How can you have an "illegal war"?
Whose law are you using? Countries aren't subject to laws, without agreeing to them via a treaty.
"International Commission of Jurists", gee I'll bet the US government is quaking in their boots at the pronouncement from these guys.
Oh, wait, this is who they are:
There is no international law. I'd be surprised if the US has ratified their authority; and (unlike individuals born into a country), individual countries have primacy. There are barely laws that govern individual countries.
Anyway, to continue quoting from YOUR source:
Every point there was broached by the "enemy combatants" in Iraq. No wonder the US was peeved that they were fighting a bunch of people who fight without concern for ANY of these. And you call yourself a humanitarian. tsk tsk
As for your second link:
The US and Britain acted on their own legal interpretation of resolution 1441. You can't have it both ways; you can't advocate the legal system (i.e. your ICJ, above) AND rule out due legal process for the countries.
See the problem here yet? Even though you've made up your mind that events are a certain way, that doesn't mean your fantasy matches reality.
I guess all the nay-sayers were wrong: the elections were held and there is now a sovereign Iraqi government.
So much for your rabid rantings about "illegal war"; I see a legitimate democratic Iraqi government, voted for by the beleaguered people who were being starved and tortured by Saddam. That sounds like justice to me. And isn't that what law is about?