actually bacchus, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned Washington on Monday(03/10/03) that -- without U.N. Security Council backing -- a war to disarm Iraq would be short on legitimacy and violate the world body's charter.( http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=2356075 )

under article 6, second clause of the US constitution, the UN charter is US law and legally binding. therefore, if the UN charter is violated, so is the constitution and US law (the supremacy clause as it is known, (art. 6 clause 2 reads-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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.) the UN charter IS a treaty made under authority of the US, meaning it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, IT MUST BE OBEYED!!!

article 51 (the "self defense clause")provides for defense against an armed attack against a member state (much like we plan on doing to Iraq) Iraq has not attacked America (and, no, the planes in the NFZ do not count as an attack on America, in truth Iraq could claim art. 51) nor is there any evidence connecting them to those that supposedly did (come on, we don't REALLY know who was on those planes, now do we?)

you say no resolution forbids an attack, which technically true. the UN charter which must be obeyed, (as explained above) does. it says that no member state shall not attack another unless the're backed by a minimum of nine UNSC votes. Kofi Annan says this war (as is) war would violate the charter, and I will take HIS word over anyone else's when it comes to matters concerning the UN.

No, I think it's obvious the Iraq has not been in compliance, but I guess I'm viewing this contractually. The UN stated with 1441 that it was going to act in a certain manner by re-admitting the inspectors into Iraq to further prove that Iraq is or isn't in compliance and to give Saddam one last chance to disarm. The inspectors haven't completed their task, and it seems as though it would be against the UN's own resolution to attack Iraq without a new resolution stating that the inspections have been completed and that Iraq is definitely not in compliance. Do you see my logic there?



It doesn't specifically allow it either, as far as I understand. When the US originally went in during desert storm, there was a resolution that authorized that force.



This is where I'm very unclear, and I apologize. I've been sitting on the fence as far as this war is concerned, because I'm not clear on what is legal, constitutionally, for the US to go to war for. This is what I was hoping someone would be able to clarify for me. Can we legally, by our own constitution, invade a country and remove their administration on the grounds that the country may pose a threat to the US or its allies?

Additionally, the self-defense clause states:


The bold parts are what concern me as far as the resumption of this war is concerned. The UN is currently taking measures to deal with Iraq. If we go in, doesn't that affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council to take the action that it deems necessary? Isn't that a violation of the UN charter which we are required to follow for as long as we are a member of the UN?

No, I think it's obvious the Iraq has not been in compliance, but I guess I'm viewing this contractually. The UN stated with 1441 that it was going to act in a certain manner by re-admitting the inspectors into Iraq to further prove that Iraq is or isn't in compliance and to give Saddam one last chance to disarm. The inspectors haven't completed their task, and it seems as though it would be against the UN's own resolution to attack Iraq without a new resolution stating that the inspections have been completed and that Iraq is definitely not in compliance. Do you see my logic there?



It doesn't specifically allow it either, as far as I understand. When the US originally went in during desert storm, there was a resolution that authorized that force.



This is where I'm very unclear, and I apologize. I've been sitting on the fence as far as this war is concerned, because I'm not clear on what is legal, constitutionally, for the US to go to war for. This is what I was hoping someone would be able to clarify for me. Can we legally, by our own constitution, invade a country and remove their administration on the grounds that the country may pose a threat to the US or its allies?

Additionally, the self-defense clause states:


The bold parts are what concern me as far as the resumption of this war is concerned. The UN is currently taking measures to deal with Iraq. If we go in, doesn't that affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council to take the action that it deems necessary? Isn't that a violation of the UN charter which we are required to follow for as long as we are a member of the UN?

About WWII, we got dragged into that thing by the way of Pearl Harbor thanks to the Japanese but as soon as we declared war on Japan, Hitler did what NATO would do under Article 5, which is declared war on us because we were picking on Hitler's ally, so therefore, we got dragged into the whole thing.

The invasion of Kuwait was also a direct threat not militarily but economically. Yes i am talking about oil. So it was either take saddam out of kuwait or live a nutcase controlling our oil supplies

But didn't Hitler sink one of our ships? If I remember correctly, action followed words.

