I've done some fact checking on a legal analysis I made of the war on Iraq. My position was that this war violated US law according to Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles (1919). While the US played a large part in drafting the treaty, the Congress, with a Republican majority, refused to ratify it. Therefore it did not become the law of the land under the Constitution.
I do find this disappointing. A US treaty seems like a much stronger case than violating international law.
While it wasn't illegal (according to my hypothesis), I still think the war was morally wrong. The Treaty of Versailles does provide historical context. Other countries supported it, even if the US Congress did not.
A popular article circulating around the blogosphere:
"US: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'" [Daypop Top 40]
1:39:10 AM 
|
The viola is the saddest of all instruments. 
