Saddam, resolution 1441, and weapons inspections

[myata]

1. SC cannot be considered impartial because certain governments, if accused of wrongdoing, can still participate in its deliberations and influence its decisions.

2. SC cannot be considered completely independent because governments can influence its composition and procedures, and its members can be influenced by external political considerations.

3. SC cannot be considered open and accessible because the offended party cannot bring a direct claim against the offender.

4. SC cannot be considered equal because some of the governments have special privileges (right of veto).

The above clearly distinguishes the SC, which is no more that an extraordinary executive council, from what is normally associated with adequate justice system in the civlilized societies. The fact that only a few resolutions of the kind were ever attempted (and successfully vetoed down) only underlines its complete inadequacy to serve as a meaningful justice framework on the international scene.

If the above still not clear enough, here's an example from real life that may illustrate it:

Your house was flattened by police chasing a criminal in a tank. You have the right to complain, however: 1) only if your complaint is supported by a member of the review panel; 2) the commander of the police team IS a judge of the review panel; 3) at the same time he's the attorney for the accused (i.e., him/herself); 4) he has the right to veto any decision of the panel.

Questions:

1) would you (or anyone in their right mind for that matter) choose to complain to such a commission or follow the normal legal process where you can have independent court hearing in which you'll have exact same legal rights as your opponent?

2) if anyone (were so bizzare as to have) brought such complaints earlier, would it make the commission any closer to a normal court of law?

[myata]

And while we're at it, let's get completely clear in the terminology we use:

The first step in making the invasion illegal is for that body to condemn it.

I'm not sure what do you mean by "condemn"? Publicly condemn, privately condemn? Condemn among your buddies in a pub or yoga club? I'd say the first step would be to bring a legal challenge to the court of law (which by definition assumes that it satisfies the requirements of independent judiciary. Such as impartiality, independence, fairness, accessibility and so on).

As we know, that body is not beyond condeming US actions as they did multiple times before.

Good for it, but it does not make it a court of law for the reasons already mentioned above. Your examples really prove nothing.

Also, were there to be a court that could decide this particular matter, the UNSC would empower that body.

And so?

And last, if there were a body, the USNC would become a witness and testify for, or against the USA. In any case, the UNSC like it or not, is the key to making this action illegal.

And so??? I'm not sure where the second part of this statement popped out of? A particular witness can be a part of judicial process but hardly a "key" to it.

Now, as for highly controlled, please explain how they are controlled by the US.

...

So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?

Please check what I said above, it's not the first time you misquote opponents in this discussion. When I said "controlled body" I meant that it's easily influenced by outside considerations. Independence would be a better term to use, I conceed on that.

[jbg]

"So, you have proof to support your claim the US controls the UNSC?"

In Canada, a proof is a proof is a proof.

as a veto holding member it has power to shootdown any resolution. In this manner it has the same power as every other member on the SC. However, as the lone superpower (until China decides to assert itself) it has more power because it could single handidly bring the SC to an end by withdrawing. Anyone who denies this and believes the SC can fulfill its mandate without the US is holding an idealistic world view that completely ignores the ridiculous hardpower that the US has.

Is it a bad thing that the one that pays has more influence than freeloaders? Frankly, as a US taxpayer I deeply resent supporting this "organization". As a New York State taxpayer and driver I deeply resent the illegal parking with total impunity, their non-payment of tickets, maltreatment and stiffing of merchants and creditors and even occasional violence.

The US has also asserted, under George Bush, that it has no problem ignoring multilateralism in what it decides is its best interests.

As we should. We can see, with the North Korea fiasco, where multi-lateralism leads; to a rich diet of words, and absoutely no action.

[KrustyKidd]

I'm not sure what do you mean by "condemn"?

Told you before, the UNSC is not afrasid to do this as it is the first step in making somthing illegal as in the UNSC's motion to make a resolution

1989Condemns USA invasion of Panama.

1989Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.

1989 Condemns USA for shooting down 2 Libyan aircraft.

1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.

1989Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.

1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba.

2003 To end the USA's 40 year embargo of Cuba.

2004 Production and processing of weapon-usable material should be under international control.

Please check what I said above, it's not the first time you misquote opponents in this discussion. When I said "controlled body" I meant that it's easily influenced by outside considerations. Independence would be a better term to use, I conceed on that.

I didn't quote you, I asked if you had proof that the US controlled the UNSC. I take it scince you came back with mock indignation you don't. So, that would seem that the UNSC, if they had any inclination to deem the US action in invading Iraq not to be what they mandated, would at least condemn it. As per the other things and ivasions the US has done as recently as 2003.

Another point that is almost farcical is you are now saying the UNSC is not impartial. As soon as you broght forward that argument I wondered how you could even argue that the US did not act according to resolution 1441. So, in this argument, the US acted against the wishes of a comical or inept body who can't rule on anything the way it should be ruled on? Is this your way of bowing out of the argument?

[KrustyKidd]

Duplicate post

[KrustyKidd]

Bradco

Are there reasons to suspect he may respond differently then other past US leaders?

No. Two of those resolutions were tabled during his terms. The condemnation was during his fathers term. You are right though in that "my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis."

Good for you.

my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis.

Really?

Citing what happened in the past doesn't prove all that much other than in the past they were able to table resolutions condemning the US without consequences. That doesnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be consequences in this context. The failure of those resolutions to do anything or amount for anything could be used as "proof" of the uselessness of bothering to table anything.

So, in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you. OK, I'll work with you, just as long as I get to bring out fantasy role playing and call it an argument too.

I didnt say the UN in general...I specificlly mentioned France as an example simply cause they have alot to lose.

Do you base anything on fact or is this simply an emotional thing for you?

Frances power plays against the US

Analysts said the statement signaled France's determination to forge and hold together a majority in the 15-member Security Council to block U.S. and British efforts to pass a new resolution that could be used as an endorsement for war.

Yes indeed, they have a lot to lose. So much they worked against the US in the UNSC, EU and independently.

