SEC. 4. (a) In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced--

(1) into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances;
(2) into the territory, airspace or waters of a foreign nation, while equipped for combat, except for deployments which relate solely to supply, replacement, repair, or training of such forces; or
(3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States Armed Forces equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation

the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing, setting forth--

(A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces;

(B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and

(C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.

Iraq will not apply international conventions on prisoners of war, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf says. Mr al-Sahaf has told a press conference coalition troops are not soldiers and instead called them mercenaries to whom international law does not apply.

About 40 exiled Iraqi lawyers and judges - some from Europe and the Persian Gulf - are converging on Washington this weekend for legal training that would allow them to take part in temporary courts in a postwar Iraq. Justice Department officials and outside experts in international law, war crimes and U.S.-style judicial systems are leading the two-week course, participants say.

When the U.S. military reaches Baghdad and hostilities cease, it will become an occupying force, required to follow a system of international law and treaties, some of which could be applied for the first time in history.... The main body of rules comes from the Fourth Geneva Convention, adopted in 1949, largely in response to German occupations in World War II. Legal experts believe the U.S. occupation of Iraq would be the first time the convention’s rules would actually be put into effect, since no other military action has amounted to the kind of occupation that would trigger it.

A senior legal adviser to the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has quit the Foreign Office because of a difference over the legal advice sanctioning the war against Iraq, it emerged last night. Elizabeth Wilmhurst, 54, deputy legal adviser, is understood to be unhappy with the government's official line that it has sufficient basis for war under UN resolutions. Ms Wilmhurst has been a legal adviser at the Foreign Office for 30 years, and deputy legal officer since 1997.

• [Baghdad] Bombardments of Friday night were much heavier than previous nights. There are people and traffic in the streets of the capital.
• [Baghdad] ICRC contact with the authorities continues.
• [Baghdad] ICRC visits to Al Yarmouk General Teaching Hospital saw about 100 wounded, including about 20 women. The ICRC cannot say under what circumstances they were wounded, or whether they are civilians or military personnel. The ICRC has delivered surgical materials to the hospital.
• [Erbil, northern Iraq] There is still some movement of Internally Displaced Persons, but apparently not substantial. The ICRC aims primarily to assist the most vulnerable IDPs, including those who have fled government-controlled areas to Diyana, northeast of Erbil. Yesterday, the ICRC assisted about 600 people in this area.
• [Kuwait] The ICRC has made contact with 'coalition' forces to discuss the issue of POWs. No access to prisoners has yet been possible.

Once the conflict is over, America, and Britain, should assemble an international conference to frame a fifth Geneva Convention that reflects the realities and sensibilities of the 21st century. Questions need to be asked about the way in which weaponry is developing. Is it right or reasonable, for example, to leave civilians unharmed but destroy the infrastructure that gives them clean water? Should states be held to account for any illnesses sustained as a result of the weapons deployed, even if the harm takes many years to surface? We cannot outlaw war, more is the tragedy, yet we can further lessen its evil.

First, it goes without saying that the President's authority to use force under U.S. law is clear. Under the Constitution he has not simply the authority but the responsibility to use force to protect our national security. Congress has confirmed in two separate resolutions in 1991 and again last fall that the President has authority to use our armed forces in the specific case of Iraq.

Under international law, the basis for use of force is equally strong. There is clear authorization from the Security Council to use force to disarm Iraq. The President referred to this authority in his speech to the American people on Monday night. The source of this authority is UNSCR 678, which was the authorization to use force for the Gulf War in January 1991. In April of that year, the Council imposed a series of conditions on Iraq, including most importantly extensive disarmament obligations, as a condition of the ceasefire declared under UNSCR 687. Iraq has "materially breached" these disarmament obligations, and force may again be used under UNSCR 678 to compel Iraqi compliance.

This action does not have legal grounds, of course. Attempts to justify it by referring to earlier UN Security Council resolutions are futile because, according to Resolution 1441, the degree of Baghdad's cooperation with the UN should be evaluated by the UN Security Council on the basis of UNMOVIC and IAEA reports. In other words, only the UN Security Council itself can determine any violation of Resolution 1441 by the Iraqi side and decide what actions should be taken in this context in accordance with Chapter VII of the UN Charter and if there are grounds for the use of force against Iraq. In the absence of any such decision by the Security Council the use of force against Iraq - I want to stress this anew - has no legal grounds.....

