Many important questions remain unanswered about whether there will be a war, and, if so, under what conditions. Diplomatic negotiations, in particular, fluctuate daily. The President has emphasized repeatedly that hostilities still may be averted if Iraq takes certain actions. The Security Council is now debating the possibility of passing a new resolution that sets a final deadline for Iraqi compliance. United Nations weapons inspectors continue their investigations inside Iraq. Other countries ranging from Canada to Cameroon have reportedly pursued their own proposals to broker a compromise. As events unfold, it may become clear that diplomacy has either succeeded or failed decisively. The Security Council, now divided on the issue, may reach a consensus. To evaluate this claim now, the court would need to pile one hypothesis on top of another. We would need to assume that the Security Council will not authorize war, and that the President will proceed nonetheless.... If courts may ever decide whether military action contravenes congressional authority, they surely cannot do so unless and until the available facts make it possible to define the issues with clarity.

Nor is there clear evidence of congressional abandonment of the authority to declare war to the President. To the contrary, Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity, and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade, under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress. It has enacted several relevant pieces of legislation expressing support for an aggressive posture toward Iraq, including authorization of the prior war against Iraq and of military assistance for groups that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. It has also accepted continued American participation in military activities in and around Iraq, including flight patrols and missile strikes. Finally, the text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an "authorization" of such a war. It is true that "courts possess power to review either
legislative or executive action that transgresses identifiable textual limits" on constitutional power.... But courts are rightly hesitant to second-guess the form or means by which the coequal political branches choose to exercise their textually committed constitutional powers. As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches.

I was invited by Mr. Djindjic a few days ago (last Friday) to explain my resignation from the new University Law Drafting Commission that had been formed by the Ministry of Education. I have to be sincere: I was not one of those who loved him with all my heart, as I was very unsatisfied with his executive's domination over legislative and judiciary branches here, which has precipitated an institutional crisis. I am afraid that the assassination is also a consequence of this. Nevertheless, I was impressed with his willingness to know what had happened and his initiative to talk with a single university professor about the issue when he had so many more important problems hanging over his head. His intelligence, openness and pragmatism were impressive....Having been with him so recently, I feel even more moved and aware of the loss we have suffered.

So life goes on in Serbia, but the problem is in what direction? We willsee in a few days. If the police find the organizers of the assassination it will be a sign that this country, regardless of this tragedy, still has a chance to join the democratic world. New elections were in any case near, and only due to party political struggle and different maneuvers they did not take place yet. The elections for President of Serbia have also failed twice. I truly hope that Serbia still has strong democratic resources and candidates for elections - such as Mr. Labus and Mr. Kostunica - although the latter has been labeled as a nationalist. But Mr. Djindjic's recent call to review the Kosovo situation, which at the least is unsatisfactory, also tarred him with the nationalist label. The country is going to face a tough problem if the real organizers of the assassination cannot be found. It will not be easy to lead the country in the future, no matter who is going to be in position to do that, as they will be a hostage to personal insecurity.

appears to imply that a government of a sovereign State could lease a piece of land from a neighboring State, set up a detention camp, fully operate and control it, arrest suspects of terrorism from other jurisdictions, send them to this camp, deny them their legal rights -- including principles of due process generally granted to its own citizens -- on grounds that the camp is physically outside its jurisdiction. By such conduct, the Government of the United States, in this case, will be seen as systematically evading application of domestic and international law so as to deny these suspects their legal rights. Detention without trial offends the first principle of the rule of law.

• a statement by Saddam Hussein admitting that he has concealed weapons of mass destruction, but will no longer produce or retain weapons of mass destruction;
• deliver at least 30 scientists for interview outside Iraq, with their families;
• surrender all anthrax, or credible evidence of destruction;
• complete the destruction of all Al Samoud missiles;
• account for all unmanned aerial vehicles, including details of any testing of sparying devices for chemical and biological weapons;
• surrender all mobile chemcial and biological production facilities.

We urge you to address these issues personally and publicly by making clear the unambiguous US prohibition against all forms of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. As you know, these practices are strictly prohibited under international laws, to which the United States is a party, including the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (the Torture Convention) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The use of torture also violates a 1994 U.S. federal law that explicitly provides penalties of fines and up to 20 years imprisonment for acts of torture committed by U.S. officials outside of the U.S. (18 U.S.C. § 2340 A). As you also know, many practices that do not constitute "torture" are still strictly prohibited as "other acts of cruel and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" under article 16 of the Torture Convention. When the Senate ratified this treaty it construed this language as applying standards that are consistent with U.S. domestic legal principles.

Further fundamental changes need to be made in order to improve conditions for Kosovo's minorities and to create an environment conducive for returns of all ethnic groups. While improvements have been seen in many areas since the last Assessment, concerns remain in minorities' access to justice, essential services, property rights, and public, civil, and political structures and their security and freedom of movement in Kosovo.

The Court today affirmed in two cases. In No. 01-1572, Cook County v. U.S.[PDF], Justice Souter held for a unanimous Court that local govenrments, unlike States, are 'persons' subject to qui tam actions under the False Claims Act.... In No. 01-963, Norfolk & Western Railway v. Ayers[PDF], Justice Ginsburg held for a unanimous Court that damages awarded under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) need not be apportioned according to causal contribution among even absent joint tortfeasors. For a five-Justice majority, Justice Ginsburg further held that mental anguish damages resulting from the fear of developing cancer may be recovered under FELA by a railroad worker suffering from the actionable injury asbestosis caused by work-related exposure to asbestos. On this question Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices O'Connor and Breyer, and Justice Breyer also filed a separate partial dissent explaining why he did not join the majority opinion on the mental anguish damages holding.

Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.