France would have loved to give no ambiguity in 1441 but couldn't. Please explain why, if there was no fear of US withdrawal or other consequences, they did this?

Why the French made sure that 1441 was a mandate for the US to act legally by invading Iraq? Simple. They never thought the US would actually act.

So, I take it you have finished the actual legal argument and now agree that it is by default legal?

[myata]

No it's your line of bowing out of the argument by not answering direct and clear questions that starts to look farcial and comical. No matter the problems with the resolution 1441; or all the previous resolutions, condeming the US; or any other pseudo legalistic considerations you want to pull in; the simple fact remains that the SC is obviously not qualified to be a judicial body (which I take it you silently acknowledged it as you never challenged any points I brought up about its mode of operation). Therefore itself it cannot establish the legality or otherwise of its own resolution or any subsequent act. Mock condemnation does not amount to illegality, just as "legal" by default does not mean it was actually legal. Only a court of law, with a reasonable standard of justice can do that. One can hope there will be one on the international level, even if not anytime soon.

Surprisingly, there's no contradiction in arguing that someone may have overstepped the authority given by an executive order, or used disportionate force, or any other problems with the act under the order, and the fact that the body issuing the order did not have the judicial power to judge itself. This is what normally happens in our life. Your lawyer can challenge the order, and the actions of any official under it, in the court. Just as it should be - unless you belive in " what I did is legal because I did not say it was illegal" line of argument, which was quite common, respectable and understandable - in the middle ages.

Actually I'm getting tired of having to restate the same arguments over and again without much logical response from your side. So, unless you come up with something meaningful, I'll bow out for now.

[bradco]

Bradco

Are there reasons to suspect he may respond differently then other past US leaders?

No. Two of those resolutions were tabled during his terms. The condemnation was during his fathers term. You are right though in that "my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis."

Good for you.

my argument isnt back up by pure facts and is weak in that respect but is based on logical hypothesis.

Really?

Citing what happened in the past doesn't prove all that much other than in the past they were able to table resolutions condemning the US without consequences. That doesnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be consequences in this context. The failure of those resolutions to do anything or amount for anything could be used as "proof" of the uselessness of bothering to table anything.

So, in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you. OK, I'll work with you, just as long as I get to bring out fantasy role playing and call it an argument too.

I didnt say the UN in general...I specificlly mentioned France as an example simply cause they have alot to lose.

Do you base anything on fact or is this simply an emotional thing for you?

Frances power plays against the US

Analysts said the statement signaled France's determination to forge and hold together a majority in the 15-member Security Council to block U.S. and British efforts to pass a new resolution that could be used as an endorsement for war.

Yes indeed, they have a lot to lose. So much they worked against the US in the UNSC, EU and independently.

France would have loved to give no ambiguity in 1441 but couldn't. Please explain why, if there was no fear of US withdrawal or other consequences, they did this?

Why the French made sure that 1441 was a mandate for the US to act legally by invading Iraq? Simple. They never thought the US would actually act.

So, I take it you have finished the actual legal argument and now agree that it is by default legal?

The legal argument has hit an inevitable stalemate because there are legitmate arguments on both sides. That was the purpose of the resolution in my opinion. Neither side is supposed to be able to win. You will argue that makes it default legal and I say no that makes it unconvicted. You will refuse to recognize that conviction is a separate issue than legality. And magically we're still stalemated and Im tiring of hitting my head against the wall and imagine you are as well. So lets agree to disagree on our legal interpretations and recognize that conviction is impossible.

[KrustyKidd]

The legal argument has hit an inevitable stalemate because there are legitmate arguments on both sides. That was the purpose of the resolution in my opinion. Neither side is supposed to be able to win. You will argue that makes it default legal and I say no that makes it unconvicted.

A trick. Oh those clever people on the UNSC. What the dvil are you talking about here?

You will refuse to recognize that conviction is a separate issue than legality.

No, I will simply say that there has been no crime commited as the body who can make the ruling allowing for action has not protested the action as not being what they meant in their last resolution, much less declared it anything out of the ordinary. As it stands, this would make it legal for, as we all know, when things are not persued as out of the ordinary and rectified, they can be contrued as what the body ruled to begin with.

So, unless you are saying the UNSC is a counterfit body incapable and courrupt and unfit to make rulings of any kind then, we would have to assume they were competent and, made the resolution in the best manner possible. The lack of their protesting, ruling, condemnation would only leave one to conclude that they approve of the action the US took.

And magically we're still stalemated and Im tiring of hitting my head against the wall and imagine you are as well. So lets agree to disagree on our legal interpretations and recognize that conviction is impossible.

Yes, it would be difficult to convict sombody who has commited no crime.

[myata]

Well it looks like no one is challenging the point that it'd be impossible to formally decide on the legality of the US actions in Iraq in the absence of a legitimate court of justice taking the case. At least, "legality" in the broad sense of justice, as opposed to narrow technical context of the UNSC process in which I'm no expert. One important outcome of any legal process (no matter how long or expensive it can be) is that it gives parties involved resolution and closure. It will not happen in this affair. The questions and doubts about coalition's actions will remain.

[jbg]

Well it looks like no one is challenging the point that it'd be impossible to formally decide on the legality of the US actions in Iraq in the absence of a legitimate court of justice taking the case.

Why is any action taken to defend the West suspect?

[KrustyKidd]

Well it looks like no one is challenging the point that it'd be impossible to formally decide on the legality of the US actions in Iraq in the absence of a legitimate court of justice taking the case. At least, "legality" in the broad sense of justice, as opposed to narrow technical context of the UNSC process in which I'm no expert. One important outcome of any legal process (no matter how long or expensive it can be) is that it gives parties involved resolution and closure. It will not happen in this affair. .

The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal.

Hence, all your's and Bradco's professor's grandiose plans and theories of who will be tired if 'this' and 'that' occurs is just what they are - dreams and fantasies without any basis of reality.