There are also questions about the announced plans for the military occupation of Iraq. In the absence of the appropriate decision of the UN Security Council, such occupation will be unlawful because it will be a result of the unlawful use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.

A Senior Pentagon official has stated publicly: "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad...you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapon at Hiroshima, not in days or weeks but in minutes." The purpose is to "take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In two, three, four, five days, they are physically, emotionally, and psychologically exhausted.".....

According to CCR Legal Director, Jeffrey Fogel, "The laws of war prohibit civilians being targeted and there is a fundamental rule that Parties to the conflict must distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Parties must restrict their operations to the targeting of military objectives. The proposed U.S. "shock and awe" strategy fails on all counts and as such constitutes a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute [of the International Criminal Court]."

Generally, Americans carrying out war crimes may be able to do so without fear of prosecution before the International Criminal Court (ICC) because one of the pre-conditions to the Court exercising jurisdiction is that the individual concerned be a national of a state that is a Party to the ICC. However, the Court also has jurisdiction over crimes carried out on the territory of a State which is a Party, or onboard a ship or aircraft of a State which is a Party

It has been widely reported that U.S. bombers to be involved in the "shock and awe” strategy are based at the U.S. Air Base on Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean and will be loaded with cruise missiles there for use against Iraq. Diego Garcia is UK territory, which it leases to the U.S. As the UK is a Party to the ICC, crimes under the statute, including war crimes, committed wholly or in part on Diego Garcia fall within the Court’s jurisdiction.

The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission.

Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the residence of aliens shall not be applied...in such manner as to require any such person to leave the United States on account of any activities performed by him in his official capacity. In case of abuse of such privileges of residence by any such person in activities in the United States outside his official capacity, it is understood that the privileges referred to in Section 11 shall not be construed to grant him exemption from the laws and regulations of the United States regarding the continued residence of aliens...

Through our diplomatic missions overseas, the United States has made a formal request to those countries in which the Iraqis have a diplomatic presence to suspend Iraq's diplomatic presence in country on a temporary basis. We've also asked them to take steps to assure the prompt departure of the leading representatives of Saddam Hussein's regime.

We've made this request because Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with 12 years of United Nations Security Council resolutions to disarm and has left the international community with no option but to disarm him forcefully. For this reason, the United States has commenced military action that will permanently disarm Iraq and bring freedom to the Iraqi people.

Our expectation is that once an interim Iraqi authority is in place it will name interim replacement representatives and diplomatic missions that can reopen and truly represent the interests of the Iraqi people rather than represent a corrupt and ruthless regime.

The Geneva Conventions stipulate that the UK government and other warring parties must ensure the provision of food and other essential items such as medicines, water, and shelter to all those who need them, both during and after a conflict, including those whose supplies are cut off as a result of military action. 14 - 16 million Iraqis - two thirds of the entire population - currently depend on food rations provided through the UN's Oil for Food (OFF) programme and distributed by 45,000 food agents. It is essential that these supply and distribution systems continue to function during the conflict. The longer and more widespread the war, the less likely it is that this will happen, causing hunger to those who depend on this programme. The World Food Programme estimates that between 5 and 10 million people would become immediately vulnerable if OFF supplies are cut off. Therefore, as a matter of urgency, a new UN Security Council resolution is needed to establish alternative food distribution systems in the event of a breakdown of OFF distribution systems.

[W]arring parties, including the UK government...have a legal obligation to take all necessary precautions to avoid civilian loss of life, under the Geneva Conventions. In accordance with International Humanitarian Law, civilians and installations essential to the survival of civilians, such as water and sanitation infrastructure, must not be targeted. Disproportionate harm to civilians through damage to dual-use infrastructure, such as roads and electricity supply, must also be avoided. Iraq's largely urban population relies on water pumping and treatment stations for its water and sanitation requirements. These stations in turn rely on electricity to function and could cease to operate without electricity. Attacks that do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants are prohibited in international law. By their very nature, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs, landmines, chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons can only be indiscriminate, in our opinion. There is a high potential for civilians to be trapped in cities throughout Iraq during this conflict. Even if Iraq deploys human shields close to military targets, forces attacking Iraq still have a responsibility to avoid disproportionate civilian casualties.

