Hi GL,

Thanks for your comment. One thing I'm interested in, if it doesn't detract from gratitude toward the editors and contributors here (of course)...

re: "...the "illegality" of the war is far from established."

I'm curious about your opinion on the following: What would be required, one way or the other, to establish the "illegality"? (Or, legality, for that matter?)

The war is entirely illegal. No UN Security Council authorization. The vast majority of the worlds *population* was and is against it.

As Richard Posner has made a strong case for, laws are not writ in stone by gods. Laws are simply made by people, and for them to work people must agree on them. The world is in agreement. The Iraq was is illegal.

[edit] Let me add a caveat to that... By US law the war is certainly not "illegal", since it was authorized by the CONgress. So, as usual, terms like "illegal" come down to petty semantics. What really matters here is not that the war is illegal, but that it is a catastrophe. Whatever window dressing you put on it... Hell, even Bush, I believe, said it is "a successful catastrophe" or something along those absurd lines.

Hi Aniya. I suppose I overstated it by saying the illegality of the war is far from established. What I meant, is that there has been no final adjudication of its legality. As far as I am concerned, however, the war in Iraq violates international law, whether or not the US Congress approved it. I don't think that its "legality" can be "established" however absent a trial and adjudication by a sanctioned international court. That may not ever happen. Although I am a lawyer, I am not an expert in international law and I just do not have the time to do the exhaustive research to give citations. :)