The questions and doubts about coalition's actions will remain

I take it you were so intent on bolting for the door from your losing argument that you didn't bother to finish the sentence and the word you meant to add was 'unknown or undecided?' How about the option that they were approved, accepted, qualified by the UNSC and other postives that you cannot accept as it does not play with your beliefs. Therefore, any belief, no matter how much evidence and facts counter them cannot be real.

You will note that I have supported all my contentions, beliefs and theories with links and news articles. You and Bradco had not one stinking link on this entire thread. Not one. In the place of an actual argument with proof you both go for the 'agree to disagree' and some song and dance of how there is no legal body able to deicde this when there is concilliatory posts to not look like fools. Well, both of you are wrong and can't come to grips with it. I'm not looking for you to say 'Krusty, damm you are right and I was wrong' but at least you can stop lobbing softball arguments out of desparation at me. It wastes not only your's and my time but bandwidth and reader's time as well.

[bradco]

"No, I will simply say that there has been no crime commited as the body who can make the ruling allowing for action has not protested the action as not being what they meant in their last resolution, much less declared it anything out of the ordinary"

What about the members of that council who have declared the actions in Iraq illegal?

Russia said,"Nothing can justify this military action" (International Law and the Use of Force: Foundations of Public International Law, Christine Gray, Oxford University Press, page 278).

At debates at the SC after the war, states "repeated their accusations of illegality" (same source, page 278: refers to SC meetings 4761, 4791)

Additionally,"The Non-Aligned Movement of 116 states, the League of Arab States and several other states wrote to the SC to put on record their view that the coalition was guilty of aggression in violation of the UN Charter" (278)... If you dont think the opinion of states matters in deciding the legality of issues you have no understanding of international law. It is one of two main sources of international law, its known as customary law. Dont want to take my word for it? Check War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict by Michael Byers (pages 1-2, hey right at the beginning of the book...because its so basic)

So yes members of the body who can make a ruling have voiced an opinion but the accused parties conviently have a veto. Additionally, the vast majority of states have deemed the intervention as illegal. You continue to stand by and argue that nothing is illegal unless the SC says so. Please refer me to somewhere in the UN Charter that says ONLY the SC can judge an act illegal. It is the only body who can authorize force, but thats not the same thing.

"in ordeer to make this actin illegal we have to move into the tin oil hat club with you"

Are the hundreds of international lawyers who believe the same thing I do also wear tinfoil hats? Are the vast majority of state leaders wearing tinfoil hats? No, but because the parties who invaded and you say it was legal its all good.

"A trick. Oh those clever people on the UNSC. What the dvil are you talking about here?"

Okay maybe not a conscious attempt to be tricky. The result of their intense political negotiations, nonetheless, forced legal arguments to a stalemate. No court to brake the stalemate. You say SC has to which is convient since the accusedparties can make sure that cant happen. I say the fact that members of the SC and the vast majority of states did decalre it illegal is pretty good proof it was illegal.

"So, unless you are saying the UNSC is a counterfit body incapable and courrupt and unfit to make rulings of any kind then, we would have to assume they were competent and, made the resolution in the best manner possible"

Its impartial and dominated by powerful states but its the best we have and the best we will have. It makes pretty good resolutions and after 1441 their quality will be a lot better.

"The lack of their protesting, ruling, condemnation would only leave one to conclude that they approve of the action the US took. "

As above...members did protest and condemn but no ruling would ever be made cause of vetoes. It is common knowledge that members of the SC did not intend for 1441 to be used to justify intervention without an additional resolution. Heck even the US and UK admitted their was no "automaticity". The action is illegal, theres no conviction because theres no court. Plain and simple.

"Simple. They never thought the US would actually act. "

Your kidding right? George was going, I think everyone had that one figured out.

"The first step in making the invasion illegal is for that body to condemn it. "

But that body cant pass a resolution to condemn it. You know that. Members of it and other states, as I have said, did condemn the actions arguing they were illegal. But hey, you still cant even figure out the difference between illegal and convicted.

"The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal."

Really? Ive read the UN Charter and saw no mention of the SC as a court. I think that one was pulled out of your ass. More of an executive body, not a judicial one. Hey maybe the Canadian cabinet should be in control of the legality of things. Again though, members of your supposed court did believe the US acted illegal and said as much (see above). The vast majority of nations have argued (see above) that a crime was committed and they are in positions of authority as far as being the crafters of customary international law. Sorry for not feeling the need to get you a source before to prove that the vast majority of states condemned the actions as illegal. Figured it was common knowldedge to anyone who would profess to have knowledge of international law.

"Is it a bad thing that the one that pays has more influence than freeloaders? Frankly, as a US taxpayer I deeply resent supporting this "organization". As a New York State taxpayer and driver I deeply resent the illegal parking with total impunity, their non-payment of tickets, maltreatment and stiffing of merchants and creditors and even occasional violence."

Pays more so deserves more influence. I think thats reasonable. And they have their veto so they do have more influence. Pays more so doesnt have to follow the rules isnt a reasonable arguement. I would think that their would be a lot of cities around the world who would love the UN to be based their. I would imagine that there are a lot of economic benefits of having the UN from jobs to all the fancy dinners diplomats buy. As a taxpayer Id be more upset about the ridiculous money the US government spends on defense. Im not going to argue having an army is a bad thing, it is entirely necessary for security. But I think the US has far exceeded necessary expenditures on forces. Heck, maybe if they work a little harder at this UN thing they could reduce the size of that army without risking their security.

[KrustyKidd]

Additionally,"The Non-Aligned Movement of 116 states, the League of Arab States and several other states wrote to the SC to put on record their view that the coalition was guilty of aggression in violation of the UN Charter" (278)... If you dont think the opinion of states matters in deciding the legality of issues you have no understanding of international law. It is one of two main sources of international law, its known as customary law. Dont want to take my word for it? Check War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict by Michael Byers (pages 1-2, hey right at the beginning of the book...because its so basic)

And when did the UNSC say that they did not empower the US to invade Iraq? I think these people ought to be taking their bitch up with the council as they were the ones who gave the order and authorized the action.

