CDIH

They just said we made strikes on and artillary battery in southern Iraq today. And some Iraqis surrendered.

Game on

:toast: :bouncer: :banana:
Here's to another video game...

Seriously, I hope we don't lose anyone...and when this is all over I hope we're safe again...

This war is illegal....

<font size="4">Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say</font>
By Emma Thomasson

BERLIN (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites), although Russia has fiercely rejected this argument.

Bush has also said that a war would be a legitimate "pre-emptive" act of self-defense against any future attack.

The U.N. Charter says self-defense is only justified "if an armed attack occurs." When Israel tried to justify its 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor as an act of pre-emptive self-defense, the Security Council unanimously condemned it.

Bothe said the attempt by Washington and its allies to justify an attack showed the political power of international law despite the paucity of formal legal devices to enforce it.

"There is unlikely to be a court case," he said. "Those responsible won't be jailed but they can be made uncomfortable."

TURNING BACK THE CLOCK

Most experts in international law say they are not convinced either by the argument that military action against Iraq is authorized by earlier U.N. resolutions nor that the U.N. Charter allows self-defense against a perceived future threat.

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.

"The implications are serious for the future of international law and the credibility of the U.N., both being ignored by the most powerful nation in the world," he said.

In theory, international law could be upheld in several ways, said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General of the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists.

"Political leaders in due course could be taken to a national court for an act of aggression," Doswald-Beck said.

Lawyers in the United States, Canada and Britain warned their governments in January that they could be prosecuted for war crimes if military tactics violated humanitarian law.

Alternatively, aggrieved states could take the United States and Britain to international courts, complain to the Security Council, or to the U.N. General Assembly, she said.

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 (news - web sites) because they will be paralyzed by the U.S. veto in the Security Council," she said.

Washington and Baghdad do not recognize the International Criminal Court inaugurated last week and it has yet to define a crime of aggression. But it could still try Britain and other U.S. allies that recognize it on any war crimes charges.

Other legal experts say international law might have to adapt to take account of new justifications for war such as the humanitarian concerns used to legitimize the Kosovo campaign in 1999 that lacked U.N. support, but is now questioned by few.

Writing in The Sydney Morning Herald, George Williams, an international law expert at the University of New South Wales, and Devika Hovell, director of the International Law Project, said setting a new legal precedent was playing with fire.

"It may be that international law will adapt after the event to provide a retrospective justification for war," they wrote.

"However, to enter a war based on this expectation sees us revert to the 'just war' theory. In doing so, we fall into precisely the trap the United Nations was established to avoid.

"This decision to wage a just war is based upon an appeal to dangerously subjective standards of morality and the belligerents' conviction that their cause is right. After two world wars, the dangers of this approach are obvious." (With additional reporting by reporters in Geneva, Amsterdam, London, Paris, Johannesburg, Dubai, Beijing, Sydney)

Maynard is rushing it a bit,
just getting dibs on the official "we are at war thread",

do you promise fair and balanced reporting?

MSNBC reported it this hour.

I'm watching "Get Over It" on Showtime instead of war coverage. But the movie just ended.

Maybe I'll switch to pay per view, or possibly porn. Gotta love the descrambler.

edit...

SWEET!@! Now "Bring it on" is on USA. It's a Kirsten Dunst marathon!!!!!!!!

Spirit fingers everyone



Edited By Galt on 1048107299

Quote:MSNBC reported it this hour.

did they change the countdown clock to zero?

the war won't begin for 2 weeks tops, as far as bombs being dropped and shit like that, we've been attacking Iraq for the past 10 or so years. thats nothing new.

I disagree Keyser,
maybe not a full invasion,
but Bush has sent the message that we have been pussy footing around for too long. I am sure he wants some drastic actions to take place at the end of the 48 hours, or soon there after.

keyser is right, this is nothing new

it would be foolish to give your enemy an exact time of attack. another 2 weeks isnt going to seem like "pussy-footing". we will attack at a moment of our choosing, as Bush said in his speech.

I hear ya Keyser, and I agree with your thinking,
my "feeling" is based on a couple things,
1. Bush feels we have given Saddam deadline after deadline and done nothing, I think he might want HIS deadline to have meaning,
2. I think he WANTS war, the longer the delay the greater chance something might happen to take the reigns of action out of his hands. Right now Bush is in command of events, I think he wants it to stay that way.

I guess we shall see. My bet is that we don't see any action tonight, but soon.

you are probably right Keyser,

they are talking up this shock and awe,

I doubt that will begin tonight.

spirit fingers!!!

i'd be willing to bet you'll see US/coalition troops in the oil fields before tomorrow morning
we'll also see bombing and or troops in the western city near israel to try and disable any missles they could use to attack israel

they prefer to perform air attacks at night, the deadline would begin around 4am Iraqi time, leaving only about 2 hours before sunrise. the earliest they could begin a full scale air attack that could be considered the start of war would be in another 18-19 hours.

the bombs in question are missle delivered?

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>IT'S FARGIN WAR!!</span>

I miss godlymillionaire,
he had more panache than DIG.