# Is the US wrong to ban the Iranian UN ambassador from entering the USA? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 12, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920 "2014-04-12T05:06:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/101 "2014-04-12T17:31:26Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I thought this board was about combating ignorance rather than a competition to win debates. > > Certainly ridicule and abuse weaken someone’s standing, but they do not alter the truth. The truth then: U.S. is not in violation of its treaty obligations because it says it isn’t. Since it has made it known from the moment it ratified the treaty what it considered its obligations to be, it has behaved _absolutely_ appropriately under the terms of the treat. Further, treaties are only functional as the signatories agree, if the United States interprets the treaty differently than the other signatories that makes the treaty itself invalid as they only are valid when there is mutual agreement. Congress has no legal obligation to enact executing legislation for a non self-executing treaty. Our political system is an open book, just as two CEOs can negotiate an agreement that gets rejected by the board, so entities that negotiate with us should be aware of what can happen with an agreed upon treaty. Considering many other countries have such issues, this is just a common part of the international system. It is thus dishonest to present it as out of the norm, and in fact it must be considered the norm and the assumption should be all international actors are aware of treaties that may conflict with domestic law. Treaties are not law, it is up to the parties to negotiate what to do when these situations arise, as happened in the case of Mexican nationals. Mexico wanted us to do one thing, we did another. End of story. Since there is no legal arbiter we were within our rights as were they. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/102 "2014-04-12T17:32:25Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > Not that it matters, but I was born in Istanbul, spent most of my childhood in Turkey and India, and have been overseas many times as an adult. And I’m not rattled, just faintly–very faintly–amused. I was obviously not talking about you in the same way that you were obviously not asserting that I was “Effete European leftist…” engaging in “reflexive masturbatory pseudo outrage.” Because that would be abuse and hence against the rules! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/103 "2014-04-12T17:32:46Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The USA is. Assign it a status- honorable with treaties/dishonorable with treaties. It is the same as all other countries in this regard. > [@](#): > > The very fact that a judicial system allows non treaty making parties to alter the terms of a Trety post hoc is a problem. Most other governments do not allow subsidiary components to overrule the sovereignty of the Head of State. The US chooses to do so with its rather quaint slant in the Constitution. No other state/nation that i know of can have its Head of State sign a Treaty, and then have a subsidiary body alter its terms post hoc. The U.S. Senate cannot alter a treaty it ratifies, it can either ratify it or not. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/104 "2014-04-12T17:33:28Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is a person specifically involved in the hostage taking. There’s a difference between having a good relationship with Iran and having a good relationship with Iranian terrorists. They aren’t the same thing. Martin McGuinness was a terrorist. We got over it! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/105 "2014-04-12T17:34:56Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Martin McGuinness was a terrorist. We got over it! The UK chose to negotiate an end to that conflict. That was its choice. Our choice is just as valid, as is the choice of Israel to prosecute many Nazis for decades after the Holocaust. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/106 "2014-04-12T17:35:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > It is the same as all other countries in this regard. > > The U.S. Senate cannot alter a treaty it ratifies, it can either ratify it or not. Agreed, but Congress can add provisos which affect how the legal system will interpret the Treaty- as they did in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/107 "2014-04-12T17:35:59Z")
[Ponsonby Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponsonby_Rule) as a point of fact some legislative approval of treaties is common in many countries. [Treaty ratification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty) wiki article also contains other examples. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/108 "2014-04-12T17:36:49Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The UK chose to negotiate an end to that conflict. That was its choice. Our choice is just as valid, as is the choice of Israel to prosecute many Nazis for decades after the Holocaust. Yes; it is called political and emotional maturity. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/109 "2014-04-12T17:37:58Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Yes; it is called political and emotional maturity. I agree, negotiating an end to the Troubles is that. There’s no similarity to the situation with Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/110 "2014-04-12T17:38:26Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > [Ponsonby Rule](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponsonby_Rule) as a point of fact some legislative approval of treaties is common in many countries. [Treaty ratification](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_ratification#Ratification_of_an_international_treaty) wiki article also contains other examples. There is a difference between ratification and then welching on the deal, and refusal to ratify and further negotiation. