Legal Experts: Why can't we sue for the Bush Admin to conform to the law? [View All]

[Tamyrlin79]

File a complaint that asserts that the president is acting outside the law by continuing to prosecute the Iraq War:

Argument: The Iraq War is unlawful.

1. International Law bans preemptive war except in self-defense.

a. Evidence - U.N. Charter, to which the U.S. is a party as a binding treaty

2. All reasons given by the administration to justify a "self-defense" exception have been proven incredible or false, leaving only "liberate the Iraqi people" as justification, which does not meet the self-defense criterion. (give these reasons and the facts that refute them)

2. The Secretary General of the U.N. has opined that the Iraq War is unlawful (compare to Attorney General or governor of a state giving such an opinion and give Annan's reasoning, if he gave any)

3. International Law is part of the Supreme Law of the land, as defined in the Supremacy Clause

.

4. The courts have a duty specificly imposed under Article VI to uphold that law and the constitution.

5. Therefore, if Iraq is a pre-emptive war that is not in our self defense, the courts have a duty to make a legal finding declaring it such.

6. As American troops cannot be utilized in pursuit of an unlawful objective, the president must be ordered withdraw them immediately.


I'm not sure we could get much out of this, but we could challenge Bush's "preemptive war doctrine", and we could use it to make a point that there IS an argument that finds this administration in gross violation of the law. Even just getting a court to just make a legal finding would be pretty damning.

And hey, you could make some legal history applying international law in American courts! :)