# 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:** 4
**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, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/61 "2014-04-12T14:42:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I wasn’t aware that there were Iranian diplomats in Guantanamo. Perhaps you could provide a cite? > > Regards, > Shodan Try reading in context! ---
**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, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/62 "2014-04-12T14:50:27Z")
AT Shodan, the context was: You asserted a right for the USA to cause a country to ‘die horribly’ for crossing the interests of the USA. I pointed out that vice versa, US actions regarding Guantanamo might equivalently give a valid excuse for organising attacks on the US or Americans. ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/63 "2014-04-12T14:57:58Z")
Regarding the ad hominem attack by Martin Hyde: 1/ Not living in the USA does not affect the validity of an argument 2/ Having a firm point of view with which a poster finds offensive does not affect the validity of an argument. 3/ Criticising the US does not mean agreeing with problems in other countries. I feel that claiming democratic and legal superiority requires a higher standard of behaviour than despots and dictators. Criticising with reason is not per se ‘bashing’. I was educated at secondary and college level in both the US and UK. I have a position between two countries, both of which (and their allies) I wish to hold to high standards. I have great respects for the US system of Government on paper but less for the way it is actually carried out. I do think that this sort of ad hominem attack should be avoided and the current question considered rather than past posting history battles. ---
**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, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/64 "2014-04-12T14:58:39Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The US foreign policy has been entirely dependent on getting UN agreement to its interventions in other countries. Without such an arena, the US would be seen as just the international bully it would often like to be. Moral politicians know that it is good to have the UN as a filter to avoid the role of world bully being fulfilled- at least it provides a fig leaf and some amelioration (see Syria). This is incorrect, we’ve fought a lot of wars without UN approval and generally do quite a bit of violent things without UN approval. It’s not really accurate to say that America has been dependent on getting UN agreement to its interventions in other countries. In fact I’d say it has been extremely not dependent on that. The only real limit to U.S. intervention in foreign countries is the public opinion of the U.S. electorate and the Congress. Which supports my point the UN itself serves little restraint purposes. Russia or China are equally unrestrained by the UN as the U.S. ---
**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, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/65 "2014-04-12T15:01:09Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Regarding the ad hominem attack by Martin Hyde: > > 1/ Not living in the USA does not affect the validity of an argument I never made this claim. > [@](#): > > 2/ Having a firm point of view with which a poster finds offensive does not affect the validity of an argument. We post under handles and build reputations for ourselves. I’m assuming on many issues I’m routinely ignored or detested on sight because I have a conservative reputation on a very liberal forum. That’s fair. You seem to care only about the ills of the United States and post lots of negative threads about the United States. This makes me wonder if you’re someone who genuinely believes in the issues you talk about (which would require you to also dislike the actions of Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, Japan, France, Germany, South Africa, Venezuela etc etc etc), or if there is some reason you only care about the ills committed by the United States. My concern with the sincerity and intellectual depth of your beliefs is that they appear to be extremely narrowly focused, not that they are insincere simply because they are anti-American. ---
**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, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/66 "2014-04-12T15:02:59Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The actual treaty being abrogated: > > [Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Headquarters of the United Nations](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/decad036.asp) > > SECTION 11 > > The federal, state or local authorities of the United States shall not impose any impediments to transit to or from the headquarters district of (1) representatives of Members or officials of the United Nations, or of specialized agencies as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2, of the Charter, or the families of such representatives or officials; (2) experts performing missions for the United Nations or for such specialized agencies; (3) representatives of the press, or of radio, film or other information agencies, who have been accredited by the United Nations (or by such a specialized agency) in its discretion after consultation with the United States; (4) representatives of nongovernmental organizations recognized by the United Nations for the purpose of consultation under Article 71 of the Charter; or (5) other persons invited to the headquarters district by the United Nations or by such specialized agency on official business. The appropriate American authorities shall afford any necessary protection to such