Invasion of Iraq by United States of America is a serious violation of international law. Explain?

1. Introduction:

The opening of the U.S. invasion campaign against Iraq in March 20031 was one of intense aerial bombardment designed to create “shock and awe” among Iraqis. The goal was to terrorize the Iraqi people and intimidate the Iraq military. For the U.S. public, watching through their television screens, the opening of the war was little different than a video game. Military briefings illustrated the effectiveness of “precision bombs”. Later, as the land campaign got underway, military and media reports showed U.S. forces quickly moving north into central Iraq and meeting less resistance than had been anticipated. From the outside, the war seemed quick and contained. However, even at this stage multiple breaches of international humanitarian law occurred. The precision bombs touted by the military often were not. Hundreds of civilians were killed, and massive amounts of civilian property were destroyed. Cluster bombs were dropped on urban areas, including residential neighborhoods. Munitions containing depleted uranium were used in bombs and artillery shells. Tanks fired into hotels and residential areas. The basic infrastructure of Iraq’s urban areas was, in many cases, destroyed or disrupted by the invading forces.[1]  On March 19, 2003, the U.S.-U.K. Coalition planes started bombing various military facilities in Iraq, thereby launching a full military invasion against Iraq.2 After conquering Iraq easily, more than 150,000 US-UK forces still occupy Iraq at this time. It is extremely unfortunate that the UN Security Council has failed so far to condemn the U.S.-U.K. invasion as a crime of aggression, even though it is required to do so under Article 39 of the UN Charter.3 George W. Bush was the Commander in Chief of the U.S. forces at the time of the March 2003 invasion. President Bush was the main instigator and co-conspirator who initiated and ordered the naked war of aggression against Iraq (a.k.a. Gulf War II).

2. International Law of war and Termination of law by USA:

 While attacking Iraq, USA has shown their brutality to the whole world. USA did not even follow the international laws of war, which indicates that how aggressive they were while attacking Iraq.

 A) Prohibition against Use of Armed Force:

 In adopting the UN Charter at the end of the WW II, the international community was assured that war should be permanently stopped in settling international disputes if civilization was to remain alive.4 Note the Preamble of the UN Charter, which sets out the spirit and system of the document: “We, the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind” After performing other purposes of the UN, including “respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law,” the Preamble continues: “and for these end to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest” Members of the UN are compelled to honor not only the Articles of the Charter but also the spirit of the opening move.

5Furthermore, Article 2, Section (3) and (4) as well as Article 33 of the Charter specifically require Member States to settle international disputes by peaceful means. Article 2, Section (4) states as follows:

[2]All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

In waging an illegal war, the US, UK and other members of the “coalition of the willing” have blatantly violated the important commitment in the Charter, namely the prohibition against the use of armed force in international affairs.

B) UN Security Council Resolution 1441:

7The Security Council Resolution 1441 was adopted in November 2002 to pressure Iraq to reveal more information about its weapons of mass destruction program (WMD) and provide enhanced power to the UN weapons inspectors. However, the resolution did not provide any specific permission for the use of compulsion against Iraq. It merely notifies Iraq of “serious consequences” in case of a non-compliance of the resolution by Iraq. Such a warning did not amount to an automatic permission for the use of force, and this reality was well understood by all members of the Security Council, including the US and UK, at the time the resolution was adopted. In fact, a legal memo from the British Foreign Office which was submitted to the House of Commons stated that “It is important to stress that SCR 1441 did not revive the 678 authorization immediately upon its adoption. There was no ‘automaticity’” Besides, paragraph 12 and 14 of the Resolution 1441 were quite clear as to the need for the Security Council to meet again to judge the next move in case of non-agreement:

Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance  with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security”

             14.” Decides to remain seized of the matter.” [3]

Subsequently, the U.S. and U.K., in fact, attempted to acquire a new Security Council resolution for using of force in February 2003, including the personal appearance and sensational presentation of Secretary of State Colin Powell to the Security Council. However, they had to walk out on the effort because they could not summon up the minimum nine votes from the fifteen members of the Security Council, aside from the threat of veto by France.[4]

 C) UN Security Council Resolution 687 and 678:

Thus, thwarted in their attempt to acquire a new S.C. Resolution specifically authorizing the use of force, the United States and the United Kingdom fell back on S.C. Resolution 687 from 1991 and 678 of 1990, arguing that Iraq’s lack of success to destroy its weapons of mass destruction represented a material breach of 687, thus reviving 678 permissions to use force.

