Quote Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

2. That the action of the United States and its coalition partners was, from its inception, a war of aggression -- a type of war forsworn by the USA in its signed participation in the UN. This argument takes as its base the idea that the Bush administration purposefully suppressed information/actively lied so as to make Saddam's Iraq appear to be a threat for the express purpose of conquering Iraq and installing a satrapy in the Middle East. In this instance, Waneda would win his appeal. By corallary, any persons involved in the active deception of Congress to secure the authorization for hostilities would have been responsible for war crimes/crimes against humanity.
This stance would be problematic on two counts: one, The U.N. itself has no extra-territorial authority under U.S. law. Two, the ratifying authority of the U.N. Charter was the Senate. This Senate authorized action in Iraq. The ratifying authority can stipulate at any time a change to a signed convention. In short, treaties or their ilk have weight only insofar as the signatory deems them to have such.

The confused Lieutenant's position is legally stupid. He should have sought better counsel prior to jumping off the bridge.