persons while in transit to or from the headquarters district. This section does not apply to general interruptions of transportation which are to be dealt with as provided in Section 17, and does not impair the effectiveness of generally applicable laws and regulations as to the operation of means of transportation. > > SECTION 12 > > The provisions of Section 11 shall be. applicable irrespective of the relations existing between the Governments of the persons referred to in that section and the Government of the United States. > > SECTION 13 > > (a) Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the entry of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11. When visas are required for persons referred to in that Section, they shall be granted without charge and as promptly as possible. > > (b) Laws and regulations in force in the United States regarding the residence of aliens shall not be applied in such manner as to interfere with the privileges referred to in Section 11 and, specifically, shall not be applied in such manner as to require any such person to leave the United States on account of any activities performed by him in his official capacity. In case of abuse of such privileges of residence by any such person in activities in the United States outside his official capacity, it is understood that the privileges referred to in Section 11 shall not be construed to grant him exemption from the laws and regulations of the United States regarding the continued residence of aliens, provided that: > > (1) No proceedings shall be instituted under such laws or regulations to require any such person to leave the United States except with the prior approval of the Secretary of State of the United States. Such approval shall be given only after consultation with the appropriate Member in the case of a representative of a Member (or a member of his family) or with the Secretary-General or the principal executive officer of the appropriate specialized agency in the case of any other person referred to in Section 11; > > (2) A representative of the Member concerned, the Secretary-General or the principal Executive Officer of the appropriate specialized agency, as the case may be, shall have the right to appear in any such proceedings on behalf of the person against whom they are instituted; > > (3) Persons who are entitled to diplomatic privileges and immunities under Section 15 or under the General Convention shall not be required to leave the United States otherwise than in accordance with the customary procedure applicable to diplomatic envoys accredited to the United States. > > (e) This section does not prevent the requirement of reasonable evidence to establish that persons claiming the rights granted by Section 11 come within the classes described- in that section, or the reasonable application of quarantine and health regulations. > > (d) Except as provided above in this section and in the General Convention, the United States retains full control and authority over the entry of persons or property into the territory of the United States and the conditions under which persons may remain or reside there. > > (e) The Secretary-General shall, at the request of the appropriate American authorities, enter into discussions with such authorities, with a view to making arrangements for registering the arrival and departure of persons who have been granted visas valid only for transit to and from the headquarters district and sojourn therein and in its immediate vicinity. > > (f) The United Nations shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit entry of persons and property into the headquarters district and to prescribe the conditions under which persons may remain or reside there. “In approving the agreement, Congress added a provision stating that nothing in the text would limit the United States’ ability to preserve its national security.” The position of the United States since the moment it signed the treaty is it had the right to deny visas, and it has never made it secret. That makes it difficult for me to buy any argument that we’re derelict in our treaty obligations, we made it known back in '48 how we would proceed. If the UN took issue with it they should not have agreed to be hosted within the continental United States. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/67 "2014-04-12T15:03:16Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Fine by me. I’m perfectly OK with the UN finding a nation that is _more_ tolerant of idiot tinpot dictators than we are. Except we’re not doing that. We want it both ways. Until and unless we move it, we’re stuck with it. ---
**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, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/68 "2014-04-12T15:10:19Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > This is incorrect, we’ve fought a lot of wars without UN approval and generally do quite a bit of violent things without UN approval. It’s not really accurate to say that America has been dependent on getting UN agreement to its interventions in other countries. In fact I’d say it has been extremely not dependent on that. The only real limit to U.S. intervention in foreign countries is the public opinion of the U.S. electorate and the Congress. Which supports my point the UN itself serves little restraint purposes. Russia or China are equally unrestrained by the UN as the U.S. Strange that so much time and effort was put into getting UN approval over Iraq and Afghanistan and how when not available for Syria, no action was taken. ---
**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, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/69 "2014-04-12T15:12:48Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I never made this claim. I complained about an ad hominem attack based on my location: “He doesn’t live here” your words. