Here's a slight surprise: Benjamin B. Ferencz, one of the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trials, calls the invasion of Iraq a "clear breach of law" and claims that President George W. Bush acted in full knowledge that he did not have a United Nations mandate for the war. In this interview (accompanied by a disturbingly mesmerizing photoshop of Bush in what looks like a leather Cruising vest), Ferencz says a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
For an idea of Ferencz' ideas about war crimes, check out his speech to the Library of Congress last year, in which he reminisces about putting Nazis in the dock. Before dismissing him as a Bushitler KoolAid drinker, dig his suggestions for prosecuting Saddam Hussein.
I'm a war crimes skeptic: Anybody who says yes to war and pretends he isn't saying yes to rape, torture, and mass murder is worse than a fool. Interestingly though, Ferencz reaches his conclusion for the same reason, that the ultimate war crime is starting a war: "There's no such thing as a war without atrocities, but war-making is the biggest atrocity of all." His extended argument against Bush:
The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States, formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found—then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq—which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter.