In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

[Q]: Ten years ago I was one of a small number of UK lawyers who opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was illegal and unauthorised by the United Nations. We were all strong advocates of the notion that the rule of law was the bedrock of any civilised and democratic society. Without it our lives would be subject to a free for all in which might becomes right. The embodiment of the rule of law internationally has been the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- direct results of the devastation inflicted by the Nazi regime in Germany during the Second World War. No one wanted a repeat of such flagrant aggression, so the Charter was drawn up to replace gunboat diplomacy with peaceful measures overseen by the U.N. Security Council. This was not a new vision. In 1945 the U.N. Charter was ratified by the U.S., the UK, and the majority of the 50 states who had originally agreed to this framework. Thrashed out by experts and with massive support behind it, the document was no maverick, outlandish or oddball agreement. The Charter is not gobbledygook -- it is full of common sense, and it should be obligatory reading in every school. OPINION: Why Iraq War was fought for oil . Article 1 makes clear that the main purpose of the U.N. is to "maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" and to act in accordance with justice and the principles of international law. It is for the U.N. to determine what collective measures should be taken -- not for individual states to take unilateral or bilateral action. This is not rocket science, but the simple application of restraint and respect for the rules that Britain and America agreed to when they signed the Charter. But this is not what happened 10 years ago at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their agenda was quite different -- to remove a dictator, Saddam Hussein, whose regime was abhorrent. But regime change, however desirable, is not permitted by the Charter. If it were, the powerful nations could go round the world picking off the weak -- or more particularly the states thought to be hostile to their own ambitions. In case some politicians found it difficult to understand all this, Article 2(4) spelled it out in unequivocal terms: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Everyone recognised there might have to be exceptions to this rule, but the Charter specifically does not authorize preemptive nor preventative action(i.e. getting in first) on the basis of a perceived future threat. INTERACTIVE: How has the war changed you? The only way around this predicament was for the Bush-Blair axis to fabricate a case of threat. This they did by the knowing manipulation of flawed intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which were never found), and the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy such WMD within a 45-minute window. This argument, which was false, became the main basis for invasion because the only other route to war had been closed off by international law. The U.N. has the power to authorise military intervention once all other options have been exhausted and the peace and stability of a region is in jeopardy. At the time it became a debate about whether Iraq satisfied these criteria by its failure to abide by U.N. resolutions concerning disarmament. The principal Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November 2002, called on Iraq to disarm its WMD and cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The Council made clear they continued to be in charge but had not authorised the use of force in Iraq. EXCLUSIVE: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq . Tony Blair insisted to the British public that he would only support a war if a second Security Council resolution authorising the action was passed, but the resolution never came. Bush and Blair realised they would never get one, and so they prepared to go it alone with a cobbled together coalition. Troops had already been committed on the ground. There was no going back. This was why Bush and Blair were not prepared to allow the weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq, any more time. Inspectors had found no evidence of WMD in the lead-up to the war and never did, but were ordered to go home. I am not alone in these views. There is a substantial consensus of international legal opinion which recognises the illegality of the invasion. Kofi Annan, then the U.N. Secretary General, told the BBC in 2004 that the Charter had been breached and that the invasion was not sanctioned by the Security Council. FULL COVERAGE: The Iraq War, 10 years on . In the UK we are still waiting for the results of a public inquiry into the circumstances in which the decision to go to war was taken. Blair never wanted this inquiry but was forced by the power of the victims' families and public opinion to accede. So far two years have gone by while the government has obstructed disclosure and publication. It is intolerable and inexcusable. I believe George W. Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes as defined by international law. In 1998 the International Criminal Court was established to deal with individuals who commit international crimes. Four transgressions were agreed -- war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Unfortunately only the first three have been brought into effect. The UK, to their credit, signed up to the court. But the U.S. did not, lest its leaders end up accused of crimes before the court. ARWA DAMON: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow . Whilst the act of aggression cannot be prosecuted, war crimes committed thereafter can be. So for example to launch an attack, like the invasion of Iraq, with the knowledge that its effect is likely to cause incidental death or injury to civilians or the natural environment (Article 8) will render the perpetrator liable to prosecution. The use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in Iraq by coalition forces (euphemistically called collateral damage) upon vulnerable civilians falls within this definition. As a result, a legal consortium of which I was a part, and other groups in Europe, petitioned the ICC for action against UK politicians over their involvement in the war. Nothing has happened. Getting U.S leaders hauled before the court is even more problematic -- the Security Council could refer Americans to the court, but the U.S. is a permanent Council member and can veto any potential referral. Alternatively individual member states could incorporate these crimes of universal jurisdiction into their own domestic law. Then if a U.S. perpetrator of war crimes travelled into that country's jurisdiction, they could be arrested. The UK has such a provision, but when put to the test by UK citizens seeking arrest warrants in relation to the planned visits of Israeli political and military leaders -- who were potentially responsible for war crimes in Gaza -- the UK government reprehensibly placed impediments in the way of its future use. So George W. Bush can safely plan a visit for tea with Tony Blair in London without fear of prosecution in the UK. The whole episode regarding the Iraq War is a tawdry tale that has subverted the rule of law and tarnished the reputation of international law. Without accountability for Western states, how can we expect the rest of world to respect these principles? It is time for Bush and Blair to be thoroughly, independently and judicially investigated for the crimes I suggest have been committed and it is time for the crime of aggression to come into force. Until this is redressed, la lotta continua!
