Congress has passed a fast track bill to allow Immigration to deny access to the US for the duly appointed Iranian Ambassador to the UN (as required by the founding treaty of the UN which decided to site the headquarters in New York.)
This is not dissimilar to the Texas executions where a treaty signed by the US was ignored by the State of Texas.
How can any Treaty with the US be trusted when the President’s solemn oath can be over-ridden by other parts of Government.
Ignoring whether it is morally right to do this, it’s stupid. Unless you think the man is personally going to commit espionage or something like that, there’s no point in cutting off lines of communication like this.
I agree with Grumman; it’s pointless stupidity.
The US can do what it wants, but the UN should look for another place to set up shop.
The OP did fail to mention the fact, stated in the article, that the new ambassador was an accomplice to the 1979 embassy hostage-takers.
For those not familiar with the subject the OP is bringing up, no one in Iran was at all shocked by this decision and the appointment of said Ambassador was to test the US response.
The Iranian government appointed someone as an Ambassador to the UN who was involved int the hostage taking to see how the US reacted and the US reacted the way they suspected by saying “no, he can’t come over.”
Obviously some of the useful idiots in the west will squeal like idiots while Iranians laugh at their stupidity, but that’s to expected.
Expecting the US to allow this guy in would be like being furious if those uppity Jews(AKA the Israelis) were bitchy enough to refuse to negotiate with Holocaust deniers or people involved with the slaughter of Olympic athletes at Munich.
Of course the pigheaded Zionist Jews of Israel are famous for their obstinance and would never negotiate with Holocaust deniers or similar filth and the US government had the good sense to follow their example and say if you take US diplomats hostage for hundreds of days we don’t let you in to our country even if it means a few ignorant useful idiots bitch about this while completely unaware at how their behavior is not greeted in Tehran with approval or gratitude but laughter and mockery.
D’oh! I should have made it clear the “useful idiots” were members of the media, bloggers, or professional protesters/activists not anyone on this thread.
Sorry for the mistake. Posting while watching Hannibal.
Just to be clear:
In Iran in 1979 there was a popular revolution by the Iranian people and the government changed.
One of the side effects was that 66 American Embassy staff were held as prisoners for a year and three months. None of them were killed. They were all released.
A useful comparison is to note that on 11 January 2002 the United States began imprisoning people at Guantanamo Bay without due process of law. Today, 12 years later, this prison (and prisoners) continues to exist.
So the new Iranian ambassador who used to be a young revolutionary is the bad guy? Really?
It was not a mistake but an intentional insult. If it were to have been a mistake you could have simply removed the insult from the OP. Instead you post a faux apology allowing yourself to contravene the rules with apparent impunity.
The rest of your post is damaged by this abuse and is not worthy of direct response.
Editing is disabled after five minutes.
That is immaterial but was mentioned in detail in the link. The question is whether the US is morally and legally justified in abrogating its treaty undertakings.
In the public arena people are judged by how they keep their word when solemnly and intentionally given. Countries should be similarly judged.
By abrogating treaties at the whim of different branches of Government, a State makes itself open to questions about its honesty and integrity.
Only a couple of weeks ago the US press was full of condemnation for Putin when he abrogated the treaty signed by Russia regarding the inviolability of Crimea’s political state.
Sauce for the Goose…
Then maybe the apology could have been more sincere than its appearance as an excuse.
Using that technique “sorry I didn’t realize that I had used abuse for over five minutes” is an open door to the use of abusive comments.
He’s a bad guy, yes. He was a participant in the commission of dozens of severe crimes against the United States, arguably including the murder of eight soldiers. He is, as far as I’m concerned, an unrepentant felon, and by right he should be in a federal prison, not a UN office. (I don’t care that he was a minor participant. The getaway car driver is just as guilty as the gunman.)
Now, I’m not sure this is the hill the US should be dying on, and I doubt he’s in the top twenty bad people to have received visas for the UN, but that doesn’t make him good.
So? He’s not being appointed ambassador to the U.S., in which case I believe it would be entirely appropriate to refuse his credentials. I’m uncomfortable that the U.S. is attempting to dictate who cannot be appointed to the U.N.
So does that not then also apply to an agent of the Iranian state who abrogated its treaty violations by invading an embassy and holding its staff hostage?
Or is this just a “US bad, not-US good” situation where we only pay attention to the precepts of international law to the extent that they can be made to reflect negatively upon America?
He committed crimes against the US by his own admission and has no business being on our territory as a free man regardless of his business, and to the best of my knowledge the UN Charter does not deny the US the power to declare any given diplomat persona non grata.
If Switzerland were to name Roman Polanski its UN ambassador, would you be OK with it? Suppose the Russians deemed fit to grant Edward Snowden ambassadorial credentials?
So you agree that George Bush Senior (as head of the CIA) should be tried in Iran for his moves against the state- does he “deserve” such punishment in Iran?
Agreed. If he were to be appointed ambassador to the US that would be a calculated insult. As it is he is being appointed to an international ambassadorship that the US is deciding for its own ends to interfere with despite having given assurances when the UN chose to be based in NY to the contrary.
That is concerned with the relationships between two states and when such relationships sour normal obligations no longer apply. Here we are dealing with solemn undertakings given by the US to not interfere with the workings of the UN.
In the past Khrushchev and Castro (implacably anti-US and authors of hidden attacks on the US) were admitted.
This is petty flag waving and stupid politics.
If the UN has a problem with it, they’re more than welcome to find some other country that’s fine with hosting war criminals appointed as ambassadors for the sole purpose of thumbing their nose at them and saying “NYAH NYAH DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY”.
It’s probably a pretty short list.