# Kofi says Iraq war was illegal under UN charter **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2004, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660 "2004-09-16T08:56:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/41 "2004-09-19T21:32:28Z")
From [Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)](http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm): > [@](#): > > This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. 34 It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/42 "2004-09-19T22:12:19Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Not to get caught in a shit storm or anything, but isn’t it entirely possible to have proof without a vote? Political interests come into play during the call for a vote, as you know. Sure, it’s possible to have proof without a vote, but it’s not possible to have a legal justification for an attack on sovereignty without a vote. (And not for nothing, but the US did _not_ have proof, either with or without a vote. > [@](#): > > Dude, are you seriously claiming that treaties supercede the constitution? Really? No. That’s not what 'Supreme Law" means. It just means that treaties are _on a par_ with the most authoritative parts of the Constitution. They cannot be broken by a whim or a vote by Congress. It is my understanding that the Constitution does not stipulate a process for dissolving a treaty but it would have to take something similar to repealing an amendment. BTW, the US has not expressed any intent or desire to resign from the UN Charter. We just decided to ignore it. And I will say once again that US law is irrelevant when it comes to questions pf international law. Should we honor or treaties or not? Yes or no? Does anyone still believe we were actually defending ourselves against anything in Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/43 "2004-09-19T22:51:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > It is my understanding that the Constitution does not stipulate a process for dissolving a treaty but it would have to take something similar to repealing an amendment. You are correct, but the court’s opinion, per my quote above, makes it clear how the hierarchy works: 1. The Constitution 2. The most recent statute 3. A treaty (ratified prior to any given statute) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/44 "2004-09-19T22:53:03Z")
Oops. You are correct in the first part, but not equating the process to ratifying an amendment. Subsequent Congressional statutes override treaties, where they conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/45 "2004-09-19T23:33:11Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > You are correct, but the court’s opinion, per my quote above, makes it clear how the hierarchy works: > > 1. The Constitution > 2. The most recent statute > 3. A treaty (ratified prior to any given statute) A ratified Treaty is on a par with the consitution. They can not be overridden by statutes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/46 "2004-09-19T23:58:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A ratified Treaty is on a par with the consitution. They can not be overridden by statutes. Wow. You are directly contradicting the opinion of the court in the case I cited. Did you read it? I’ll quote the relevant part again: > [@](#): > > …when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null… A treaty is on par with a statute, and the Constitution stands above both. Statutes passed after the ratification of a treaty nullify the treaty to the extent that they are in conflict. Couldn’t be clearer. If you have a cite that counters mine, let’s see it. Until then, your statement has been proven false. I really don’t have anything else to say on the matter. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/47 "2004-09-20T00:00:16Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > A ratified Treaty is on a par with the consitution. They can not be overridden by statutes. So you’re saying that the U.S. can’t withdraw from a treaty without a two-thirds vote of each house, ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures? Or, since the Constitution doesn’t really say anything about the subject of withdrawing from treaties one way or the other, that the U.S. can _never_ withdraw from a treaty, by any procedure whatsoever? There has certainly been a debate between advocates of the “Imperial Presidency” view of government and advocates of Congressional checks and balances as to whether or not the President alone can withdraw the U.S. from a treaty, or whether it would require [Congressional approval](http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r107:S10JN2-0014:). If the U.S. can withdraw from treaties only with Congressional approval, this puts them essentially on the same level as statutes, but below the Constitution. But I think the notion that we can never withdraw from a treaty, even with Congressional approval, is pretty far-fetched. And the [Supremacy Clause](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html) reads as following: > [@](#): > > This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. I don’t see anything there that puts treaties on a higher plane than statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, constitutionally speaking. Both are the “supreme law of the land”. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/48 "2004-09-20T00:18:12Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > I don’t see anything there [in the Supremacy Clause] that puts treaties on a higher plane than statutes passed by the U.S. Congress, constitutionally speaking. Both are the “supreme law of the land”. Exactly. And courts have made it clear how to resolve those instances where treaties and statutes contradict each other. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/49 "2004-09-20T00:46:32Z")