What about the members of that council who have declared the actions in Iraq illegal?

Make it official rather than heresay. Make a resolution.

So yes members of the body who can make a ruling have voiced an opinion but the accused parties conviently have a veto.

Never stopped them before so what makes this case so special. You cited fear of the US but we all know that is unfounded as you gave France as your example and I shot that one out of the water with a link.

Please refer me to somewhere in the UN Charter that says ONLY the SC can judge an act illegal. It is the only body who can authorize force, but thats not the same thing.

It's the only body that can say that's not what it meant when it gave the authorization. Any other body is only mindreading if it attempts to try it.

Are the hundreds of international lawyers who believe the same thing I do also wear tinfoil hats? Are the vast majority of state leaders wearing tinfoil hats? No, but because the parties who invaded and you say it was legal its all good.

And hundreds of better qualified ones supporting it. I beg you to name yours and supply a link to them. The ones who have been put forth to me paled in comparrison to the ones the goverments used. In anticipated absense of a link from you I will supply you with some.

Here, Left Wing supporting lawyer

— Carl Messineo, Attorney, Partnership for Civil Justice

Next

Keir Starmer QC is a barrister at Doughty Street Chambers specialising in international human rights law

A quick google revealed he loves socialists and sways well away from international law specialization and in the ‘Mclibel’ case which took over seven years, one wonders how he is able to know a damm thing about international law..

Mclibel

The Socialist Scholar

And, some of my supporting legal people. May as well throw the Lord into that group too. He gave a damm good case, even if he started to back track later.

One of Mine - Lord Goldsmith

William H. Taft IV

John C. Yoo

Fredrick Lee Kurgis

Security Council Resolution 1483 on the Rebuilding of Iraq

A few more legal people can be added to this list as well - the lawyers of over 45 heads of state and their legal teams. All focused on one thing - keeping their leaders out of the docket at the Haugue beside Cigarette Girl and Milosivik.

But that body cant pass a resolution to condemn it. You know that. Members of it and other states, as I have said, did condemn the actions arguing they were illegal. But hey, you still cant even figure out the difference between illegal and convicted.

No kidding, you gloss over facts. That's why you don't have any as you have no idea of what one is do you? The US has been condemed for eight actions in the past fifteen years as I listed above and condemed for at least one of them. All brought forward by the UNSC. As well, a member talking as a single member is nothing. The UNSC made a resolution as an entire body. That entire body has to rule that is not what they meant in order to make it not legal or illegal. Good luck Bradco. You wished to talk legalities, instead you come out with 'this guy said this and that' about a world council ruling and expect that it will mean a damm thing legally.

Ive read the UN Charter and saw no mention of the SC as a court. I think that one was pulled out of your ass.

Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body.

Here's a link as you as per usual have none.

The rest of your post was rambling so I won't respond.

[bradco]

"And when did the UNSC say that they did not empower the US to invade Iraq? I think these people ought to be taking their bitch up with the council as they were the ones who gave the order and authorized the action."

Upon its adoption all members said that the resolution did not empore the US to invade Iraq (it didnt allow for "automaticty"). I dont have a link for this. It was told to me by Professor Byers of UBC. If you dont trust this source you can probably find video fottage somewhere. It was when the resolution was first revealed to the public inside the SC chambers.

These people were taking their bitch up with the council. Not really to just bitch. They knew that there was no way to punish anyone or anything like that. It was to have on record that intervention was considered illegal as to not set a precedent for allowing for interpretation of ambiguous resolutions to allow for intervention.

"Make it official rather than heresay. Make a resolution."

You know this is impossible. The US and the UK wasnt going to allow it to pass.

"Never stopped them before so what makes this case so special. You cited fear of the US but we all know that is unfounded as you gave France as your example and I shot that one out of the water with a link."

Do you honestly believe the US wouldnt veto a resultion declaring the Iraq War illegal. Be honest.

"Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body."

Even though they said upon adoption of the resolution that it did not. If they really meant for it to give the legal go ahead for war why was it so damn ambigous? Hey maybe because it wasnt meant to be used for intervention without another resolution. Read the resolutions that authourize intervention that arent contentious. They are all very direct and unambigous. Ie. the resolution on Darfur authourizing intervention (all SC resolutions are on UN site if you want them).

"It's the only body that can say that's not what it meant when it gave the authorization. Any other body is only mindreading if it attempts to try it."

Classic. You totally ignore the fact that your misreading the resolution to legalize the war. The US and UK legal argument is based on loopholes and ambiguity. The [/i]will of the SC was to have another resolution. Thats clear when they said it did not allow for "automaticity". Thats also clear from what veto holding members such as France and Russia argued (this is common knowledge I shouldnt have to go around finding news articles to tell you they didnt want intervention.....im assuming you dont live in a box)

but as you wish you can check: France Vows to Block Resolutions On Iraq War, Jan 29 2003 Washington post (sorry no link, only have quote from it in an article), France and Russia Ready to Use Veto Against Iraq War, NY Times March 6, 2003

"Nope. It is a court as it decides what to do about problems and it did decide that member states were autorhized to do whatever was need. If you have a problem with legality then you should be taking it up with them as they were the ones who gave the go ahead as a body.

Here's a link as you as per usual have none."

Thanks for the link that says nothing about the SC being a judge in determining when international law was broken. 1441 was broken because it said, when read with any sort of faith, that another resolution would be needed. Then the ambassodors publicly agreed another resolution was needed. Then the UK went back looking for another resolution because they obviously thought it was needed.

"And hundreds of better qualified ones supporting it. I beg you to name yours and supply a link to them. The ones who have been put forth to me paled in comparrison to the ones the goverments used. In anticipated absense of a link from you I will supply you with some."

More qualified? You know the qualifications of every international lawyer. Thats a pretty bold statement.

"William H. Taft IV"

employed by US Government, or at least a history with them, no? I want to say he had a hand in crafting the original resolutions but I could be wrong.