Yes, goamerica, that is my point. cyan has chosen to adopt a vary narrow reading of the common defense clause for the passing of Constitutional muster. I was pointing out that, IMO, under that logic the actions taken by the UN in WWI and WWII were arguably Unconstitutional.

unabomber- Kofi Annan has stated that in his opinion American action would violate the Charter. Fair enough, but that isn't really all that compelling, IMO. The US government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, states its opinions on the Constitutionality of lots of things. (Like for instance the use of racial quotas in university admissions). That doesn't necessarily make these opinions correct, or more bluntly, enforceable. I'm not sure what the mechanism is for adjudicating a claim of Charter violation, but my best guess is the Security Council itself. Given the US veto power, I think it is fairly safe to say that there will not be an enforceable finding of breach of Charter. This may not be particularly fair, but facts of life rarely are. Therefore, as a matter of law, Annan's opinion, although worthy of debate, is at the end of the day merely an opinion and not an actionable item. This point makes the rest of the exposition on the binding nature of the Charter correct but irrelevant.

cyan-1441 stated that Saddam had one last chance to comply, and that one facet of this compliance would be the return of inspectors. The thing is, fewer than 150 total inspectors could blunder about for years without finding anything that the regieme wants hidden. The key is not the inspectors having time, but rather the obvious stalling and shell games that demonstrate SH's complete contempt for the process. 1441 was not intended to return to the essentially permanent inspection regieme of the early 90s. It was a "last chance and we really mean it this time" kind of thing. Evidently some of the 15 yes votes didn't really mean it this time either.

I see your logic in claiming that the existence of 1441 implies the need for yet another resolution, but I disagree with it. 1441 said immediate compliance or face the consequences. has there been immediate compliance? Then there should be consequences. Seems simple to me.

If we would be in violation of the UN Charter for attacking Iraq, then how come Russia gets to gets to attack Chechen cities?

the head of the UN saying america attacking Iraq would violate isn't that compelling? what exactly is your logic? (the sec-gen is the "cheif administrative officer" of the un. (ie BOSS) so his opinion IS important.) this is kinda like saying if the prez gave his opinion the actions of the FBI and CIA (theoretical actions that is.) were un-constitutional, it wouldn't be that compelling. I'm sorry, when the head of the UN says us attacking Iraq would be a violation of the charter (which would make the war unconstitutional, see post above) I tend to believe him.

article 2, clause 4 of the UN charter says: 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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. (if interested, article one, clause one, (defining purpose of UN) states: 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 for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; )

also; Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

it is clear that this war would be illegal and unconstituional. I don't know how the UN would deal with america if the violate the charter. I do know how america could deal with bush though: impeachment. a UN charter violation is a violation of the supreme law of the land, (art. 6 clause 2, us constitution) which is an impeachible offense. (I'm not sure what could his administration could get charged with though, but they would be charged) and should bush never be taken care of, there is always the 1776 option;)

GA, I am not up to date nor fully informed about checnya, but as I understand it, it is an internal matter, correct? if so, this is why the un has not intervened: art. 2 clause 7 Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

I haven't adopted anything. As I already said, I'm sitting on the fence on this, and I'm looking for clarification.



Like I said, I'm not saying that I agree with the way that this has been handled by the UN, but since we are a member of the UN, don't we have standards that we have to follow for as long as that membership is active?



Right. I understand that, but since it's a UN resolution that we are talking about, isn't it up to the UN to decide the consequences?

That's my issue. We are going through the UN process, but it doesn't matter what the collective decision of the UN is, because we are going to act anyway. If we disregard the UN decision, than how can we go to war with Iraq under the premise of a UN resolution? It's a huge double-standard.

My logic is precisely what I stated above. The President of the United States is the chief executive officer of the US-analogous for my purposes to Kofi Annan's elected position as the Secretary General of the UN. Yet the President is not the final arbiter of what is and isn't in violation of the Constitution. He in fact has no power to make such a determination, although he can and does express opinions through the General Solicitor's Office. However, those opinions notwithstanding, the Supreme Court makes the final determination. My argument is that Annan's position and power is analogous to that of the President, with the final decision of what does and does not violate the Charter resting with the Security Council. Annan's opinion is possibly compelling from a debating standpoint, but good luck getting that assessment to stand up in a court of law. Absent that cause of action from a duly constituted authority, your argument of unconstitutionality (and subsequent impeachment) fails miserably.

1. Sorry, cyan, bad choice of words on my part. The argument that you were making regarding the Common Defense clause seemed to me to depend upon a very narrow reading, and I was merely trying to provide counterexamples. No offense intended.

2. Are you then arguing that we are constrained from acting in what we percieve to be our best national interest even after attempting to go "through channels"? At the end of the day, only the US can decide what is in the interests of the US. We can choose to try to persuade others to our point of view, but does that mean that if we are unsuccessful then the UN dictates American foreign policy?

3. I have a couple of thoughts on this. First, there is not a collective decision of the UN pending. Rather, it seems that the Security Council will fail to pass a resolution explicitly stating a timeline for the beginning of military action. While that is certainly a 'loss' for the Us and UK, I'm not so sure that it forbids action. Consequences are implicit in the other 17 resolutions currently in force. The defeat of the current resolution merely demonstrates a lack of consensus on timing, not on the concepts of consequences themselves. I do not feel that action against Iraq violates the UN Charter even given the failure of the current resolution. Force is already authorized. The only issue is timing.