pharmaceutical needs.[12] The strikes failed to kill any leaders of WIFJAJC or the Taliban.[11]

Next came the 2000 millennium attack plots which included an attempted bombing of Los Angeles International Airport. In October 2000 the USS Cole bombing occurred, followed in 2001 by the 11 September attacks.[13]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror


Agreed Procedure for the Opening of Hostilities

"The Hague Convention (III) in 1907 called "CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE OPENING OF HOSTILITIES"[23] gives the international actions a country should perform when opening hostilities. The first two Articles say:-

Article 1
The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.[24]

Article 2
The existence of a state of war must be notified to the neutral Powers without delay, and shall not take effect in regard to them until after the receipt of a notification, which may, however, be given by telegraph. Neutral Powers, nevertheless, cannot rely on the absence of notification if it is clearly established that they were in fact aware of the existence of a state of war.[25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war

I don't think the national law of the US can authorize them to do anything they want anywhere in the world. Yeah States are sovereign on their own soil. That's a principle of International law. Yet, it doesn't allow them to do everything. The war crimes issue is interesting. If there are war crimes committed in a country, by its own government, well... one could say since it's on their soil, it's a sovereignty issue. Therefore other countries can't do anything. Of course in reality it's different. There were, in the past, interventions to protect civilian populations. So, on the international scene, that's even truer. I know the US aren't very "fan" of International law but still, I don't think they can act like there is no international law at all. Even though, if there's one country that can ignore it to the largest extent, it's definitely the USA.

The point is, we still don't know if the Iraq War is legal or not. Of course, since we're speaking about the USA, there's little doubt that we'll know the truth, one day. I don't expect them to allow international organizations to investigate on the legality of this war.

lets be serious here, even assuming Iraq WAS illegal ...

(1) The US federal courts

... and this US court action against the US Bush administration was going to be prosecuted by what part of the US government ????

(2) the United Nations. Advisory opinions are prohibited in US Courts and are also prohibited by the UN Charter unless the security council authorizes them.

uh huh ... and the US has absolute veto power in the security council.

the truth is we live in an anarchy in which the strongest imposes the rules, lets not decieve ourselves

That's right... some assume it was illegal

If Saddam trading in Euro had of strengthened OPEC to do the same, like Iran was promising not that long ago by and subsequently declining opening her own bourse (there's a hint there of what is going on there with the sabre rattling and sanctions), the USD would almost certainly have crashed overnight.
Illegal? no... immoral,? possibly... to defend, even pre-emptively against an economic warfare?
Iraq is the perfect setting to convince OPEC not to go that route.. especially with the US pulling her base out of Saudi.
Crashing a country's economy, could quite easily and without hestitation be called an act of terrorism
Keep in mind though, that Iraq round one, ended in a conditional ceasefire. Open inspections were part of that condition.


@bugmenot... you can bet your bottom doller though, that if the (US) Democrats thought there was even the slightest chance to nail The Republicans over it, they would have. ;)

you call it pre-emptive war, some call it speculation. It's very dangerous to assume we (as in "the Western world") are always right.

For once I agree with Raaaid when he says: "the truth is we live in an anarchy in which the strongest imposes the rules, lets not deceive ourselves".

LMAO! been there? So all the people who gave up their lives to try to free that country and protect the rest of the western and eastern world from harm died for nothing?

And to the rest :
"We know he has them, we just have to catch him with them, thats the tough bit because we know he keeps moving them" - Hanz Blix

Sadam was a despot murderous monster that killed thousands of people, not only in his own country but in neigbouring countries because he didnt like their culture or religion, the nation he controlled lived under the heel of his boot and he wasnt afaid to crush his people and did so on many occasions.

Its sad that the US didnt want to wait for the UN, but Sadam is gone and the country is now free to start again as it was supposed to when Saddam was empowered in the first place to fight off Iran.

Basically yes. And they were never protecting "our" freedom. They were over throwing a dictator. And wheather it was legal is still up for grabs. Not one american soldier has had to fight for our freedom since WWII.

i'm sorry, i don't want to antagonize you, but you display the utmost ignorance on a real sensitive issue like war; wake up to reality, the US intervention was a crime, lots of civilians died for nothing, they created the situation and later dealt with it on its own terms and agenda, acting only for US's leader elite interests, most ppl know about this, that's why US's image abroad is so degraded. it's well known US's main business is war, they just need some excuse every now and then to wage it. US's main industry is arms production, that must keep flowing; after all, if no one's fighting who'd be buying?

about the legal aspect of a war, it would be important to know who's casting judgement on this and on what terms; we have been lied over and over again by our leaders, as we where with the WMD and many other excuses before.

above all, i don't care if it's illegal or not as much as if it's right or not. legality is also a form of bureaucracy and is as corruptible as anything else. death penalty is legal on some places; i don't care about that, for me it's wrong plain and simple, not an issue that 'legality' can whitewash.