"Security Council Resolution 1483 on the Rebuilding of Iraq"

Resolution 1483 made no pronoucement on the legality of Operation Iraqi Freedom- International Law and the Use of Force, Christine Gray, Oxford University Press

Some lawyers opposed:

Michael Byers: dont have link to anything he published on Iraq war legal issue. Told me in person his opinion. Fairly qualified.

http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/about/index.cfm?fus...amp;peopleID=24

Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University (stumbled across this interesting artcile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Heres a link with boat loads of lawyers who argue it was illegal:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

from that link you really ought to read this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916184,00.html

I like this: "Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law."

I recognize that their are equal legal opinions on both sides. You go to name calling of highly trained and skilled international lawyers.

I recognize that you want resolution 1441 to give final authorization of force. But any honest reading of it will tell you it doesnt, that another resolution is needed. I recognize that Saddam was a bad man and he needed to get booted. The end result was good. But that doesnt mean it was legal. Most countries agree it was illegal. Nobody is going to care that it wasnt legal though because in the end a terrible dictator is gone and international law is still here.

[jbg]

My view is that this whole argument of "legality" is a farcical one. When has anyone bothered to declare the 1973 War against Israel "illegal" even though that was member state against member state? Or Iran v. Iraq, 1980-88, same story?

Less clear cases are the "asymetrical wars" practiced more commonly, where member states support, weaponize and fund ex officio groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. No rational body of international law can leave member states of the UN effectively helpless against obviously state-sponsored "insurgencies".

What people like Bradco are proposing is an "international law" that binds law-abiding peoples such as Western democracies, and allows unrestrained bloodshed by others. That is untenable, impossible and won't happen.

[myata]

The USNC is a court Myata, the highest on the planet and, they don't believe the US acted illegaly. In short, nobody with authority has even said a crime has been commited. So, it is legal and, certainly not illegal.

Sorry, KrustyKidd, but I very clearly outlined why UNSC cannot be considered a court of law in the sense of justice accepted in civilized democaratic societies in one of the prevous posts. As you failed to challenge one single point of that post, I take it as your acceptance of my argument. I'm not really interested in trading "yes it is - no it's not" kind of polemics. The case is closed on that - you and myself agreed or accepted that UNSC is not a court of law in the common sense of justice.

I take it you were so intent on bolting for the door from your losing argument that you didn't bother to finish the sentence and the word you meant to add was 'unknown or undecided?'

You will note that I have supported all my contentions, beliefs and theories with links and news articles.

One thing missing though was logic and honest discussion. You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions. No quotes and links can make out for that. You're right there isn't much sense in continuing in this line of polemics.

[bradco]

My view is that this whole argument of "legality" is a farcical one. When has anyone bothered to declare the 1973 War against Israel "illegal" even though that was member state against member state? Or Iran v. Iraq, 1980-88, same story?

Less clear cases are the "asymetrical wars" practiced more commonly, where member states support, weaponize and fund ex officio groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. No rational body of international law can leave member states of the UN effectively helpless against obviously state-sponsored "insurgencies".

What people like Bradco are proposing is an "international law" that binds law-abiding peoples such as Western democracies, and allows unrestrained bloodshed by others. That is untenable, impossible and won't happen.

You make it sound like my goal is to screw over western countries. Ideally I would like everyone to follow international law. Trying to put contraints on war (different then trying to end war) seems like a pretty good idea to me considering the suffering it imposes. I see the development of international law the same as domestic law. Any rational person argues domestic law is totally necessary to protect people. It works better then international law obviously but it still has its faults. When domestic law doesnt work though I never hear people talk about doing away with or not following it. They focus on changing laws. You can change international law through treaties, state practise, and opinio juris. International law has changed and adapted to deal with many new circumstances (ie the expanding reach of the security council throughout the 90's). This continual adapting will be necessary to deal with the problems of "asymetrical" wars that you mentioned. Just because others may not follow it to the letter doesnt mean we should abonden it. Lots of people dont follow the law domestically but us law abiding citizens never suggest we should do away with law because of this. The rule of law beats anarchy anyday in my books.

If we are truly in a war agsinst rogue nations and terrorists to protect our way of life it is entirely necessary to follow international law and norms. The rule of law is an essential part of western society and to not extend that to our international relations is a victory for the terrorists in my opinion.

Member states have an "inherent" right to defend themselves against any armed attack so I dont see how they are rendered helpless (article 51 of UN Charter). Western countries may be restrained from starting wars but in no way are they restrained from defending themselves (except in regards to preempitive self defense). However, the ability for the SC to declare pretty much anything a "threat to international peace and sucurity" and therefore legitmize a war provides for preemption anyways. With no enforcement possibilities though if there is an overriding concern a state will always act and never be punished. Ie Israel, America etc

1980-88 Iran v Iraq:

On 9 December 1991, the UN Secretary-General reported the following to the UN Security Council:

"That Iraq's explanations do not appear sufficient or acceptable to the international community is a fact. Accordingly, the outstanding event under the violations referred to is the attack of 22 September 1980, against Iran, which cannot be justified under the charter of the United Nations, any recognized rules and principles of international law or any principles of international morality and entails the responsibility for conflict."

"Even if before the outbreak of the conflict there had been some encroachment by Iran on Iraqi territory, such encroachment did not justify Iraq's aggression against Iran—which was followed by Iraq's continuous occupation of Iranian territory during the conflict—in violation of the prohibition of the use of force, which is regarded as one of the rules of jus cogens."

"On one occasion I had to note with deep regret the experts' conclusion that "chemical weapons had been used against Iranian civilians in an area adjacent to an urban centre lacking any protection against that kind of attack" (s/20134, annex). The Council expressed its dismay on the matter and its condemnation in resolution 620 (1988), adopted on 26 August 1988."[62]

1973 Yom Kippur War:

-invasion of Israel was blatantly illegal (violation of 2(4) UN Charter). Nobody even has to do anything or say anthing to make it illegal. Under article 51 Israel had the right of self defense so they werent handicapped in any way.