I didn’t say that treaties were on a higher plane than federal statutes, I said that they couldn’t be _overridden_ by statutes. They are on the _same_ level. BTW, when did Congress vote to dissolve their treaty with the UN Charter? Are we still a signatory or not? Are we still bound by it or is it something which can simply be ignored at our whim. And I must say again, that US law is irrelevant anyway. International law cannot be circumvented by sovereign law. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/50 "2004-09-20T00:53:33Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I didn’t say that treaties were on a higher plane than federal statutes, I said that they couldn’t be _overridden_ by statutes. And I clearly pointed out that the Supreme Court says they can. Sorry, they get to decide, not you. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/51 "2004-09-20T00:56:35Z")
The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s not the first time. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/52 "2004-09-20T01:03:28Z")
That’s an entirely different subject. There are countless SC decisions I disagree with (from the minimum wage, to affirmative action). Somehow I don’t expect you’d allow me to get away with claiming my opinion is fact in those instances. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/53 "2004-09-20T01:09:19Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I didn’t say that treaties were on a higher plane than federal statutes, I said that they couldn’t be _overridden_ by statutes. They are on the _same_ level. But statutes can be overridden by other statutes. So, you are clearly positing a third position for treaties. If you read the full context of the supremacy clause, it is clearly addressing itself to the States. That is, it is saying that treaties are on the same level as statutes when State actions are to be considered. It really does not say nor imply that treaties have any super statute quality. If anything, it says that the order is as **John Mace** laid it out. > [@](#): > > BTW, when did Congress vote to dissolve their treaty with the UN Charter? Are we still a signatory or not? Are we still bound by it or is it something which can simply be ignored at our whim. They did not. The administration appealed to the self defence clause. It may not be valid, but again, that is not for you to decide. Although, of course it is for you to agree or disagree with come voting time. 😉 > [@](#): > > And I must say again, that US law is irrelevant anyway. International law cannot be circumvented by sovereign law. Actually, you are wrong about this as well. There is as yet no accepted mechanisms for the UN to enforce its edicts seperate from member nations. International law is much more libertarian than you may understand. All “laws” have to be agreed to by those following them. Parties are only liable to keep such agreements within the bounds of their local laws and whatever sanctions the other parties care to impose. You really are an enigma to me, DTC. You argue so rationally about evolution and religious subjects then make the most outrageously false statements about international law and gun ownership. I still haven’t figured you out. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/54 "2004-09-20T01:28:07Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Actually, you are wrong about this as well. There is as yet no accepted mechanisms for the UN to enforce its edicts seperate from member nations. International law is much more libertarian than you may understand. All “laws” have to be agreed to by those following them. Parties are only liable to keep such agreements within the bounds of their local laws and whatever sanctions the other parties care to impose. I don’t see the ability to enforce sanctions as a criterion for whether a law is valid. We agreed to it, and there is nothing in the UN Charter which stipulates that we may override it with our own fraudulent statutes. How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask if the US should honor its treaties? > [@](#): > > You really are an enigma to me, DTC. You argue so rationally about evolution and religious subjects then make the most outrageously false statements about international law and gun ownership. I still haven’t figured you out. I am quite a bit more informed about religion and evolution than I am about international or Constitutional law so I’m less inclined to talk out of my ass on those issues. 😉 As to gun ownership, I haven’t really posted that much on the subject except to deride gun owners. I have never tried to make any legal arguments about it, nor have I ever called for a gun ban. I’m just expressing a personal opinion about my perception of gun culture. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/55 "2004-09-20T01:57:55Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask if the US should honor its treaties? Because you want to impose your own definition of what honoring a treaty looks like. No one has claimed that the US should not honor its treaties. Some are claiming that we have done so. You have refused to give any credence to them. Unfortunately you have done so with demonstrably false assertions and interpretations of the Constitution at odds with most others. Meanwhile you have done so with a derth of MHO disclaimers. You did not say, for instance, that treaties “should” be superior to statutes. You claimed that they are. Even in defiance of Supreme Court precidence and common sense reading of the supremacy clause. You would never have tolerated this sort of behavior from a religious zealot trying to deny evoloution. Thus my confusion. Though, I must admit, you were far more patient with the religious zealots you’ve debated than with those in opposition to you here. Again, my confusion. > [@](#): > > I am quite a bit more informed about religion and evolution than I am about international or Constitutional law so I’m less inclined to talk out of my ass on those issues. 😉 Sort of an agent provacature on these issues? 😉 > [@](#): > > As to gun ownership, I haven’t really posted that much on the subject except to deride gun owners. I have never tried to make any legal arguments about it, nor have I ever called for a gun ban. I’m just expressing a personal opinion about my perception of gun culture. Yep, I remember. But you made sweeping statements about all people who own guns which were clearly silly. Hope I did not insult you. Just MHO and all that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/56 "2004-09-20T04:13:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask if the US should honor its treaties? Because it’s a question without a general answer. A question whose answer depends on the particular context being discussed. How come nobody ever wants to answer me when I ask: if citiizens should obey the law? if a man should kill another man? etc. I would say that the US should honor its treaties unless it would be against its self interest to do so. But that just brings us right back to where we started. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/57 "2004-09-20T05:16:50Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s not the first time. This is what I love about you DtC- your incredible Hubris. Many here would think twice to say that (as a Goyim layman) they know more about the Talmud than a Rabbi, or that they know more about Constitutional law than the US Supreme Court. :dubious: The few that would dare to say either would at the very least express it as an Opinion. But not _you_, Diogenes. You have no self-doubt at all. Even though you aren’t even Enrolled to Practice law before the Supreme Court, you have no problem stating baldly that they’re **wrong**. :rolleyes: This isn’t a personal attack, I just have to admire your complete and utter self-confidence and Hubris to stand there and make those kind of statements in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are dead wrong. “Seldom right, but never in doubt” should be your motto! 🆒 My god man- you must have balls the size of muskmelons. I salute you! (now, here, we have no smiley to show that I do seriously salute you for your Hubris- even though I think you are completely and totally wrong). Thank you for an entertaining post. If I used sigs, I’d use > [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Supreme Court is wrong. It’s not the first time. . It is one of the most amazing statements ever made on this board. :eek: John, thanks for the cite. Do you have that one where the Appeals Court rules that the current “war” is legal? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/58 "2004-09-20T05:42:19Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > John, thanks for the cite. Do you have that one where the Appeals Court rules that the current “war” is legal? I’m not sure if you’re serious or not, but I’m unaware of any court ruling on the legality of the war. Any statute passed by Congress is assumed to be legal until and unless it is reviewed and overturned by the court(s). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/59 "2004-09-20T05:47:57Z")
Yes, I am serious. It was cited here awhile ago. Seems someone went to Court saying that the Law Congress passed wasn’t Constitutional, as they could not “give over” their Constitutional authority to the President, or something liek that. The suit lost of course. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2004, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660/60 "2004-09-20T08:00:32Z")
Is it really that important whether something in an international context is legal domestically? It just seems to confuse the subject and provide ammunition for the usual simple-minded apologies, since I doubt anything else (such as, for example, accountability) would come of it… if anything it would seem to encourage more foolishness such as unilateralism. If the Iraq war was illegal (or not) _according to the UN_, what is the point of debating the matter by US law and constitution? The UN Charter is a set of international accords, not domestic ones. Kofi Annan hasn’t been saying for over a year that the actions of the US were in breach of the US Constitution or US federal law. I thought the discussion was about international treaties etc. which the US signed and ratefied, but allegedly breached. The UN never signed up to the US Consitution, so what is the point of this “Americatist” approach when discussing international forums? The world is rather keen on the _global_ context and legality, unsurprisingly; what seems to matter in this discussion is whether the war was legitimate by UN standards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/kofi-says-iraq-war-was-illegal-under-un-charter/264660.md?page=4)