However, that is a far-fetched logic since Resolution 678 was originally adopted for the purpose of throwing out Iraq from Kuwait. This permission declined, under the basic rules of interpretation, when the stated objective was accomplished and a formal cease-fire agreement was entered between Iraq and the UN in 1991. As for Resolution 687, which offered a cease-fire agreement to Iraq with certain arms limitation obligations on Iraq at the end of the Gulf War I, 9there was no specific permission for the use of force in case of non-agreement of the disarmament compulsion by Iraq. On the contrary, paragraph 34 of the Resolution clearly stated that the Security Council. shall “take such further steps as may be required for implementation of the present resolution.” Accordingly, the Security Council subsequently take on a new Resolution 1441, in view of the situation then existing in November 2002, granting Iraq “a final opportunity to comply” and permission an “enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687.” Thus, Resolution 1441 clearly displaces all prior resolutions including 678 and 687.

D) Self-Defense and Preventive War:

In his address to the nation on March 17, 2003, President Bush also completely dependent on the doctrine of self-defense as another reason for his unilateral military action against Iraq. He stated as follows:

12The danger is clear. Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other….Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed. The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in assuring its own national security.”

The right to self-defense is known under Article 51 of the UN Charter. However, such right to self-defense is licensed only “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.” Since Iraq did not launch an armed attack on the U.S first, the unilateral, hindering attack on Iraq by the U.S., carried out even under the name of “a coalition of willing nations,” constitute a clear violation of Article 51 of the UN Charter. Thus, it is not surprising that President Bush never bothered to mention Article 51 in his March 17 address.

12Basically, Bush was relying on his own preventive war doctrine (a.k.a. Bush doctrine) that he unveiled in June 2002. In the following document called the “National Security Strategy of the United States” in September 2002, Bush stated that, “as a matter of common sense and self-defense,” the U.S. will take preventive action against terrorist groups or states connection with terrorist groups to stop “emerging threats before they are fully formed.” Although the Bush doctrine is often called as a preemptive war doctrine, it is more precise to call it a preventive war doctrine.

In any case, both preemptive and preventive wars are not permitted under Article 51. The UN Security Council itself already denounced the use of preventive war when it adopted Resolution 487, in reply to the Israeli attack on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. [5]

The Resolution states that the Security Council “strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct.”

E) Violation of the UN Security Council Resolutions on Iraq:

 Article 25 of the UN Charter states that “Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.” However, that promise was blatantly broken by the US & UK in invading Iraq. For instance, at the time of the US-UK invasion of Iraq, some 100 UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) inspectors were carrying out expansive inspections for weapons of mass destruction and missiles of banned range inside Iraq in agreement with the S.C. Res. 1441. 14In the period from November 27, 2002 and March 17, 2003, during which UNMOVIC performed 731 inspections, covering 411 sites, in Iraq without any hindrances, it “did not find evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction.” However, these UN inspectors were pressured to leave Iraq in a quick time because President Bush pointed a warning in his address on March 17, 2003 that “all foreign nationals, including journalists and inspectors, should leave Iraq immediately.”

Such quick interruption in the vital work of the UN inspectors was in clear violation of the Security Council Resolution 1284 of 1999 which established the UNMOVIC. Article 10 of Resolution 1284 asked that “Member States to give full cooperation to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates.” In addition, Article 10 of the S.C. Resolution 1441 also requested that “Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates.” [6]

It is also to be noted that S.C. Resolution 687 said that disarming Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) should be a step in the direction of  the creation of a Middle East-wide zone free of all weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. While concentrating on disarming Iraq of WMDs, Bush and Blair have taken no steps whatever in disarming Israel’s WMDs or withdrawing their own WMDs from the area.[7]

3. Bush’s Lies and Planning for the War of Aggression:

President Bush defended his invasion of Iraq on the grounds that Saddam’s govt. imposes a “grave and gathering danger” to the U.S., the “global war on terror,” and securing freedom for the Iraqi people. However, it is apparent that the prime causes for his military invasion were to control the oil resources of Iraq, reinforce U.S. domination of the Middle East by increasing its military presence there, and improve security for Israel. Other possible causes seem to be pure animosity for Saddam Hussein and just doing “Lord’s will” to rescue Iraq in the nature of another Christian crusade against Islam.