[A]: Mansfield: Bush, Blair should be tried for war crimes over invasion of Iraq .
Mansfied: Regime change is not permitted by the U.N. Charter .
Mansfield: Charter does not authorize preemptive action based on perceived threat .


[Q]: (CNN) -- Chelsea have completed the signing of England international defender Gary Cahill from Premier League rivals Bolton Wanderers for a fee of $10.7m. The 26-year-old finalized his protracted move on Monday after agreeing personal terms and passing a medical, making it the biggest English transfer so far during the January window. Cahill has signed a five-and-a-half year contract with the London club, despite doubts beginning to surface about the deal due to the length of time negotiations over his financial terms took. Who are football's top January transfer targets? He told the official Chelsea website: "Chelsea are a massive club. They look to win trophies season in season out and it is a big opportunity for me to be a part of that. "Opportunities like this, you just can't turn down," added Cahill, who has won seven England caps and will be battling with Brazilian David Luiz to partner England captain John Terry at the heart of the Chelsea defense. Speaking on Saturday about Cahill's impending arrival, Chelsea manager Andre Villas Boas told reporters: "He has good technical abilities which is important in the way we want to play and to implement our philosophy. "Competition will be tight for him but we brought him in to become better as a team." Cahill joined Bolton from Aston Villa in January 2008 and developed into one of England's top defenders during his four years at the Reebok Stadium. However, he had already indicated he was not prepared to sign a new contract, meaning Wanderers were forced to sell him or lose him for free at the end of the season. Meanwhile, the Carlos Tevez transfer saga has taken a new twist after Inter Milan president Massimo Moratti confirmed the Italian club had made a $31.7 million bid for Manchester City's Argentine striker. Speaking to reporters after Inter's 1-0 victory over city rivals AC Milan, Moratti said: "Our offer is 25 million euros -- now it depends on them whether they accept it or not." Inter have emerged as favorites to sign Tevez, after Milan pulled out of the race last week when their plan to sell Alexandre Pato to Paris St Germain fell through following the Brazilian's decision to stay at the San Siro. Ironically big-spending PSG now seem the only realistic challengers for Tevez, who has fallen out of favor at City after refusing to come off the substitutes' bench during the 3-1 Champions League defeat at Bayern Munich earlier in the season. Elsewhere in the Premier League, Blackburn central defender Chris Samba has handed in a written transfer request, despite Rovers manager Steve Kean saying the player was not for sale. The Congolese international has already been the subject of a rejected bid from QPR, while title-chasing Tottenham and French big spenders PSG have also been linked with the player. Samba issued a statement saying: "In my five years at Blackburn I have always given 100% in every game I have played. I have had several opportunities to leave but I have always stayed. "I have decided now is the right time for me to pursue a new challenge and I have asked the club to respect my decision and allow me to leave." In other transfer news, Barcelona have announced that French defender Eric Abidal has signed a new deal with the club. The 32-year-old, who had been linked with a move away from the Nou Camp, is now contracted to the European champions until June 2013, with an option to extend the deal until 2015. Abidal has made 177 appearances in four years with Barca, winning the Champions League twice and the Spanish La Liga three times.
[A]: Chelsea have completed the signing of Bolton central defender Gary Cahill .
The 26-year-old England international joins Chelsea for a fee of $10.7 million .
Cahill's transfer is the biggest in England so far during the transfer window .
