SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : The coming US dollar crisis
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: dybdahl who wrote (2416)11/19/2007 7:53:13 AM
From: Real Man  Read Replies (1) of 71454
 
uchicagolaw.typepad.com

Aggressive war. The invasion of Iraq was probably a violation
of international law because it was not authorized by the
United Nations (though some disagree with this) and it was not
in self-defense. The problem is that although Nuremberg
defendants were convicted of aggressive war, no one since then
has, and even the states that agreed to join the ICC put off
defining this crime though it is formally included in the Rome
Statute. So it seems unlikely that Bush could be convicted of
a crime of aggressive war. If he could, we would also have to
conduct trials of Clinton and the leaders of all the other
NATO countries for the illegal bombing of Serbia in 1999. It
is unlikely that such an expansive definition of international
crime would be acceptable to states.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News