1: the US Const. contains no right to rebel. 2: the way one fights is always limited by int'l law, regardless of the justice of the cause. 3: under int'l law, occupation is not ipso fact illegal & the mere fact of the occupation of the WB&GS is not illegal (note: Koffi Annan, once having declared it so, never repeated the claim, having found out otherwise). 4: Locke does not confer legitimacy on anyone seeking to deny to others the right of self-determination (clearly the aim of Hamas & the PLO as set forth in their respective charters) or to target and kill civilians. 5: neither does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, in discussing democratic principles, you should discard the make-it-up-as-you-go-along methods you are using, and adhere to the reasoning of the people you cite for support, such as the right to govern flowing from the consent of the governed, under which courts cannot simply confer jurisdiction upon themselves for any claims they may wish to hear.
Pakistan air strikes against Taliban kill at least 25 (Reuters)
from the article: U.S. District Court in Manhattan clears Dichter in war crimes suit