I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, hereby determine that the United States and Iraq are engaged in armed hostilities, that it is in the interest of the United States to confiscate certain property of the Government of Iraq and its agencies, instrumentalities, or controlled entities, and that all right, title, and interest in any property so confiscated should vest in the Department of the Treasury. I intend that such vested property should be used to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq, and determine that such use would be in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States.

the phrase 'one Nation, under God' should remain in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and the practice of voluntarily reciting the pledge in public school classrooms should not only continue but should be encouraged by the policies of Congress, the various States, municipalities, and public school officials.... [T]he Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals...has created a split among the circuit courts, and [its ruling] is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment, which indicates that the voluntary recitation of the pledge and similar patriotic expressions is consistent with the first amendment.... [T]he Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should review this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect holding.

Over the past 18 months, the FBI has restructured from top-to-bottom to strengthen its ability to predict and prevent acts of terror. For the past year, it has been developing specific strategies to protect Americans in the event of a war with Iraq. Immediately upon declaration of war, the FBI launched its comprehensive plans. Steps include:

• Activating the Strategic Information and Operations Center, or "SIOC," at FBI Headquarters to serve as the 24/7 national command post;
• Setting up special command posts in each of the FBI's 56 field offices to work closely with Joint Terrorism Task Forces to gather intelligence and respond quickly to potential threats and reports of suspicious activity;
• Sending Special Agents to interview a number of Iraqi-born individuals and others in the U.S. to assure them of the FBI's responsibility to protect them from hate crimes and to elicit information on any potential operations of Iraqi agents or sympathizers; and,
• Actively investigating others who have links to terrorism.

If Saddam Hussein or his generals issue orders to use weapons of mass destruction, whether on coalition forces, Free Iraqi Forces, neighboring countries or innocent Iraqi civilians as they have done before, those orders should not be followed. Do not follow orders to destroy dams or flood villages. Do not follow orders to destroy your country's oil, which is the Iraqi people's, and they will need it to rebuild their country when that regime is gone. Following such orders would be to commit crimes against the Iraqi people. See those orders for what they are -- the last desperate gasp of a dying regime. Those who follow orders to commit such crimes will be found and they will be punished. War crimes will be prosecuted, and it will be no excuse to say, "I was just following orders." Any official involved in such crimes will forfeit hope of amnesty or leniency with respect to past actions.

In UNSCR 1441, the Security Council decided that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under UNSCR 687 and other relevant resolutions. The Council gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply by co-operating with the enhanced inspection regime established by UNSCR 1441, but warned of the serious consequences of failing to do so. The evidence shows that Iraq has failed to comply with the terms of UNSCR 1441 and is now in further material breach of its obligations. In these circumstances, UNSCR 678 authorises the use of force to enforce Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations.

The obstacle to Iraq's compliance with its disarmament obligations under relevant UNSCRs is the current Iraqi regime, supported by the security forces under its control. The British Government has therefore concluded that military action is necessary to enforce Iraqi compliance and that it is therefore necessary that the current Iraqi regime be removed from power. All military action must be limited to what is necessary to achieve that end. The UK is contributing maritime, land and air forces as part of a US-led coalition.

The UK's overall objective for the military campaign is to create the conditions in which Iraq disarms in accordance with its obligations under UNSCRs and remains so disarmed in the long term.

Let me stress from the beginning that military actions are taking place contrary to the world public opinion, contrary to the principles and norms of international law and the Charter of the UN.

Nothing can justify this military action -- neither accusations of Iraq of supporting international terrorism (we have never had and do not have information of this kind) nor the desire to change the political regime in that country which is in direct contradiction to international law and should be determined only by the citizens of this or that state.

If we allow international law to be replaced by "the law of the fist" whereby the strong is always right and has the right to do anything and in choosing methods to achieve his goals is not constrained by anything, then one of the basic principles of international law will be put into question, and that is the principle of immutable sovereignty of a state. And then no one, not a single country in the world will feel secure. And the vast area of instability that has arisen will grow and cause negative consequences in other regions of the world.

The challenge of rebuilding Iraq after Saddam may offer the United States the chance to recover from the crisis of legitimacy it suffered en route to Baghdad. When a prospective U.S. role in postwar Iraq was first discussed last year, critics pounced from both sides. They ridiculed leaked U.S. plans to install a proconsul in the Douglas MacArthur mold, strutting around with a cob pipe and dictating orders to a humiliated people. The notion of charging such an emissary with securing Iraq as a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East was dismissed as naïve. Yet critics also warned the United States against turning its back on Iraq and leaving the country to succumb to its ethnic divisions.

