[JURIST] [10:16 PM ET - recorded video also available] My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.

My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her. [END 10:20 PM ET]

[JURIST] BBC reports explosions heard in Baghdad, US confirms start of war - the President will speak at 10:15 PM ET. For continuing news and bulletins, watch BBC-TV live.

[JURIST] The Office of the Staff Judge Advocate at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, offers online interactive training on the law of armed conflict, with questions and a scoresheet. Learn about key concepts, rules of engagement, combatants and non-combatants, targets, weapons, POWs and more. If you were sent into battle in Iraq, how would do you? Take the test and find out.

[JURIST] The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office Wednesday issued a Worldwide Threat warning to alert British nationals to the heightened risk of terrorist attacks, throughout the world, during military action in Iraq. Read the complete text of the warning, now on the FCO website.

[JURIST] White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer commented on the President's legal case for war against Iraq at a press briefing Wednesday afternoon:

He believes, number one, based on the reviews conducted by the attorneys, that there already exists a legal basis both in international law, as well as in domestic law, for the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein. And that is also found in Security Council Resolution 678 and 687, as well as 1441. The President also believes that there is a gathering threat from Iraq, that with the failure by Saddam Hussein to disarm of his weapons of mass destruction presents a threat to the security of the United States. And therefore, he has come to the conclusion that after exhausting the diplomacy, that military force must be used if Saddam Hussein does not get out of the country.

That summarizes it for him. In terms of precedents...I think some people have made the case -- and different people will have different historical views of these things -- but you can look at the Cuban missile crisis, of course, where there was a decision made without the United States being "attacked" to conduct a quarantine or an embargo, which, of course, international lawyers will tell you is an act of war.

And so I think you're going to find the historians, legal scholars will have differing conclusions about these matters. But the conclusion the President reaches is that Iraq's failure to disarm presents a threat to the people of the United States and, therefore, he is prepared to use force.

[JURIST] The United Nations has released a summary of statements made Wednesday on the Iraq crisis by delegates to the UN Security Council. Recorded video of the full session is now available from C-SPAN; video of individual statements by Dr. Hans Blix , the foreign ministers of Germany , France , the Russian Federation , the United Kingdom , the United States , Iraq and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is now available from the UN. In his closing remarks the Secretary General said:

I am sure all members of this Council will agree that we must do everything we can to mitigate this imminent disaster, which could easily lead to epidemics and starvation. Under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents; in any area under military occupation, responsibility for the welfare of the population falls on the occupying power. Without in any way assuming or diminishing that ultimate responsibility, we in the United Nations will do whatever we can to help.

[JURIST] The Senate Judiciary Committee convened a hearing Wednesday on S. 303, legislation that would ban human reproductive cloning but allow stem cell research to move forward with federal oversight. Read the opening statement of Committee Chairman Senator Orrin Hatch.

[JURIST] The US State Department Wednesday released excerpts from a press briefing by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer indicating that President Bush has sent to Congress the official legal determinations for war required under the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq [text]:

Last night, consistent with authorization for the use of military force against Iraq resolution the routine determinations required by the resolution were sent to the Hill. These are the determinations that reliance on the United States diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States continuing against the threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. The resolution states that prior to hostilities or within 48 hours after hostilities, these determinations must be made from a legal point of view.

[JURIST] The US Department of Justice Office of Legislative Affairs Wednesday posted online a letter sent to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle from Acting Assistant Attorney General Jamie Baker, indicating that contrary to suggestions that had been made on the Senate floor, no one in the White House or the Department of Justice had reviewed Estrada's appeal, certiorari and amicus recommendations authored during his tenure in the Bush and Clinton Solicitor General's Offices before deciding whether to nominate him to the DC Circuit. By the same token, Baker said the decision not to release those memoranda was not based on the Administration's knowledge of their contents, but rather on the traditional confidentiality of professional opinions of attorneys in the Solicitor General's office. Read the full text of the letter to Senator Daschle [PDF].

[JURIST] Speaking Wednesday in the UN Security Council debate on the crisis in Iraq, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said:

it is imperative that the action of the international community should be guided by principles. First of all, respect for law. The keystone of international order, it must apply in all circumstances, but even more so when the gravest decision is to be made: to use force. Only on this condition can force be legitimate. Only on this condition can it restore order and peace.

[JURIST] University of Pittsburgh law professor Jules Lobel writes in Wednesday's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits one country from attacking another except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization. Our imminent invasion of Iraq will also violate Article 2(4). As U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan put it recently, "If the U.S. and others were to go outside the council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the charter."

The U.N. Charter was in large part drafted by the United States in 1945. It is a solemn treaty commitment ratified by the U.S. Senate and under our Constitution constitutes a part of our "supreme law." The Charter has played an important role in preserving some semblance of international order in the turbulent post-World War II world. Our striking international isolation as we approach this war can not be attributed to French petulance, Russian reluctance or a hostile world. Rather, it is in large part a reflection of the fact that this war deeply offends a fundamental principle of the charter, which is widely accepted by international public opinion. This war will be an illegal, aggressive war.