-Im sure if one was to look at coments made by states at the time they probably regonozied the actions were illegal and that Israel had the right to self defense.

-also confident that SC resolutions regarding the war would have recognized the violation of 2(4)

[jbg]

My point is that Iraq, and the igniters of the 1973 War, did not obey the UN charter. There are no newspapers in those countries to prattle at the governments for the "violations".

Israel and the US are much more effectively constrained. Thus it's a one-way restraint.

[myata]

I'm not an expert in the international law and only would like to understand one point: with the well developed body of international law and no lack of experts therein, how do legal arguments get resolved? The Iraq affair demonstrates it very clearly: there's strong opinion on both sides, but without a resolution (i.e. hearing in a court which is recognised as legitimate and authorised) the matter will be in suspense forever?

[KrustyKidd]

You misquoted your opponents and did not answer direct questions.

Where did I misquote? When I quote an opponent, I use the quote feaqture and cut and paste.

Classic. You totally ignore the fact that your misreading the resolution to legalize the war.

Not misreading it. The US was authorized to take whatever action deemed necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 660 and all subsequent resolutions. It not a grandfathered clause but, reaffirmed in every one of them and, in the case of I believe 687 and certainly 1441 repeated outright. Saddam is given one final opportunity to comply immediately and unconditionally which Blix says he does not. The security council says they are siezed of the mater however, we all know that of course they have to be watching the situation. When they are actually waiting to do something themselves they are 'actively seized; meaning the ball is in their court. So, it reads that in absence of anybody doing anything, they will review inspections ad nausium until they make another resolution if necessary. In this case, they didn't have to as action was taken to rectify Saddam's transgression.

The US and UK legal argument is based on loopholes and ambiguity.

Yes. Authorized to use any means necessary to ensure Iraq complies with 660 and all subsequent resolutions is very ambiguous. Wonder what it means?

The [/i]will of the SC was to have another resolution. Thats clear when they said it did not allow for "automaticity".

Thats in the resolution 1441 which superceeds international law? Never saw that phrase there.

Thats also clear from what veto holding members such as France and Russia argued (this is common knowledge I shouldnt have to go around finding news articles to tell you they didnt want intervention.....im assuming you dont live in a box)

but as you wish you can check: France Vows to Block Resolutions On Iraq War, Jan 29 2003 Washington post (sorry no link, only have quote from it in an article), France and Russia Ready to Use Veto Against Iraq War, NY Times March 6, 2003

Actually, you can go to the resolution itself. It is in the commentary at the end after the resolution itself is passed. Assuming you don't live in a box of course you can access it by using any one of the links to 1441 that I provided.

Thanks for the link that says nothing about the SC being a judge in determining when international law was broken.

UNSC does the followoing;

""to maintain international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;

to take military action against an aggressor;

to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas""

More

When a complaint concerning a threat to peace is brought before it, the Council's first action is usually to recommend to the parties to try to reach agreement by peaceful means. In some cases, the Council itself undertakes investigation and mediation. It may appoint special representatives or request the Secretary-General to do so or to use his good offices. It may set forth principles for a peaceful settlement.

Illegal. Blatent ignorence of their own resolution but nothing was said whatsoever? Strnage, they condemn the US all the time officially when it does something they dcon't like. Even when they know it will probably be vetoed.

Heres a link with boat loads of lawyers who argue it was illegal:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

Yes, Hans Blix, former weapons inspector now entering his second carrear as an international lawyer. Is he also a brain surgeon as well?

Second link under construction.

The war on Iraq will be condemned as illegal by a panel of eminent international lawyers at a conference being organised by the actor Corin Redgrave.

The symposium, to be held next Sunday at the Young Vic theatre in London, will also hear senior legal experts allege that the conflict has seriously weakened the authority of the United Nations and potentially threatened global security.

Ok, you had your chance. An ator in a theator, oh, and what's this? ""The panellists include Professor Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers" "

Here though, it looks promising - " "Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics"" So, is he an accountent or a practicing international lawyer who works with the UN on cases involving the security council? Nope.

""Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly and former Czech foreign minister"" Ooo. A real person. Might have something here Bradco...............nope, appears Jan is neither an internatinal lawyer nor is he an honest person.

His political career in Czech Republic, after return from exile, was hampered by several scandals. While some of those scandal were comparatively minor, as was his driving under influence of alcohol and discovery of unaccounted money in his office, some of them were quite serious, as was a discovery that he was StB (Czech version of KGB) informer while he was in exile in Britain. In Britain he sued the newspaper who published the allegation and won, but in Czech Republic all declassified documents proving his co-operation with StB were published in a book. There were no lawsuits or denials afterwards.

Wait though, here is an actual lawyer ""Another prominent speaker, Professor Burns Weston, a human rights lawyer at the University of Iowa in the US, fears that other countries might use the American decision to wage war illegally to justify their own unlawful wars. He is most concerned about India and Pakistan - two nuclear powers in dispute over Kashmir. "It is a very bad precedent for other countries that might seek, in their own lack of wisdom, to emulate the United States," he said.""

Human rights lawyer? I've had enough thanks.

The event, called "Liberation or War Crime" will be chaired by the former Radio 4 Today programme presenter Sue MacGregor and is expected to attract other prominent figures, including the playwright David Hare, the Booker Prize-winning Indian writer Arundhati Roy and the former foreign secretary Robin Cook."

from that link you really ought to read this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,916184,00.html

Did. Wondering, read this quote from it.

""In the first place, the general view is that security council authorisations of force are only for limited and specific purposes. In the case of resolution 678, the authorisation to use force terminated with the adoption of resolution 687. It cannot be revived in completely different circumstances some 12 years later.""

Strange he should say this as the phrase is repeated and then with the qualification that it is applicable to all subsequent resolutions. Then, he fails to mention that the phrase is actually repeated in the body of 1441. Wherever does he get the idea that there is a time limit to a resolution that is still in effect?

""It is for the security council to determine how to deal with Iraq, not UN member states acting unilaterally.""