To shield itself from this dilemma, the Bush Administration should look to an unlikely source of support: international law, specifically the law of occupation. Despite the Administration's pattern of resisting international legal obligations as unbefitting a superpower, a commitment to uphold international law in Iraq will allow the United States to secure its own interests and restore its much-needed legitimacy in the eyes of the world. It will allow America to strike the right balance between overreaching paternalism and hands-off neglect. While the United States would do far better to style itself Iraq's temporary "trustee" or "protector" rather than its "occupier," a public commitment to the law would help to win the confidence of the Iraqis and the international community.

Watch recorded video

Perhaps if we had persevered a little longer, Iraq could yet have been disarmed peacefully, or - if not - the world could have taken action to solve this problem by a collective decision, endowing it with greater legitimacy, and therefore commanding wider support, than is now the case.... My thoughts today are with the Iraqi people, who face yet another ordeal. I hope that all parties will scrupulously observe the requirements of international humanitarian law, and will do everything in their power to shield the civilian population from the grim consequences of war. The United Nations, for its part, will do whatever it can to bring them assistance and support. Let us hope the future will be much brighter for the Iraqi people than the recent past, and that they will soon have the chance to rebuild their country in peace and freedom, under the rule of law.

At this moment, I must recall the international obligations of the Parties to adhere strictly to the fundamental human rights of all. These rights must remain our guide through the tragedy of conflict. Even wars have rules.

Fundamental human rights norms must be respected at all times. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life. No one shall be arbitrarily detained and no one shall be subject to torture. Every person shall be presumed innocent. There must be no attacks on civilians and the sick and wounded must be cared for....

For some two decades, the people of Iraq have suffered enormously: wars, internal conflicts, denial of the entire spectrum of their rights and the human consequences of sanctions have created a nightmare scenario that can only inspire a huge sense of solidarity.

Both the Hague IV Convention and the laws of war permit attacks upon valid military targets at any time or place. What is included in the category of “targets,” however, is broader than just troops in the field. Noncombatants and civilians can be designated a valid target if they are sufficiently involved in the war effort. For example, any civilian who directly participates in hostilities would be equivalent, for targeting purposes, to a combatant. Although the exact level of involvement necessary for a civilian to become a valid target has not been fully defined legally, it is usually viewed as being a decision in practice based on context. Civilians who work directly to conduct the war, or occupy a role normally held by a soldier, are valid targets. There is also a legal consensus that a civilian head of state who serves as commander-in-chief of the armed forces falls within this category.

The President has full authority to use the armed forces in Iraq under the US Constitution, including his authority as Commander in Chief of the US armed forces. This authority is supported by explicit statutory authorizations contained in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243).

In addition, U.S. action is consistent with the UN Charter. The UNSC [United Nations Security Council], acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, provided that member states, including the United States, have the right to use force in Iraq to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Council authorized the use of force in UNSCR 678 with respect to Iraq in 1990. This resolution - on which the United States has relied continuously and with the full knowledge of the UNSC to use force in 1993, 1996, and 1998 and to enforce the no-fly zones - remains in effect today. In UNSCR 1441, the UNSC unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions and would face serious consequences if it failed immediately to disarm. And, of course, based on existing facts, including the nature and type of the threat posed by Iraq, the United States may always proceed in the exercise of its inherent right of self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Now that the military attack has begun in earnest, it is imperative that States take care not to compound one unlawful action with others. All parties are obliged to follow the humanitarian and human rights prescriptions laid in out in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other relevant international instruments and international customary law. In particular, the fact that Iraq has been illegally invaded in no way absolves it from scrupulously respecting international humanitarian law and human rights law. States which are not taking a part in the hostilities must benefit from, and themselves respect, the rules of neutrality. In particular, they may not allow their territory to be used for military purposes nor may they be made the object of attack.

Belligerents are obliged to treat humanely all persons in their power. They must not attack any persons surrendering. All parties to the conflict must take special care to distinguish between military objectives and civilian persons or objects. The latter may not be made a target of attack. The ICJ would like to stress that all States must scrupulously observe the rules prohibiting or limiting the use of certain weapons. No weapon that is excessively cruel or by nature indiscriminate may be used, even if it is not the object of a treaty prohibition. The ICJ is particularly concerned about reports that some parties may be contemplating using chemical agents. For those States party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, a strict interpretation is indispensable. In addition, the 1925 Geneva Protocol and customary law absolutely prohibit the use of chemical weapons.

The ICRC reminds all States party to the Geneva Conventions of their obligation not only to respect but also to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, whose main purpose is to minimize the effects of war on people not or no longer taking part in hostilities, and to protect their lives and physical integrity.

