Not on par with a constitutional amendment, but on par with federal law. Which a moment’s thought would make clear, because otherwise a treaty agreed to by 51 senators and the President could modify the Constitution, something that actually takes 2/3rds of each house of Congress and 3/4s of the state legislatures to do.
The Constitution, the laws made by Congress under its Constitutional powers, and treaties ratified by Congress are all “supreme law of the land.” But just as laws made by Congress can’t abridge the Constitution, neither can a treaty.
I had a professor who said I would be capable of getting a master’s degree. Does that mean I have one even though I didn’t actually go through any of the steps to get one?
If one wants a master’s degree, there are a series of steps that must be followed before that degree is real. That series of steps was not followed. Ergo, there is no master’s degree.
If Kofi Annan wants the US invasion to be illegal, there are a series of steps that must be followed before it is. Those steps were not followed.
If Kofi Anan says it was illegal, it was illegal. It was illegal even if he didn’t say it. It’s illegal if nobody ever says it. If I run a red light and no cop sees it, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t illegal. You guys are inventing criteria that don’t exist. There are no steps. It was illegal by the letter of the UN Charter. I can’t believe anybody still tries to argue anything else with a straight face.
Art I, Sec 8 of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Congress may not pass a law that limits a future Congress’ ability to exercise that power. Any treaty purporting to similarly limit Congress’ power under Art 1, Sec 8 is likewise void.
Who cares? We acted in accord with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. The Secretary-General is certainly entitled to his opinion, but the position of UN Secretary-General has no particular power to declare member nations’ actions illegal. We might just ask well as the President of Amnesty International or the winner of Texas’ “Miss Onion Fest 2010” (Brittanie Garza, for those interested) what their opinions are.
I don’t know. They would probably try to avoid ruling on it, but I’m saying that it was plainly illegal regardless of what any court says. Go back to my traffic analogy. Is speeding only illegal if you get convicted of it?
I can’t believe that you believe your opinion is more valid than what the U.N. has actually done.
Kofi can say whatever he likes. Until the U.N. actually does something, whatever Kofi says doesn’t matter.
Side note, a question on the U.N and overthrowing governments. You’ve stated that for this to be legal it has to be in self-defense. What about defending another country? How does that fit in?
Remember, this whole mess started when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Congress did not declare war, but it had no legal authority do so anyway because CONGESS had already ratified a treaty agreeing not to ovethrow other governments for non-defensive reasons.
This whole angle is only an attempt to say it didn’t violate US law anyway. It doesn’t change the fact that it still violated international law, and international law trumps US law.
No we didn’t. Nothing in the Security Resolution authorized regime change, and the Council refused to authorize the invasion. We acted in contravention of the the Council not “in accord” with it.
Congress can’t make that agreement, for the same reason that Congress can’t pass a term limits bill. The 104th Congress can’t limit the ability of the 110th Congress to declare war.
The Resolution said, “Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area…”
That alone is the justification. We are a member state. We used all necessary means. End of story.
No we didn’t. The Council did not approve the invasion and did not authorize regime change. The United States acted unilaterally, without UN authority and in violation of the UN Charter. It was illegal, and the Secretary-General said it was illegal. You can’t bullshit that we were acting in accordance with the UN when the UN was telling us not to do it.
I didn’t agree with the invasion of iraq and i believe it was a breach of international law but it was nto a breach of US law ANY WAY YOU CUT IT.
Congress can pass a law saying one thing one day and pass a law saying the exact opposite the next day and the one that comes later in time sticks. This is MSOT frequently seen int he case of ratified treaties. A ratified treaty is like a law but if congress passes a law the very next day that contradicts teh treaty, the new law applies.
The invasion was authorized. It was illegal in the sense taht it broke all sort os international laws but it didn’t break US law.
You seem to have some ridiculous idea that the Secretary-General has the power to issue proclamations of fact, or something, declaring what the UN believes on any given topic. Few ideas could be more wrong.