[JoeMac]

Not to wax philisophical here but what IS legal?

[himno hero]

try this... lies my father told me....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk

which are all out in the leftists field now...

[JoeMac]

When it comes to war I mean?

[BenLurkin]

Iraq’s ceasefire terms violations made it VERY legal.

Bush Is Right on Iraq: The Issue Is Compliance, Not Inspections
by Brett D. Schaefer and Baker Spring
Backgrounder #1592

President George W. Bush’s resolve in confronting Iraq over its decade-long record of defiance of the United Nations has succeeded in getting Baghdad to agree unconditionally to the return of U.N. weapons inspectors. Their mission will continue to be to search out and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. While Baghdad’s recent letter acquiescing to the inspections is promising, it does not mean that the crisis has been defused or that further confrontation with Iraq can be avoided. As the President has reminded the U.N. and Congress, the real issue is not the inspections but Iraq’s consistent failure to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions, which require it to disarm, cease supporting terrorism and violating the human rights of its people, and account for those missing from the Persian Gulf War.

Because Iraq failed to comply with these resolutions even when U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, the return of inspectors is no guarantee of success in enforcing U.N. resolutions. The Security Council should adopt a new resolution that documents Iraq’s violations of existing U.N. resolutions, demands compliance, and authorizes the use of force if Iraq fails to comply. It should not adopt a resolution that merely commends Iraq for allowing the inspectors to return

[americanophile]

Yes, it's an absurd question. There's no one law, so no controlling authority. Was it authorized by the U.S. Constitution? Probably. Was it funded by Congress? Yes. Was it authorized by the United Nations? Essentially, yes. Does this law control? To the extent that it's an international treaty obligation yes, so long as it doesn't abrogate or violate the Constitution. Insofar as its ‘law’ adopted by an organization whose members include governments not based on popular sovereignty and general suffrage, it's invalid per se.

[freeforall]

Dictators have no rights!