Eric Abidal signs a new contract with Barcelona to end speculation about his future .


[Q]: (CNN) -- Among the entertainers who have donated their energies to the USO in recent years are Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Scarlett Johansson, Kid Rock, Queensryche, Toby Keith, Lewis Black and Robin Williams. Stephen Colbert's trip to Iraq, facilitated by the USO, was six months in the planning. But when the USO conducts a public opinion survey asking people who they think of when the military service organization is mentioned, one name always comes up. "The first thing out of their mouths is 'Bob Hope,' " said Mark Phillips, the USO's vice president for communications, with an audible shrug. "And if they're not part of the military, the list stops there." As the country celebrates Independence Day and pays tribute to the men and women who serve in its armed forces, the USO is trying to change that mindset. The organization, which was founded in 1941 to bring comfort and entertainment to America's men and women in uniform, has been focusing its support on American troops stationed around the world, particularly those in the military theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan, said Phillips. As part of that initiative, it's paying a great deal of attention to the troops' desires, whether they be for high technology -- the USO recently brought video game/HDTV entertainment centers and satellite-based telephone systems to some areas -- or a diversity of entertainers, including rappers and NFL players. The Colbert trip was a meeting of the minds between the Comedy Central star and the military, said Rachel Tischler, the USO's vice president for entertainment operations. The "Colbert Report" host, who has attested to his interest in Iraq in such venues as Newsweek magazine (he was a guest editor last month), expressed interest in going, a request that made its way up the chain of command to Gen. David Petraeus, the former leader of coalition forces in Iraq. Petraeus liked the idea, said Tischler, and the principals were put in touch with the USO. Colbert's excursion, which the comedian called "Operation Iraqi Stephen," was unusual for the USO, she added. "We try to keep our footprint small," she said, noting that the organization is reliant on the military to feed and house its guests. In "Colbert's" case, the footprint was considerably larger: Colbert's staff and several USO employees -- not to mention 150 volunteers. The trip required six months of planning. But the broadcasts went well, with Colbert paying tribute to the military and the USO's volunteers (as well as his own staff) on the "Report." He also put in a plug for USO donations: "The USO does more than bring my show to Baghdad," Colbert said on the show. "They also deliver much-needed care packages to the troops." (Whereupon, in a care-package primer, Colbert and Tom Hanks filled a box with shaving gel, Tang and a demolished ice sculpture.) The group remains greatly dependent on the kindness of strangers, said Phillips. "We're primarily a volunteer organization," he said, noting the USO has fewer than 400 paid employees and 25,000 volunteers. Though the USO does receive a small congressional appropriation -- $20 million in 2008 -- much of its funding comes from individuals, corporations and in the form of in-kind services. Jamie Masada, the owner of Los Angeles' Laugh Factory comedy club, said the organization is close to his heart. He followed a tour of Laugh Factory comedians with an invitation to service members to visit his club. "What we try to do is give the soldiers -- the people that are out there putting their lives on the line for our country ... we try to say, one day if you come to Los Angeles, if you want to be a comedian, our door is open to you. We want you to send us some material, some jokes," he said. At a recent USO fundraiser, five service members were given the opportunity to compete for the title of "funniest service member." The group was given advice from several notable comedians, including Tom Dreesen and Paul Rodriguez, and the winner received cash, gift certificates and a performance at the club, complete with name on the marquee. A number of performers return again and again. Toby Keith has gone on at least seven USO tours; "He insists on going to the smallest, most remote places," said Phillips. Actor Gary Sinise and his Lt. Dan Band are also frequent participants. "There aren't enough words to describe just how grateful I am to our nation's troops," said Keith in a press release before this year's tour. "I've participated in several USO tours over the years and I've seen firsthand their sacrifice. And I will not stop doing all I can to show my support and lift their spirits." Many entertainers shy away from publicity, particularly on the home front. "We have celebrities come to Bethesda Naval Hospital, Walter Reed ... and they almost always insist we don't talk about [the visits]," said Tischler. At its core, Phillips said, the USO remains dedicated to the needs of U.S. service members. "Service members in Iraq and Afghanistan are frequently at small, remote bases," said Phillips. "There's little in the way of creature comforts. Those are the things we try to deliver."
[A]:
USO often brings thoughts of Bob Hope, but organization well beyond that .
Group offers technology, entertainment to troops overseas .
USO played key role in arranging "Colbert Report" from Iraq .