Replies

Ratner, who also teaches at the Columbia University Law School, told WND that the idea of invoking the resolution "came up when I started thinking about the fact that we could get into a situation where the U.S. may go to war without a Security Council resolution or with a veto."

What is he talking about? The UN authorized the 91 Gulf War. It temporarily ended with a cease fire, with Saddam given 15 days to disarm. Since Saddam never disarmed, the cease fire is over anytime we want it to be--all 100% legal under the UN.

Iraq's failure to comply with UN resolutions and to stop threatening Kuwait make it a fully legal target under both the UN and international law.

Since 1991, the UN has repeatedly authorized the disarming of Iraq and last fall the US Congress gave Bush the authorization to take whatever measures were needed to disarm Saddam.

Of the hundreds of wars since the UN Charter was adopted, only 3 wars (I think Korea, the Gulf War, and Afghanistan) have more solid legal authorization from the UN than this one starting soon at a theatre near Baghdad.

Ratner is not doing a very good job explaining international law to his students.

"Since 1991, the UN has repeatedly authorized the disarming of Iraq and last fall the US Congress gave Bush the authorization to take whatever measures were needed to disarm Saddam"

Yeah...SEVENTEEN TIMES. I also need to point out that he's invoking...A UN RESOLUTION to authorize use of force on the US - and therefore Britain and Australia. By even SUGGESTING such a possibility, Ratner shows exceptional ignorance of how the UN even works.