My reaction to Gen. Petraeus's dissertation...

[jmm99]

which will be rewarded by some Googling. Here is a start for that task.

The basic idea to challenge a war legally (positing that the President and Congress are more or less on the same page) is to resurrect Nuremberg and Tokyo.

Those trials, besides "normal" war crimes, alleged Crimes against Peace (waging "aggressive" war) and Crimes against Humanity (genocides), as well as conspiracies to commit the basic charges. Crimes against Peace present a Jus ad Bellum question. Crimes against Humanity present a Jus in Bello issue.

There is no point in me going beyond that. And, it has been done by others (with whom, Mr Boyle will no doubt agree). As to Gulf I, Ramsey Clark did a full mock trial - A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq, etc. As to the current armed conflicts, you can ruminate in the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center War Crimes Research Portal.

In the latter source, you will find many links to Mr Boyle's arguments - Just War, etc.

The probabilities of any of those argumernts working on SCOTUS (in a Jus ad Bellum case) range between nil and null.

PS: looks like some of the Cox links are broken.