The requirement that persons not taking part in hostilities be treated with humanity in all circumstances is a basic principle of humanitarian law. Attacks directed at civilians are prohibited, as are attacks that do not distinguish between military objectives and civilians/civilian objects. In the course of military operations, all parties are obliged to take every feasible precaution to avoid, and in any case to minimize, civilian casualties and damage to civilian property.

The warring parties have the duty to ensure that the basic needs of the civilian population are met as far as possible. They must authorize and facilitate impartial humanitarian relief operations and ensure the safety of medical and humanitarian personnel. They must see to it that the sick and wounded have access to adequate medical care. The red cross and red crescent emblems must be respected by all parties. All combatants and civilians detained must be spared and protected against abuses in all circumstances and without discrimination; they must be treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

He believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys, that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and 687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.

That summarizes it for him. In terms of precedents...I think some people have made the case -- and different people will have different historical views of these things -- but you can look at the Cuban missile crisis, of course, where there was a decision made without the United States being "attacked" to conduct a quarantine or an embargo, which, of course, international lawyers will tell you is an act of war.

And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he is prepared to use force.

Recorded video of the full session

Dr. Hans Blix

Germany

France

Russian Federation

United Kingdom

United States

Iraq

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

I am sure all members of this Council will agree that we must do everything we can to mitigate this imminent disaster, which could easily lead to epidemics and starvation. Under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents; in any area under military occupation, responsibility for the welfare of the population falls on the occupying power. Without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we in the United Nations will do whatever we can to help.

Last night, consistent with authorization for the use of military force against Iraq resolution the routine determinations required by the resolution were sent to the Hill. These are the determinations that reliance on the United States diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States continuing against the threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The resolution states that prior to hostilities or within 48 hours after hostilities, these determinations must be made from a legal point of view.

it is imperative that the action of the international community should be guided by principles. First of all, respect for law. The keystone of international order, it must apply in all circumstances, but even more so when the gravest decision is to be made: to use force. Only on this condition can force be legitimate. Only on this condition can it restore order and peace.

Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Our imminent invasion of Iraq will also violate Article 2(4). As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it recently, "If the U.S. and others were to go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter."

The U.N. Charter was in large part drafted by the United States in 1945. It is a solemn treaty commitment ratified by the U.S. Senate and under our Constitution constitutes a part of our "supreme law." The Charter has played an important role in preserving some semblance of international order in the turbulent post-World War II world. Our striking international isolation as we approach this war can not be attributed to French petulance, Russian reluctance or a hostile world. Rather, it is in large part a reflection of the fact that this war deeply offends a fundamental principle of the charter, which is widely accepted by international public opinion. This war will be an illegal, aggressive war.

• Protect civilians by strictly adhering to the rules of international humanitarian law
• Refrain from using indiscriminate weapons
• Treat civilian detainees fairly and humanely
• Protect the rights of combatants
• Ensure the security and humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population are fully met
• Protect and assist refugees and internally displaced persons
• Make sure that perpetrators of crime are brought to justice under international law
• Commit to using the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate violations of the Geneva Conventions
• Support and facilitate the deployment of human rights monitors in Iraq as soon as the security situation permits
• Support the UN in their humanitarian and human rights work

Over the past several decades international law has been let out a little at the waist, moving beyond the UN Charter's snug procedures and the impractical Security Council. South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the former Yugoslavia war crimes prosecutor who chaired the Independent International Commission on Kosovo in 2000, has stated that this is particularly the case where "a vulnerable people" are "threatened with catastrophe." The plight of the Kurds, Shiites, and Iraqi opposition could not be more aptly described.

This thread of thought has now been woven through the fabric of international law. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to effect an overthrow -- a regime change, if you will -- of the Pol Pot gang. Tanzania likewise sent its armed forces into Uganda to rid that country of the tyrannical Idi Amin. Syria, currently a Security Council member and not typically a model of humanitarian conduct, intervened massively in Lebanon's grueling civil war, while NATO, with political support from all of Europe and most of the Arab and Islamic world, bombed Serbia into submission to halt the persecution of Kosovar Albanians.

None of these brought Security Council condemnation, but rather have provided a model for others to emulate.... Looking at the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, one cannot help but think that humanitarian intervention is the right doctrinal fit. President Bush should at least try the argument on for size.