Then why are they told twice n the same resolution that they are authorized to take action I wonder?

In the third place, resolution 1441 does not do what Lord Goldsmith says it does. It does not authorise the use of force. The term "serious consequences" is not UN code for enforcement action.

Wondering still what any means necessary means if not exactly what it says. BTW, the US was athorized to do just that in that resolution but he does not address that, instead, he pretends that it was only mentioned twelve years before ONCE in 660.

""Even on the attorney-general's own arguments force against Iraq could be justified only to enforce Iraq's disarmament obligations. It provides no warrant for regime change, that is, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.""

Yes, any means necessary EXCEPT Regime Change. This is rich!!

""Any use of force against Iraq without a second resolution expressly authorising the use of force would be illegal.""

Oh, ok. If you say so.

[myata]

Where did I misquote? When I quote an opponent, I use the quote feaqture and cut and paste.

My apologies. Misinterpreted or misreported would be a better word. And again, I take it, you have no problem with the rest of my post? We'll leave it at that then.

[bradco]

My point is that Iraq, and the igniters of the 1973 War, did not obey the UN charter. There are no newspapers in those countries to prattle at the governments for the "violations".

Israel and the US are much more effectively constrained. Thus it's a one-way restraint.

I agree. As the civilized world though I argue we ought to set the example. Just because others dont follow it is not a good enough reason for us to not follow it. As I explained our following international law does not have a negative effect on our security so its not like we are put at a disadvantage. Most people in the civlized world dont want to see their countries involved in wars of conquest because we have seen the pain and suffering that they involve and are tired of going down that road. Wars of conquest are the only wars international law stops us from doing.

[bradco]

Not misreading it. The US was authorized to take whatever action deemed necessary to ensure Iraq complied with 660 and all subsequent resolutions. It not a grandfathered clause but, reaffirmed in every one of them and, in the case of I believe 687 and certainly 1441 repeated outright. Saddam is given one final opportunity to comply immediately and unconditionally which Blix says he does not. The security council says they are siezed of the mater however, we all know that of course they have to be watching the situation. When they are actually waiting to do something themselves they are 'actively seized; meaning the ball is in their court. So, it reads that in absence of anybody doing anything, they will review inspections ad nausium until they make another resolution if necessary. In this case, they didn't have to as action was taken to rectify Saddam's transgression.

Any honest reading of paragraphs 12 and 14 of resolution 1441 will lead you to believe a second resolution was needed. Even the US and UK ambassordors agreed. Im not arguing against your legal interpretation of how force is authorized...it just needed a second resolution to confirm the authorization and 1441 says so.

Yes. Authorized to use any means necessary to ensure Iraq complies with 660 and all subsequent resolutions is very ambiguous. Wonder what it means?

The authorization only comes into effect after another resolution is passed. Paragraps 12 and 14 and the admitting to such a fact by both the US and UK ambassodors.

Thats in the resolution 1441 which superceeds international law? Never saw that phrase there.

Paragraph 12 and 14 put this forth. The verbal contract entered by the ambassodors confirms the meaning of these paragraphs. You cant ignore the fact that this was done on the enveiling of the resolution. Although not written in the resolution it is a recognition of the meaning of paragraphs 12 and 14 wich are in the resolution.

Actually, you can go to the resolution itself. It is in the commentary at the end after the resolution itself is passed. Assuming you don't live in a box of course you can access it by using any one of the links to 1441 that I provided.

Assuming you have then read the resolution did you just skip paragraphs 12 and 14 because 4-11 had you going. Probably should go back and finish reading it.

US all the time officially when it does something they dcon't like. Even when they know it will probably be vetoed.

Arguing inside the SC chambers that actions were illegal is pretty damn official. You completely ignore that the vast majority of states and their leaders, including SC members, considered it illegal and made it known officially that they did so. The tabling of a resolution that would not pass is irrevlevant. What matters is that they make it publicly known what their opinions are.

Good work cherry picking the crappy links and completely ignoring ones such as:

Michael Byers

http://middleeastinfo.org/article2270.html :

Michael Bothe, chairman of the German Society for International Law.

Justice Richard Goldstone of South Africa's Constitutional Court, who was the lead prosecutor in U.N. tribunals on the Rwanda genocide and killings in the former Yugoslavia, said the United States risked undermining international law

But Laetia Husson, a researcher at the International Law Center at the Sorbonne university in Paris, said international action to declare a breach of the U.N. Charter was unlikely.

"There is little chance of condemnation by the United Nations because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.

Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003

("A large majority of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal authority for an attack on Iraq.")

"Resolution 1441, by which Tony Blair and Jack Straw have laid so much store, simply reminds Saddam Hussein of the "serious consequences" of a failure to disarm referred to in earlier UN resolutions. The phrase falls far short of an instruction to UN member states to use "all necessary means" - the traditional UN euphemism for armed force."

Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003 ("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack without a new resolution as a violation of international law.").

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/...7749770379.html :

"Although, in standard Security Council style, all previous resolutions on Iraq are referred to in the preamble of resolution 1441, there is no paragraph that suggests UN member states may take "all necessary means" to implement the resolution.

Indeed, France, China and Russia made a public interpretative statement on resolution 1441 on the day it was adopted, noting they could vote for the resolution precisely because it contained no "automaticity" in the use of force. This understanding was confirmed in the United States's and Britain's formal explanation of their votes."

Wondering still what any means necessary means if not exactly what it says.

again the point is that anything 1441 authorizes is dependant on the second resolution. Again I will point out, even the US and UK ambassodors agreed to this. Yet even though the interveners ageed to this you continue to argue its not so.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

My apologies. Misinterpreted or misreported would be a better word. And again, I take it, you have no problem with the rest of my post? We'll leave it at that then.

Let's settle this right now please. Show us where I misreported your contentions please. While you are at ishow me where I did Bradcos too. As for addressing the rest of the post, I certainly will once we rectify this problem. To tell the truth, I quickly glossed over the whole thing but stopped when I saw the accusation. I take that personal so forgive me if I can't continue with you until we settle this. Thanks.