Although Saddam was certainly a terrible tyrant, he did not produce any threatening danger to Iraq’s neighbors or the U.S. In order to defend his false claims for the invasion, Bush and his close advisers deliberately exaggerated or distorted the available U.S. intelligence to illustrate Iraq as a serious danger to the security of the U.S. For instances, some of their deception and misrepresentations are now well-known: 1) One of the September 11 hijackers were always in touch Iraqi intelligence official 2) Iraq and Al Qaeda were working together; 3) Iraq tried to import aluminum tubes and uranium yellowcake to develop nuclear weapons; 4) Iraq still had vast stocks of chemical and biological weapons from the first Gulf War; 5) Previous weapons inspections had failed; 6) Iraq was obstructing the UN inspections; 7) Two trailers found in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories, etc

4. Human Rights violation by Ruthless USA:

The Bush Administration has been doing war crimes and others worrying violations of international law in Iraq as a matter of regular policy. Beyond the now-shocking examples of torture, rape, and murder at Abu Ghraib prison, the United States has paid no attention to international law governing military occupation and terminated ted the full range of Iraqis’ national and human rights.

The Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) is the corporation who are involved to promote social justice through human rights. They have submitted a report regarding the human rights issue in Iraq and termination of human rights by USA.25 they have pointed out different categories of US violation:

 Violation I:  Failure to Allow Self-Determination.

The “full sovereignty” that the Bush Administration insists will be reinstate to Iraq on June 30, 2004 is a imitation without legal effect.24 Genuine self-determination needs the open exercise of political choice, full power over the internal and external security, and power that be over social and economic policy. Until this happens, Iraq is, and will remain, an occupied country, and the U.S. will continue subject to the laws of occupation.[8]

 Violation II: Failure to Provide Public Order and Safety

The US braked international law and result in untold destruction heritage to the people and heritage of Iraq by approving the wholesale plundering of Iraq’s public, religious, cultural, and civilian institutions and properties. The U.S. also caused a climate of unreeling lawlessness by rejecting the entire army, security, and law administration  personnel without a proper plan to preserving  public safely—predictably resulting in a sharp increase in violent crime, especially committed against women.

Violation III:  Unlawful Attacks

U.S. forces have routinely carried out indiscriminate attacks in populated areas of Iraq, creating general and unnecessary civilian fatalities. Ambulances, medical staff and facilities have been attacked by criticizer and regular forces in violation of the Geneva Conventions. To date there has been no official effort to seek accountability for these war crimes.

Violation IV: Unlawful Detention and Torture.

It is routine policy for U.S. forces to randomly arrest and imprison Iraqi civilians without any causes or due process. Up to 90% of the 43,000 Iraqis arrested under the occupation are reported to be innocent bystanders swept up in illegal mass arrests.31 The much-publicized torture, rape, and murder of detainees are a systemic practice in U.S. prisons throughout Iraq, the result of decisions made at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.33 [9]

Violation V: Collective Punishment

Taking a cue from Israeli policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territories that have been widely denounced as war crimes, the U.S. has given jointly punishment on Iraqi civilians. These policies include destroying civilian homes, imposing curfews in the area where very populated, imposing restriction of  free movement through checkpoints and road blocks, sticking down off entire towns and villages, and using injustice, overpowering forces in crowded urban areas.

 Violation VI: Failure to Ensure Vital Services.

 The U.S. is legally needed to meet the needs of Iraq’s population by providing water, sanitation, electricity and other services vital to people’s life, health, and well-being. Even though the Bush Administration’s funneling billions[10] of taxpayer dollars to major corporate contributors in secret deals to “reconstruct” Iraq, these essential services remain in disrepair, often in worse condition than before the occupation.

 Violation VII: Failure to Protect the Rights to Health and Life.

The U.S. is terminating Iraqis’ rights to life and health by not making sure the access to healthcare and to remove the spread of disease. The health infrastructure is in unsanitary conditions are widespread, drugs and medical supplies are not given full priority in short supply, clean water and sanitation are largely unavailable, and medical staff report disease outbreaks and increased mortality throughout the country.

