President Bush Friday submitted a notification to Congress on the Iraq war under the terms of the War Powers Resolution (1973), which says:

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.

The President's notice said:

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.

Read the complete text of the President's Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, now online from the White House.

Lawyers in Bahrain and elsewhere in the Arab world are preparing to stage a protest strike Monday at the call of the Cairo-based Arab Lawyers Association, which has asserted that the current war in Iraq is in violation of international law. More details in Saturday's Gulf Daily News.

From Radio Australia Saturday:

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.

Read the complete story.

From Saturday's Omaha Herald and Knight Ridder:

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.

Read the complete story.

From MSNBC Saturday:

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.

Read the full story by Pete Williams. Review the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, an International Committee of the Red Cross statement on General Problems in implementing the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a book review of Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation (Princeton University Press, 1993).

From Saturday's Guardian:

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.

Read the complete article.

The Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross has posted its Saturday field reports from Baghdad, Northern Iraq and Kuwait on casualties, refugees and POWs. Principal points:

• [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.

Read the complete ICRC field report.

JURIST's limited Saturday service will be expanded today to allow continuing coverage of legal issues and information from the conflict in Iraq.

On March 22, 1765, the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a revenue-raising measure under which all pamphlets, almanacs, newspapers, bonds, notes, leases, insurance policies, and legal papers had thenceforward to be issued on stamped paper that could only be purchased from the king's officers. American colonists objected to the Act, saying that Parliament did not have the right to impose duties and taxes on a people who were not represented in the House of Commons. Review the terms of the Stamp Act and see the resolution of the colonies' Stamp Act Congress of October 1765, petitioning for repeal.