[JURIST] Amnesty International [advocacy website] Wednesday addressed an open letter to the leaders of the United States, the UK, Spain and Iraq, calling on them to ensure that international human rights and humanitarian law are fully upheld in the event of war. In particular, AI calls on warring parties to

• Protect civilians by strictly adhering to the rules of international humanitarian law
• Refrain from using indiscriminate weapons
• Treat civilian detainees fairly and humanely
• Protect the rights of combatants
• Ensure the security and humanitarian needs of the Iraqi population are fully met
• Protect and assist refugees and internally displaced persons
• Make sure that perpetrators of crime are brought to justice under international law
• Commit to using the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to investigate violations of the Geneva Conventions
• Support and facilitate the deployment of human rights monitors in Iraq as soon as the security situation permits
• Support the UN in their humanitarian and human rights work

[JURIST] Military action against Iraq will set the stage for a variety of legal problems and issues relating not so much to the overall legality of the operation but to its implementation consistent with the so-called "law of war" or "law of armed conflict". Review a brief backgrounder on possible legal problem areas for an invasion of Iraq - including human shields, targetting, collateral damage, and weapons of mass destruction - from the Washington DC-based Center for Defense Information. For a comprehensive recent survey of the law of armed conflict, see The Law of War Workshop Deskbook [PDF], published in 2000 by the International and Operational Law Department of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's School

[JURIST] Ed Morgan, a Canadian law professor at the University of Toronto, outlines a humanitarian legal case for military action against Iraq in Wednesday's National Post:

Over the past several decades international law has been let out a little at the waist, moving beyond the UN Charter's snug procedures and the impractical Security Council. South African jurist Richard Goldstone, the former Yugoslavia war crimes prosecutor who chaired the Independent International Commission on Kosovo in 2000, has stated that this is particularly the case where "a vulnerable people" are "threatened with catastrophe." The plight of the Kurds, Shiites, and Iraqi opposition could not be more aptly described.

This thread of thought has now been woven through the fabric of international law. Vietnam invaded Cambodia to effect an overthrow -- a regime change, if you will -- of the Pol Pot gang. Tanzania likewise sent its armed forces into Uganda to rid that country of the tyrannical Idi Amin. Syria, currently a Security Council member and not typically a model of humanitarian conduct, intervened massively in Lebanon's grueling civil war, while NATO, with political support from all of Europe and most of the Arab and Islamic world, bombed Serbia into submission to halt the persecution of Kosovar Albanians.

None of these brought Security Council condemnation, but rather have provided a model for others to emulate.... Looking at the plight of the Iraqis under Saddam Hussein, one cannot help but think that humanitarian intervention is the right doctrinal fit. President Bush should at least try the argument on for size.

[JURIST] Iraq's National Assembly met Wednesday in emergency session to voice its support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Reuters has online video from the Assembly, with participants' comments.

[JURIST] A survey of Harvard Law School [official website] students reported in Wednesday's Harvard Crimson suggests that a large majority would support racial profiling if such screening reduced air travel delays.... Boston College Law School [official website] has announced that US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will be its 2003 Commencement Speaker [BC Law press release].

[JURIST] Steve Krupa SJ, professor of religious studies at Cleveland's John Carroll University, spoke March 13 on "Just War and Nonviolence: Christian and Catholic Perspectives". Audio of his lecture is online from John Carroll in two parts, the first setting out the basics of just war doctrine , and the second considering the application of just war doctrine to military action against Iraq . A handout on just war and Iraq is also available.

[JURIST] Columbia law professor Michael Dorf offers his take on the question "Is the war on Iraq lawful?" in Wednesday's edition of Findlaw's Writ. Dorf concludes with a telling tale from ancient history:

In Chapter Seventeen of his History of the Peloponnesian War (between Athens and Sparta in the Fifth Century BC), Thucydides recounted the reaction of the people of the small neutral island state of Melos to the invading Athenian navy. Before attacking Melos, the Athenians gave the Melians an opportunity to surrender. The Melians attempted to persuade the Athenians to leave them alone. According to Thucydides, the Athenians would have none of it. Questions of justice arise only among equals, the Athenians said, while the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

The Melians refused to surrender; the Athenians prevailed militarily; they killed the adult Melian males; and they sold the women and children into slavery. But ultimately with aid from Persia (modern-day Iran), Sparta defeated and conquered Athens, which never regained its glory.

Even as we hope that President Bush can bring the spirit of Athenian democracy to the cradle of civilization, we may fear that he has forged a different, and darker, connection to ancient Athens.

[JURIST] The US First Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Tuesday a petition to rehear a case filed by unnamed US servicemen, parents of servicemen and six Democratic congressmen claiming that a formal declaration of war from Congress is necessary before any attack on Iraq. The Court said:

Plaintiffs have filed a "petition for rehearing on an emergency basis," relying on events which have occurred since the court's Opinion of March 13, 2003. As we said in that opinion, "Ripeness doctrine involves more than simply the timing of the case. It mixes various mutually reinforcing constitutional and prudential considerations." Although some of the contingencies described in our opinion appear to have been resolved, others have not. Most importantly, Congress has taken no action which presents a "fully developed dispute between the two elected branches." Thus the case continues not to be fit for judicial review.