5. Conclusion:

The U.S. military invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was an illegal war of aggression that took place without any specific authorization of the Security Council and in the absence of any justification for self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Such unilateral use of force has undermined greatly the authority of the United Nations and the existing international legal order. President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bush’s close advisers, and the top U.S. military commanders are guilty of the crime of aggression since the military attacks and bombing on Iraq were planned, initiated and carried out by them in violation of the UN Charter and the customary international law of today. They also violated numerous federal criminal laws. 42They are jointly responsible for the terrible destruction of Iraq and the unjust killing and wounding of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians38 as well as the untimely deaths of more than 2,000 soldiers from the U.S. and other coalition countries. They must be brought to justice.43 The U.S. Congress, in order to uphold the U.S. Constitution and international law, should start an immediate impeachment proceeding against Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld for their crime of lying to the American people and the world as well as the subsequent aggression and war crimes committed in Iraq.44 In addition, the victims of this illegal war, including the Iraqi civilians and soldiers as well as the wounded soldiers of the Gulf War II and relatives of the U.S. soldiers killed, along with the peace groups, should also file a formal criminal complaint with the Office of District Attorney, demanding a formal investigation and indictment against Bush and his close associates for their violation of various U.S. criminal laws and international treaties.[11]


1)Fitzmaurice, G., ‘The Foundations of the Authority of International Law and the Problem of Enforcement’, (1956) 19 MLR 1.

2)Hart, H. L. A., The Concept of Law, Chapter X (Oxford University Press, 1961).

3)Lauterpacht, H., The Function of Law in the International Community (Clarendon Press,1933),pp. 385–438.

4)Mullerson, R., ‘Sources of International Law: New Tendencies in Soviet Thinking’,(1989) 83 AJIL 494.

5)Allott, P., Eunomia: New Order for a New World, 1st edn. (Oxford University Press, 1990).Charlesworth, H., Chinkin, C., and Wright, S., ‘Feminist Approaches to InternationalLaw’, (1991) 85 AJIL 613.

6)Charney, J., ‘Universal International Law’, (1993) 87 AJIL 529. Scobbie, I., ‘Some Common Heresies About International Law’ in Malcolm Evans (ed.), International Law (Oxford University Press, 2003).

7)Scobbie, I., ‘Towards the Elimination of International Law: Some Radical Scepticism about Sceptical Radicalism’, (1990) BYIL 339. Scobbie, I., Theory and International Law: An Introduction (British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1991).

8)Scott, S., ‘International Law as Idealogy’, (1994) 5 EJIL 313. Simpson, G. (ed.), The Nature of International Law ( Dartmouth, 2001).

9) “Cheap home loans will help displaced people,” IRIN, December 1, 2004.

10) “Professionals are new targets of kidnappers,” IRIN, April 10, 2006.

11) “Facing attacks, Shi’ite Muslims flee to south,” IRIN, April 10, 2006.

12) “Local NGOs call for funds, national reconciliation,” IRIN, April 4, 2006.

13) “Rising number of displaced in south need aid, say relief agencies.” IRIN, April 4, 2006.

14) “Fallujah refugees estimated at 250,000,” Seattle Times, November 19, 2004; “More than

40,000 displaced, ministry estimates,” IRIN, April 2, 2006. In this report, the International Organisation for Migration is cited as putting the number of displaced persons at over one million “as a result of three decades of conflict.”

15) “Former UN Human Rights Chief in Iraq, Says U.S. Violating Geneva Conventions, Jailing Innocent Detainees: Interview With John Pace.” Democracy Now! February 28, 2006.

16) Lee Keath, U.S. Tries to Curb Iraq Human Trafficking,” Associated Press, April 25, 2006.

17) “One in five Iraqis ‘live in poverty’” January 25, 2006. It is useful to note that the web page for UNDP in Iraq contains minimal information.

18) UNDP, Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004. New York, 2004.

19) “Documents show U.S. military in Iraq detain wives.” Reuters News Service. 2006.

20) “Food prices rise after reduction of monthly rations.” IRIN. April 2, 2006.

21) “Lethal ‘flying gunships’ returning to Iraq.” Associated Press, March 3, 2006.

22) Dan Murphy, “In Tough Iraqi Conflict, Civilians Pay High Price,” The Christian Science Monitor, January 21, 2004.

