I heartily and totally disagree and, like Ron Paul, your position is philosophical, not factual, not based on the history and practical application of international law. Your citation:
Law of Nations Emmerich de Vattel
§ 8. It is immutable Since therefore the necessary law of nations consists in the application of the law of nature to states, — which law is immutable, as being founded on the nature of things, and particularly on the nature of man, — it follows that the Necessary law of nations is immutable.
.........
§ 9. Nations can make no change in it, nor dispense with the obligations arising from it. Whence, as this law is immutable, and the obligations that arise from it necessary and indispensable, nations can neither make any changes in it by their conventions, dispense with it in their own conduct, nor reciprocally release each other from the observance of it.
Does not produce any negative substance, in the factual application of international law, with respect to the subject at hand. Of course, quoting philosophy out of context of actual events can do that.
"How can a sovereign treaty away something that he holds in trust?
Again, you love philosophy but ignore the law. He (Saddam) did not violate his "trust". In international law, he (Saddam), for the benefit of the nation, placed his trust (move the focus of his trust) to the terms of the truce. He could have kept the focus of his trust in his own actions, risking the likelihood that he would lose the object of that trust - the nation. It is a poor ruler that places his own sovereignty - his personal rule - over the sovereignty of the nation. The nation did not lose its sovereignty, it was free to set a course completely against the truce at any time - which, secretly, as well as openly, Saddam constantly did; demonstrating that his word, his agreement in the truce was a fiction. And, just as Saddam was free to break the truce, which he did, the coalition that achieved that truce against him was free to acknowledge it was broken and discontinue the lull in fighting that the truce had given Saddam.
"It would be like you or I giving away our right to pursuit of happiness by contract............Its not possible."
How silly. You don't "give it away", but you do place it into the terms of a contract. In this country, it's called The United States Constitution; which becomes the legal instrument by which the philosophical right "pursuit of happiness" has a framework of action that you and your fellow citizens have agreed to follow. Law vs philosophy - again, something neither you nor Ron Paul seem to understand the distinctions of.
"No, the reason we let Saddam get away with his actions for so long is that we put him there."
More silliness. The diplomatic record is, in fact, that we did not "let Saddam get away with his actions". In fact, the diplomatic record, factually demonstrates that it was his actions that prevented the positive conclusion of the truce. There was never a time during the truce when diplomacy WAS NOT reminding Saddam of his violations of the truce. If we had allowed the lifting of the sanctions and limitations placed on Saddam, then we would have "let Saddam get away with his actions". That did not and was not going to happen.
"I also distinctly remember the US considering Saddam a tolerable ally at one point....Iraq-gate anyone?
The United States never considered Saddam a "tolerable ally". To have diplomatic relations with a nation and even to make agreements with them does not make them a "tolerable ally". We gave the Chinese Communists satellite intelligence on the Soviet Union towards the end of the Cold War. We believed those actions were for our benefit. We did view the Chinese Communists as a "tolerable ally".
Also, it was "Iran-gate" not "Iraq-gate". We gave the government of Iran equipment and we gave intelligence to Iraq. We sought to prevent either side from conquering the other. We achieved that. That did not make either nation a "tolerable ally".
"As a further historical note, the basis for Mideast 'stabilization' is this insidious piece of work passed in 1957."
"..............Middle East Stabilization...................Pub. L. 85–7, §§ 1–6, Mar. 9, 1957, 71 Stat. 5, set out as chapter 24A (§ 1961 et seq.) of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse, authorizes the President to provide economic and military assistance, and, if he determines it necessary, to use armed forces under certain circumstances to maintenance of national independence in the Middle East."
If you understood, or would read some history, maybe you would find the context, in "insidious" world events, related to the basis of your citation.
"Or where Congress gets its ability to take an authority delegated to it and pass that authority to another branch?
One could ask the same question, more often, with respect to the Presidency, but in either case, the answer is not in legal theory but in legal practice and the political will (more often lack of political will) to press a legal view into practice. In this Presidency we finally have a POTUS that recognizes that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, not the Congress and that "independence" is enshrined in the powers of all three major branches of government, delineated by the limited powers each branch has. "Indepedence" is not the lone peorgative of the Judiciary. If we had a Judiciary that recognized that its true final client is the Constitution, not the will of Congress, and not the will of the ACLU, we would be in much better shape.
Do you have any sources to bolster your assertion that the facts posted were incorrect, or are you one of the myriad of posters who just decide they are right without a single piece of evidence to back it up?