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/111 "2014-04-12T17:40:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I agree, negotiating an end to the Troubles is that. There’s no similarity to the situation with Iran. “Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.” ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/112 "2014-04-12T17:42:02Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > The truth then: > > U.S. is not in violation of its treaty obligations because it says it isn’t. Since it has made it known from the moment it ratified the treaty what it considered its obligations to be, it has behaved _absolutely_ appropriately under the terms of the treat. Further, treaties are only functional as the signatories agree, if the United States interprets the treaty differently than the other signatories that makes the treaty itself invalid as they only are valid when there is mutual agreement. > > Congress has no legal obligation to enact executing legislation for a non self-executing treaty. Our political system is an open book, just as two CEOs can negotiate an agreement that gets rejected by the board, so entities that negotiate with us should be aware of what can happen with an agreed upon treaty. Considering many other countries have such issues, this is just a common part of the international system. It is thus dishonest to present it as out of the norm, and in fact it must be considered the norm and the assumption should be all international actors are aware of treaties that may conflict with domestic law. > > Treaties are not law, it is up to the parties to negotiate what to do when these situations arise, as happened in the case of Mexican nationals. Mexico wanted us to do one thing, we did another. End of story. Since there is no legal arbiter we were within our rights as were they. So you do agree that the Solemn word of the USA stated in a Treaty is not worth a Tinker’s Dam’. That was my original contention and I am pleased that you agree with it. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/113 "2014-04-12T17:45:52Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > There is a difference between ratification and then welching on the deal, and refusal to ratify and further negotiation. There is a reason some treaties are self-executing. If you negotiate one that isn’t with the United States then it’s tacit acceptance that just because the Senate ratifies it, doesn’t mean the full Congress will enact executing legislation. Many countries have a dual division of ratification and enacting legislation. Many countries also have domestic laws which are held as sacrosanct and can and do overrule treaty obligations. Thus, the United States is about on par. There’s tons of examples of this, but the German art one is instructive because it is topical and easy to understand. Germany has a legal obligation under treaties to restore art to its rightful owners when that art was seized during the Nazi regime. However, public museums ran by the Federal states often hold art that has never been checked for provenance even when Jewish groups insist these museums most likely contain Nazi stolen art. Under the laws of Germany the Federal government is limited in what it can do, and is thus not able to fully comply with its treaty obligations. This is actually different from the Consular Rights case in the United States. Texas law didn’t trump a treaty in that case. Instead, a treaty signed in the 60s was never properly enabled by Federal enacting legislation, which was the responsibility of the Federal Congress. This left the Supreme Court no option but to say that there is no conflict with Federal law to let Texas proceed with the execution, and no conflict with the treaty because it was not self-enacting. If Congress had appropriately passed its enacting legislation, said legislation would be valid based on the treaty, and would trump Texas law and the 4-5 Mexican nationals who have been executed since this became an issue would have had legal redress. So there the failure to live up to the treaty is on the Congress, not Texas, which isn’t intrinsically associated with the treaty. In a way we are different from Germany in that if we had a similar art law that was enacted Federally, Texas museums could be compelled by Federal authorities to investigate their holdings. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/114 "2014-04-12T17:47:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > There is a reason some treaties are self-executing. If you negotiate one that isn’t with the United States then it’s tacit acceptance that just because the Senate ratifies it, doesn’t mean the full Congress will enact executing legislation. > > Many countries have a dual division of ratification and enacting legislation. Many countries also have domestic laws which are held as sacrosanct and can and do overrule treaty obligations. Thus, the United States is about on par. There’s tons of examples of this, but the German art one is instructive because it is topical and easy to understand. > > Germany has a legal obligation under treaties to restore art to its rightful owners when that art was seized during the Nazi regime. However, public museums ran by the Federal states often hold art that has never been checked