23) “Aid agencies unable to enter Samarra,” IRIN, March 22, 2006.34

24) Khalid Jarrar, “As If There Were No Tomorrow: Sunnis Leaving Iraq,” March 5, 2006.

25) Scott Johnson, “Doctors in the Cross Hairs.” Newsweek, January 9, 2006.

26) U.S. State Department, 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.. 2006.Washington, D.C.

27) Iraq Body Count, “Iraq Death Toll in Third Year of Occupation is Highest Yet” PressRelease 13, March 9, 2006.

28) Les Roberts, et al. “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster samplesurvey.” The Lancet, 364, Number 9448, 20 November 2004, pp. 1857-1864.


30) STRATFOR, “As Samarra: A Haven for Iraqi Insurgents?” U.S. Labor against the War, July

16th, 2004. The article draws its information from STRATFOR, an intelligence and analysis website:

31) United Nations, Security Council, Resolution 1546 (2004). June 8, 2004.

32) “On Scene: How Operation Swarmer Fizzled,” March 17, 2006. A discussion on the web

page entitled: “U.S. LaunchesMajorAirAssaultin Iraq.”

33) “NGOs’ report puts kidnappings this year at 20,000.” IRIN, 21 April 2006.

34) U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)

NewsTranscript,April21, 2006.

35) Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Leslie H. Gelb, “Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq.” New YorkTimes,May1,2006.; Thomas E.Ricks, “Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed.” Washington Post,April 30, 2006; Page A18. content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901142.html.

36) “No Longer Unknowable: Falluja’s April Civilian Toll is 600.” Iraq Body County, 26October 2004.

37) Christian Lowe, Corps’ top general in Iraq criticizes handling of Fallujah,” Marine Times,

September 27, 2004.

38) “Fallujah Battle Not Military’s Choice.” September 14, 2004.,13319,FL_choice_091404,00.html.

39) “Fallujah refugees estimated at 250,000,” Seattle Times. November 19, 2004.

40) George Monbiot, “A War Crime Within a War Crime Within a War Crime.” Guardian.November 22, 2005.


42) Cited in a narrativeofthe3rd Battalion.

43) Dexter Filkins and Robert F. Worth, “Fallujah on verge of falling — fighting flares across


44) “Picture emerges of Falluja siege.” BBC News, 23 April, 2004.

45) Rory McCarthy, Uneasy truce in the city of ghosts,” The Guardian, April 24, 2004.,2763,1202163,00.html.

46) Mark LeVine, “The Occupation as War Crime,” Znet, May 11, 2004.

47) Alex Kirby, “U.S. rejects Iraq DU clean-up,” BBC News, 14 April, 2003.

48) Barbara Plett, “Iraqi alarm over DU ammunition,” BBC News. 15 January, 2001.

49) Andrew Buncombe, “U.S. admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq,” The Independent, August

10, 2003.

50) Iraq Analysis Group “Fire Bombs in Iraq: Napalm By Any Other Name.”

51) Mike Whitney, “Covering Up Napalm in Iraq,” Znet, 28 June 2005.

52) Tom Lasseter, “Order, peace elusive in Iraqi city of Samarra.” February 15, 2006.

53) Dahr Jamail, “The Siege of Tal-Afar.” Centre for Research on Globalization, September 16,



54) Chris Floyd, “Dead Cities.” Centre for Research on Globalization, April 17, 2006.


[1]The United Nations Charter Article 2 requires the peaceful resolution of disputes. Under the terms of Article 39-42, only the U.N. Security Council can determine if conditions warrant the use of force. In spite of the clear rules, and absent Security Council approval, the U.S. and the U.K. invaded Iraq in 2003, based on a rationale that generated suspicion months before the invasion.

2 “President George W. Bush’s Speech on Iraq,” The New York Times, March 18, 2003

3This is, of course, due to the veto power of the U.S. and U.K. in the Security Council—exposing the weakness of the present UN Charter

4Bruno Simma, et. al. (Editors), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, (2nd Edition),

5 Stephen C. Schlesinger, Act of Creation: the Founding of the United Nations, p.185.

6 Wolfgang Friedmann, et al. (Editors), International Law (1969), p. 882.

7For general discussion of weapons see Yeung Sik Yuen, “Human rights and weapons of mass destruction, or with indiscriminate effects, or of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2002/38. This paper was prepared at the request of the UN expert human rights body, that in 1996 found a number of weapons, including those containing depleted uranium, illegal

8Paul Waugh, “Attorney General Conceded Doubts Over Legality of War,” Independent, March 4, 2004.


