Nuremberg Abandoned.

[Adam D]

"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other countries.

(http://www.zmag.org/content/showarti...15&ItemID=3426 )

[Adam D]

What "international judicial panels with enforcement powers" do you find?

There isn't any international polity capable of enforcing a decision by an international judicial agent, even though preemptive war is banned by the Geneva Conventions.

[Adam D]

The omnipotent veto power of the US in the UNSC has blocked, and will continue to block international judiciary action against both itself and Israel. I'm not suggesting the US is the first in line since WW2 to engage in preemptive war, I really just thought it was a nice retort to the administration rhetoric about the virtues of this preemptive war.

Considering the nature of the UN, do you really consider any judiciary agent it creates to have enforcement powers? Like you said, "they are only as restrictive as the signatories allow" of international treaties, so too is the situation with the UN, at least when it comes to powerful nations. I highly doubt an international war crimes court would ever be established for the purpose of accusing and trying Bush for this war, and if it did, it is beyond speculation to think he would show up. What is really the case is that treaties and the UN are only as restrictive as the dominating parties allow.