In Chapter Seventeen of his History of the Peloponnesian War (between Athens and Sparta in the Fifth Century BC), Thucydides recounted the reaction of the people of the small neutral island state of Melos to the invading Athenian navy. Before attacking Melos, the Athenians gave the Melians an opportunity to surrender. The Melians attempted to persuade the Athenians to leave them alone. According to Thucydides, the Athenians would have none of it. Questions of justice arise only among equals, the Athenians said, while the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

The Melians refused to surrender; the Athenians prevailed militarily; they killed the adult Melian males; and they sold the women and children into slavery. But ultimately with aid from Persia (modern-day Iran), Sparta defeated and conquered Athens, which never regained its glory.

Even as we hope that President Bush can bring the spirit of Athenian democracy to the cradle of civilization, we may fear that he has forged a different, and darker, connection to ancient Athens.

Plaintiffs have filed a "petition for rehearing on an emergency basis," relying on events which have occurred since the court's Opinion of March 13, 2003. As we said in that opinion, "Ripeness doctrine involves more than simply the timing of the case. It mixes various mutually reinforcing constitutional and prudential considerations." Although some of the contingencies described in our opinion appear to have been resolved, others have not. Most importantly, Congress has taken no action which presents a "fully developed dispute between the two elected branches." Thus the case continues not to be fit for judicial review.

The U.S. and U.K. now seek to justify war on the grounds that Iraq intends to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction against them at an unspecified point in the future. Yet despite advanced intelligence-gathering capabilities, neither country has presented any credible evidence that Iraq still possesses any proscribed weapons, let alone the intent and capacity to use them in an imminent attack. After conducting more than 550 inspections in almost four months, UNMOVIC teams have not uncovered evidence that Iraq maintains either stocks of such weapons or the operational capacity to deploy and deliver them against the U.S. or U.K. Even Iraq’s neighbors have rejected the argument that military intervention from outside powers is necessary under the right of collective self-defense to protect them from an imminent Iraqi threat.

Under these circumstances, war against Iraq would violate any reasonable interpretation of either the Charter’s limited provision for self-defense exception or the customary law principle of preemptive self-defense. The potential threat Iraq poses to the U.S. and U.K. is not imminent, unavoidable, or even particularly credible. Launching a massive invasion to overthrow its government and occupy its
territory in response to a dubious hypothetical future threat is neither a necessary nor proportionate response. In essence, the U.S. and U.K. argument for preemptive strike closely resembles the longdiscredited doctrine of preventive war, definitively abolished after World War II.

"I don't think it is reasonable to close the door to inspections after three and a half months," Mr. Blix, Executive Chairman of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), said in answer to questions during a briefing of the UN Correspondents Association in New York. He added that he did not think Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November, foresaw such a short inspection time....

Mr. Blix, who is to discuss a work plan of remaining disarmament issues tomorrow at the Security Council, also said the inspectors had never asserted that Iraq had any remaining weapons of mass destruction, only that there were a lot of things unaccounted for. It would be interesting, he added, to see what would come out when people go in and can go anywhere and examine the sort of intelligence the inspectors never had access to.

He also said he did not think Iraq would use chemical or biological weapons in a war with a US-led coalition, although it had the know-how to produce and deliver chemical weapons. "I think it is unlikely they will do that because I think world public opinion, which they study quite a lot, is in large measure feeling that going to war is too early," he said. "So there is a fair amount of scepticism about armed action. That scepticism would turn immediately around if they used chemical weapons or biological weapons. My guess is they would not."

recorded video

Many experts in international law question the legal basis for war, since the United Nations did not authorize the use of force to oust Saddam Hussein, either in 1990 or last fall. But other legal scholars say they agree with U.S. and British authorities that Hussein's failure to fully comply with the agreements that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War justifies a new war to remove him from power....

"I think most international lawyers would say the use of force against Iraq is clearly unlawful without a second resolution," said American University law professor Robert K. Goldman. "The original resolution [in 1990] never authorized military action to remove Saddam. Bush's father [President George H.W. Bush] spoke quite clearly on that and said going to Baghdad would exceed the U.N. mandate." Tufts University law professor Michael J. Glennon agreed, saying that "this is the easiest argument to dismiss. The Security Council did not authorize the use of force against Iraq beyond removing it from Kuwait." The recent Resolution 1441 is not clear one way or the other, Glennon added. "That's the only legal leg they have to stand on," he said. "The resolution is vague, and it can be interpreted in different ways." The U.S. and British officials have stressed that the November resolution speaks of Iraq's being in "material breach" of its duties. This implies that Iraqis had a duty to come clean or face "serious consequences."