9Some former Occupying Powers have military bases in countries they no longer occupy, but if they use those bases to carry out renewed military operations, then they again become an Occupying Power.

10This provision is considered so basic to humanitarian law that it is binding on all States, whether or not they have ratified Protocol Additional I.

11For instances, false statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001; war crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. 2441; torture statue, 18 U.S.C. 2340; the UN Charter; the Geneva Conventions of 1949, etc.

12“President George W. Bush’s Speech on Iraq,” The New York Times, March 18, 2003.

13 S.C.Res. 487, June 19, 1981.

14 C.G.Weeramantry, Armageddon or Brave New World (2003), p. 22.

15Bruno Simma, et. al. (Editors), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, (2nd Edition), Vol. I.

16Ibid., p. 803.

17 Stephen C. Schlesinger, Act of Creation: the Founding of the United Nations, p.185.

18 Wolfgang Friedmann, et al. (Editors), International Law (1969), p. 882.

19 See Kofy Annan’s Report: In Larger Freedom, paragraph 124. (

 20 S/2003/580, May 2003, Annex, 13th Quarterly Report of of UNMOVIC.

21 Emad Mekay, “Iraq War Launched to Protect Israel: Bush Adviser,” Inter Press Service, March 29, 2004; Jeffrey Sachs, “Saudi                    Arabia Was Real Target in Iraq War, Financial Times, August 12, 2003; and  Neil Mackay, “The West’s Battle for Oil,” Sunday Herald-Online, Oct. 6, 2002.

22 Rupert Cornwell, “Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq,” The Independent, October 7, 2005.

23 Glen Rangwala & Raymond Whitaker, “20 Lies About the War,” Independent, July 13, 2003

24Human Rights Watch, “Iraq: No ‘Sovereignty Lite’,” May 24, 2004.

25Yochi Dreazen and Christopher Cooper, “Lingering Presence: Behind the Scenes, U.S. Tightens Grip On Iraq’s Future — Hand-Picked Proxies, Advisers Will Be Given Key Roles In Interim Government — Facing Friction Over the Army,” The Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004.

26Evelyn Leopold, “Iraq Resolution Gives Wide Powers to U.S. Forces,” Reuters, May 24, 2004.

27“Protected persons shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power” Geneva Convention IV, Art. 47

28Amnesty International, ibid

29Rayment, ibid.

30Amnesty International, Iraq: Looting, lawlessness and humanitarian consequences, April 11, 2003. AI Index: MDE14/085/2003

31James Glanz, “In the Scrapyards of Jordan, Signs of a Looted Iraq,” New York Times, May 28, 2004.

32Abdul Qader-Saadi, “Fallujah Death Toll for Week More than 600,” Associated Press, April 12, 2004.

33Dahr Jamail, “Sarajevo on the Euphrates,” The Nation, April 12, 2004.

34Harvard Study Team, “Special Report: The Effect of the Gulf Crisis on the Children of Iraq,” New England Journal of Medicine 325 (1991): 977-980. Lead organizers of the Harvard Study Team and International Study Team went on to establish the Center for Economic and Social Rights in 1993

35Zaidi, S. and M. Fawzi, “Health of Baghdad’s Children,” The Lancet, 346 (2 Dec 1995).

36 Normand, R., and C. Jochnick, “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War,” 35 Harvard International Law Journal 2, at 387 (Spring 1994).

37Center for Economic and Social Rights, Water Under Siege In Iraq: US/UK Military Forces Risk Committing War Crimes by Depriving Civilians of Safe Water, (April 6, 2003),

42 See 18 USC 3332(a).

43 See the research findings published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, at

44 For instances, false statements, 18 U.S.C. 1001; war crimes statute, 18 U.S.C. 2441; torture statue, 18 U.S.C.2340; the UN charter; the Geneva Conventions of 1949, etc.

45 It is encouraging to see some actions have been taken already in this regard. For examples, see the criminal complaint filed against Rumsfeld and the U.S. military leaders in Germany on November 30,