Bradco

Any honest reading of paragraphs 12 and 14 of resolution 1441 will lead you to believe a second resolution was needed. Even the US and UK ambassordors agreed. Im not arguing against your legal interpretation of how force is authorized...it just needed a second resolution to confirm the authorization and 1441 says so.

Para 4 ""4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq’s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;""

Yes, they did report back and Blix said Iraq was in violation of the ceasfire terms as well as 687. The US took action as they were authorized. If you will note, there was no resolution deciding to take any action of any kind by the UNSC.

Para 12 ""14. Decides to remain seized of the matter.""

Does not say actively seized as it does when they are going to be managing the situation.

Here is the authorization and proof that it is still in effect.

Preamble ""Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,""

No acceptance as per 1441 so, no ceasfire.

The authorization only comes into effect after another resolution is passed. Paragraps 12 and 14 and the admitting to such a fact by both the US and UK ambassodors.

Really? My cleaning lady told me the other day that it was legal so there. Unless the UNSC does something then all claims are meaningless.

Paragraph 12 and 14 put this forth. The verbal contract entered by the ambassodors confirms the meaning of these paragraphs. You cant ignore the fact that this was done on the enveiling of the resolution. Although not written in the resolution it is a recognition of the meaning of paragraphs 12 and 14 wich are in the resolution.

Hogwash. Only a simpleton would pass a resolution then attempt to apply their own meaning to it by addenendum.

Assuming you have then read the resolution did you just skip paragraphs 12 and 14 because 4-11 had you going. Probably should go back and finish reading it.

Helloooooo! Remember me, the guy that brought this to your attention?

Many believe that the 'remain seized of the matter' phrase has deep meaning and that there must be a second resolution put forth to trigger action when in fact, this is not so. Of course the UNSC is going to remain seized of the matter. It's their bloody job to be watchful of events in trouble areas. However, they have been known when they plan to act to use terms such as 'remain actively seized' which in this case they did not as they had already set forth the orders in 686 and 687 as well as 1441.

UNSC resolutions are not abstract thoughts thrown out on the floor for interpretation and theoretical discussion. Written in plain English, they are executive orders to be acted upon. If the council had to be the ones giving the orders for any of the actions to take place that they have set in motion with this order they would have probably said something like they would remain ‘actively seized.’

It recalls 678, and even reiterates the ‘member states’ clause. It details what Iraq has to do in order to be in compliance with the cease fire and then, ‘decides to remain seized of the matter.’

The orders given,(Iraq to comply, Member States to use whatever means necessary to ensure they comply) they are now going to keep this agenda on the hot plate like good dignitaries making six and seven figure incomes should. To file it away and forget about it while they go off on vacation would be irresponsible. Hence, they are going to keep their eye on this, or, in plain English UN speak ‘remain seized of the matter.’ You will note that when they are going to take an active part in whatever resolution they make, they use the term ‘actively seized.’ A difference.

Here is an example. The Security Council has spoken and issued their orders in 678, then they add this:

4. Requests the States concerned to keep the Security Council regularly informed on the progress of actions undertaken pursuant to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present resolution;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

In 1441, they were only ‘seized of the matter’ meaning they were not holding any position but giving orders. In 686 though, they show what the phrasing looks like when they are going to be in micro managing control of the resolution.

686

8. Decides that in order to secure the rapid establishment of a definitive end to the hostilities, the Security Council remains ACTIVELY SEIZED of the matter

Do try to keep up, I posted the link to that last month for crying out loud.

Arguing inside the SC chambers that actions were illegal is pretty damn official. You completely ignore that the vast majority of states and their leaders, including SC members, considered it illegal and made it known officially that they did so. The tabling of a resolution that would not pass is irrevlevant. What matters is that they make it publicly known what their opinions are.

You have never addressed why they did it eight times befrore though. Here, they don't. Why is that? Instead, they run aoround with a bitch on instead of doing what they always do when the US has pissed them off - table a resolution and vote on it officially rather than sniping around.

Good work cherry picking the crappy links and completely ignoring ones such as:

Hey. Get your act together. This is what you gave me

Michael Byers: dont have link to anything he published on Iraq war legal issue. Told me in person his opinion. Fairly qualified.

http://www.ligi.ubc.ca/about/index.cfm?fus...amp;peopleID=24

Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University (stumbled across this interesting artcile:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html)

Heres a link with boat loads of lawyers who argue it was illegal:

http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm

The first is a bio of the guy with nothing to read. The second didn't work and the third was what I ripped apart. I went from the first down. If you can't post shit to substanciate your points so they can be easily found it's not our problem. I refuse to wade through reams of crap to find one that will work for you. That's your job.

From your article;

Wed March 19, 2003 01:47 PM ET By Emma Thomasson BERLIN (Reuters) - President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches international law. While judicial means to enforce international law are limited, the political costs of a war that is perceived as illegal could be high for all concerned and could set a dangerous precedent for other conflicts, lawyers say.

The U.N. Charter says: "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It says force may only be used in self-defense or if approved by the Security Council.

Many leading legal experts have rejected attempts by Washington and London to justify a war with Iraq without a new resolution explicitly authorizing force.

"There is a danger that the ban on the use of force, which I see as one of the most significant cultural achievements of the last century, will become history again," said Michael Bothe, chairman of the German Society for International Law.

Washington and London have argued that U.N. resolution 1441 passed unanimously last year -- demanding Iraq disarm or face "serious consequences" -- gives sufficient legal cover.

Amid criticism that 1441 does not explicitly authorize war, they have also argued that military action is legitimized by two other resolutions passed before and after the 1991 Gulf War, although Russia has fiercely rejected this argument.

So, since when does a lawyer decide a case out of court? Never. A judge does not decide out of chambers either so, everybody can talk and yak about this and that. Point being is only one body can decide if it was illegal and they won't even condemn the invasion. Won't even voice their displeasure officially.