But the French, Germans and other foes of a war say the resolution set up a process for inspections and disarmament, not a trigger for military action. Had the Iraqis blocked the inspectors, "that would have given the U.S. the trigger" to undertake war without a follow-up resolution, said Duke University law professor Scott Silliman. Though chief weapons inspector Hans Blix criticized the Iraqis, he did not pronounce them in material breach of the resolution, Silliman said. "The whole key to which side you come down on on this issue is who becomes the arbiter of what is a material breach of 1441 and who has the authority to use force," said Silliman, a former Air Force attorney. It "takes us out on thin ice" to say the U.S. or Britain can decide unilaterally who is in violation of U.N. mandates, he said. But supporters of the Bush administration say the U.N. resolutions set out the demands that Iraq had to meet, and thus justify a military response for its failure to comply. "Resolution 687 [calling for Iraq to rid itself of chemical and biological weapons] gives you plenty of legal authority to go into Iraq," said Yale University law professor Ruth Wedgwood. She also said the U.S. had never taken the rigid view that it could not take military action without the approval of the Security Council. In 1999, the U.S. undertook a bombing campaign in Yugoslavia's Kosovo province with NATO, but not U.N., approval, she said.

Details on this plan are quite sketchy right now. I looked but found nothing on the question of how long "temporary" will be, what the conditions of detention will be, and even which countries are affected. (Right now all that is being reported is that the plan will affect asylum seekers from "Iraq and over 30 other countries.")

I reserve judgment on the plan until I can see the details, but I confess that I'm initially a bit wary. The administration has, until now, not been able to draw a persuasive connection between Iraq and terrorist attacks inside the USA by people from other Arab and/or Muslim countries. I can certainly see the sense in temporarily detaining Iraqi asylum seekers. But what, other than ethnicity-based speculation and fear, is behind the notion that, say, an Algerian or Yemeni asylum seeker might in fact be a person intent on committing pro-Iraqi acts of terrorism?

The spokesman said the last plane evacuating the more than 300 international staff in Iraq had already taken off from Baghdad for Larnaca, Cyprus. Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday ordered the withdrawal of all UN personnel, including UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors, the UN Office of the Iraq Programme and UN agencies, programmes and funds implementing the oil-for-food programme, after receiving information from the United Kingdom and United States regarding the continued safety and security of UN personnel.

I have served in the Senate for 29 years, and until recently I have never seen such stridency on the part of an administration or such willingness on the part of a Senate majority to cast aside tradition and upset the balances embedded in our Constitution, in order to expand presidential power. What I find unprecedented are the excesses that the Republican majority and this White House are willing to indulge to override the constitutional division of power over appointments and longstanding Senate practices and history. It strikes me that some Republicans seem to think that they are writing on a blank slate and that they have been given a blank check to pack the courts.

Does the extent of the threat that emanates from the Iraqi dictator justify the use of war, something that will bring certain death to thousands of innocent men, women and children? My answer in this case was and still is: No! Iraq is now a country subject to extensive UN monitoring. What the Security Council has demanded in the way of disarmament steps is being fulfilled more and more. As such, there is no reason to interrupt this disarmament process now.

Recorded video

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain have signalled their intent to use force in Iraq in spite of the absence of a Security Council Resolution. There is no other plausible legal basis for this attack. In the absence of such Security Council authorisation, no country may use force against another country, except in self-defence against an armed attack... A war waged without a clear mandate by the Security Council would constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition of the use of force. Security Council Resolution 1441 does not authorise the use of force. Upon its adoption, France, Russia and China, three permanent members of the Security Council, issued a declaration indicating that the Resolution excludes such authority. The bottom line is that nine members of the Security Council, including the five permanent members, need to actively approve the use of force - such support is blatantly lacking.

Are we on the eve of a war? Is it too late for taking a chance with peace? America is not wrong. Iraq is not right. But is it something that concerns only these two countries? What can international law and lawyers do to diffuse the situation? Are we only fit to dissect and display the problems after the "battle is lost and won"?.... If there are world citizens anxious to see world peace maintained the best effort is to come from the legal community. I don't think it is an Utopian or a Quixotic idea. We believe in the establishment of the Rule of Law. [What if] the UN General assembly is summoned on an emergency basis[?].