for provenance even when Jewish groups insist these museums most likely contain Nazi stolen art. Under the laws of Germany the Federal government is limited in what it can do, and is thus not able to fully comply with its treaty obligations. > > This is actually different from the Consular Rights case in the United States. Texas law didn’t trump a treaty in that case. Instead, a treaty signed in the 60s was never properly enabled by Federal enacting legislation, which was the responsibility of the Federal Congress. This left the Supreme Court no option but to say that there is no conflict with Federal law to let Texas proceed with the execution, and no conflict with the treaty because it was not self-enacting. > > If Congress had appropriately passed its enacting legislation, said legislation would be valid based on the treaty, and would trump Texas law and the 4-5 Mexican nationals who have been executed since this became an issue would have had legal redress. > > So there the failure to live up to the treaty is on the Congress, not Texas, which isn’t intrinsically associated with the treaty. In a way we are different from Germany in that if we had a similar art law that was enacted Federally, Texas museums could be compelled by Federal authorities to investigate their holdings. Plenty of special pleading. If people did business this way, the system would collapse. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/115 "2014-04-12T17:48:15Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > “Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia. The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.” We have not negotiated any normalization of relations with Iran. If as part of that we were asked to no longer consider persons involved in the hostage crisis to be terrorists/criminals I’d be fine with that. But in exchange for a whole lot of nothing I see no reason to change our stance. The UK got peace with the IRA and largely an end to the Irish troubles for its actions. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/116 "2014-04-12T17:49:34Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Plenty of special pleading. If people did business this way, the system would collapse. I agree. But businesses are subordinate to national law, which can be enforced vigorously. Countries are not subordinate to any law other than the law of _realpolitik_. This is reality and all countries recognize this. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/117 "2014-04-12T17:56:41Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I agree. But businesses are subordinate to national law, which can be enforced vigorously. Countries are not subordinate to any law other than the law of _realpolitik_. This is reality and all countries recognize this. What is your view of Putin invading Crimea. Is he now to be considered untrustworthy and devious because he ignored his country’s Treaty obligations to respect Ukrainian Crimean sovereignty. Or was he acting totally morally, rationally and responsibly in the international arena? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/118 "2014-04-12T17:58:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > We have not negotiated any normalization of relations with Iran. If as part of that we were asked to no longer consider persons involved in the hostage crisis to be terrorists/criminals I’d be fine with that. But in exchange for a whole lot of nothing I see no reason to change our stance. The UK got peace with the IRA and largely an end to the Irish troubles for its actions. So you believe that the US can morally use its international disagreements to interfere with the smooth working of the UN? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/119 "2014-04-12T18:14:42Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Martin McGuinness, IRA Assassin and terrorist, PIRA Commander in Londonderry during the era when Mountbatten was murdered, now deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, was greeted at a state banquet by Queen Elizabeth last week when the Queen met the President of the Republic of Ireland and prominent Irish people were invited. > > Start practicing your Haydn now! > > That is political maturity. Respectfully, you might want to be careful before accusing me of needing to show “maturity” since most of your posts in this thread don’t strike me as being terribly mature. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/120 "2014-04-12T18:25:34Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > What is your view of Putin invading Crimea. Is he now to be considered untrustworthy and devious because he ignored his country’s Treaty obligations to respect Ukrainian Crimean sovereignty. No, Putin should have been considered untrustworthy for years prior to that. But all national leaders should be regarded with extreme skepticism by other leaders and by citizens too for that matter. > [@](#): > > Or was he acting totally morally, rationally and responsibly in the international arena? 1. Morally - Maybe, maybe not. Lots of ways to slice that one. 2. Rationally - I’d argue no, but I regard Crimea as potentially a strategic misstep because it only makes sense for propaganda purposes. It’s actually going to be an economic drain on Russia as long as it’s part of Russia (which is likely to be for a long time.) It makes some rational sense for Putin to try and block Ukraine’s closer ties with the EU and NATO but the Crimea move didn’t need to be part of that and isn’t even logically advancing those aims but countering them. 3. Responsibly - Probably not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920.md?page=7)