Much of the present debate on Iraq is premised on the assumption...that the Security Council has not already endorsed the use of force. An opposite and plausible case can and has been made on the basis of the wording of resolutions already adopted.

Resolution 1441 was carefully and deliberately framed in terms that could be read to permit the use of force. It was adopted under Chapter VII which allows the council to adopt mandatory action to deal with threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression.

The resolution says that Iraq remains "in breach of its material obligations" under previous Chapter VII resolutions, has a "final opportunity to comply" and failing compliance will "face serious consequences". It explicitly recalls Resolution 678 (1990), which authorised "all necessary means" to restore peace and security in the region and Resolution 687 (1991) which established the conditions for the cease-fire after the Gulf War.

By its terms, Resolution 1441 clearly viewed the use of force against Iraq not in isolation but rather as a continuation of measures taken in the wake of Saddam Hussein's illegal invasion of Kuwait.

According to Lord Goldsmith, authority to use force exists by virtue of the combined effect of security council resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. Resolution 678 (1990) was adopted by the security council in response to the Iraqi invasion and occupation of Kuwait. It authorised the US-led coalition to use "all necessary means" to liberate Kuwait and restore peace and security to the region. Hostilities in the Gulf war were then terminated by resolution 687 (1991), which imposed a long list of obligations on Iraq, including several regarding disarmament. Iraq is in breach of these obligations. Resolution 1441 (2002) found it to be in "material breach". In consequence, according to Lord Goldsmith's argument, the authorisation to use force granted to the US and the UK by resolution 678 has been reactivated.

Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a "final opportunity" to comply with its disarmament obligations and warned of "serious consequences" if it did not. It did not expressly require a new resolution before force can be used. All that is needed is an Iraqi failure to comply with 1441 and the reporting to and discussion of that failure by the security council. Had a further security council decision been required to sanction the use of force, said Lord Goldsmith, resolution 1441 would have said so specifically.

There are, however, a number of problems with Lord Goldsmith's analysis. 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....

In the second place, Lord Goldsmith's arguments have been used before and have been rejected. Throughout the 1990s, the US and the UK sought to justify the bombing of Iraqi military facilities by arguing that they were responding to breaches of Iraq's obligations under resolution 678. In early 1998, after Iraq's withdrawal of cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors, the US and the UK threatened to use force "to enforce the Security Council's will". The threat was lifted when the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, visited Baghdad and secured an agreement permitting the return of the weapons inspectors....

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. Once again, the majority of members of the security council rejected automaticity. Even US Ambassador John Negroponte said that the resolution "contained no 'hidden triggers' and no 'automaticity' with the use of force".

The action that might be taken as a result of this decision has a sound legal basis in the resolutions of the Security Council that have already been passed. If you go back to resolution 678, 687 and 1441, you find ample legal authority. That is not only the legal advice that has been tendered to us but it is also almost identically the published view of the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom Government. It also corresponds with legal advice that has been tendered to the United States Government. It is my intention to table in the Parliament this afternoon the text of the legal advice that has been provided to the Australian Government.

recorded video

The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security. That duty falls to me, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath I have sworn, by the oath I will keep. Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq.... Under [UN Security Council] Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will. Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed.

I think the 14th Amendment is the most important law in American history, so working on its ratification has been the high point of my legal career so far. The best part was hearing legislators on the floor of the House and Senate say how meaningful it was for them to vote for this Amendment as lawmakers, when in 1868 they would not even have been allowed to vote because of their race or sex or both. Working on this with students was also great fun, and I think drafting testimony and presenting it to the Ohio legislature gave the students more insight into 14th Amendment and the legislative process than would have writing an exam and talking about it with me. We felt that it was important for Ohio to formally ratify even though the 14th Amendment was already in effect. Extremist groups all over the Internet claim that there is no 14th Amendment, in part because Ohio rescinded its ratification in 1868; we wanted to help put an end to that.

contains a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers, many of which are not related to terrorism, that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights, as well as disturb our unique system of checks and balances. If adopted, the bill would diminish personal privacy by removing important checks on government surveillance authority, reduce the accountability of government to the public by increasing government secrecy, expand the definition of “terrorism” in a manner that threatens the constitutionally protected rights of Americans, and seriously erode the right of all persons to due process of law.

Late last night...I was advised by the United States Government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad. Similar advice has been given to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). I immediately informed the President of the Security Council and asked for guidance. I also informed the United Nations Secretary-General. I understand that the Security Council will take up the issue today.