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2014, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/70 "2014-04-12T15:13:35Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m curious, has the OP ever had a fault with any country other than the United States? He doesn’t live here, and I’d say the overwhelming majority of threads he has started in his posting history have been nothing but attempts to bash the United States. How shows no willingness to look at the multiple layers to various issues and just engages in simplistic American bashing. > > I’m seeing identical behavior from **John Mace** in this thread. You’re seeing the “identical behavior” from **John Mace** in this thread??? But the behavior of which you speak is _starting multiple US-bashing threads and not much else._ You usually write carefully crafted posts that are easily understood, even when I disagree with you, but that makes absolutely no sense. Especially since it is rare that I agree with the OP, whom I have called out as reflexively anti-American in many of the threads you are talking about > [@](#): > > How about we start with demonstrating, _as a matter of fact_, that we have treaty obligations to grant Visa to anyone who has a position at the UN. Once you’ve done that we can further discuss the legal issues. > > As for the moral issues, since time immemorial it has been customary that you respect the diplomats who represent other countries. It’s often been violated, but even in the Ancient world said violation was notable enough to be written down and typically condemned. > > We can have a thirty page discussion of irrelevance about the Shah, the evils of Guantanamo Bay (which have nothing to do with diplomatic privileges and show crass and immature opinions when they are brought up on this topic), how the Iran protesters were just and shining beacons of light fighting against the evil oil imperialism of the West and etc. > > But maybe foolishly, I’d like to sidestep all of that and instead focus on one narrow, relevant point: the Iranians who took hostage 66 Americans who were working for the State Department in diplomatic capacity had violated the ancient concept that you do not mistreat the other side’s diplomats. That’s supposed to be a universal rule. What would we think of the United States if the U.S. imprisoned Russian diplomats and demanded the return of Edward Snowden in exchange for the return of those diplomats? We’d condemn the United States and the international community would condemn the United States. > > That is exactly what the Iranians did to American diplomats. Against all norms of diplomatic privilege they kept them hostage, subjected them to mock executions and etc, and justified it by demanding we return a wanted criminal (the former Shah) to them. > > Part of diplomatic privilege is respect for the concept that you need lines of communication with others, even your enemies. Even ancient Kings and Potentates recognized this reality. But at the same time, underlying that respect is that you choose your diplomats carefully. They should not be someone who offends their host, and it’s also been recognized that if you violate another person’s diplomat that is a grave offense. So what does it say to make a diplomat of your country someone who was involved himself in the violation of diplomatic privileges? > > It is an insult to the U.N., for which Iran should be condemned and the U.N. itself should deny to accept this person as a diplomat. However, as the host of the U.N. the United States is also justified in denying this person a visa–a U.S. sovereign activity not subject to review by the U.N. > > There is a difference between belligerent leaders like Khrushchev, who respected diplomatic privilege and the concept of dialogue, and persons who disrespect diplomatic privilege and have been involved in the torture and imprisonment of diplomats. > > Showing that I actually can look at a multilayered situation in its entirety ( unlike **Pjen** and **John Mace** ) I will also point out that while the Iranian has not apologized, he has tried to explain his actions. He was a translator, and not involved in any violence. I do not believe that makes him an appropriate choice, but it makes him at least a bit more reasonable a choice than one of the guys carrying guns. > > Still, it’s an Iranian insult designed to test us during the nuclear negotiations. I also want to note we have not formally banned him yet, the President hasn’t signed the legislation passed by Congress. He has only publicly said that he doesn’t want this guy coming over here. The hope is Iran will retract him and it won’t be necessary to go that route. By that reasoning, we should not allow anyone affiliated with the Iranian government into the US. It’s the same government\* and has not apologized for those actions. I don’t really care if there is an explicit treaty regarding Ambassadors to the UN. I want my country to rise above that kind of pettiness. If we can let in someone from North Korea, we can let in this guy, and not force US political issues onto the UN body. And I am not a big fan of the UN in the first place. But we wanted it here, we got it here, and we should live up to responsibilities of having it here. \*Technically not the identical people, but it is a non-interrupted continuation of that government. ---
**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, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/71 "2014-04-12T15:15:25Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > We post under handles and build reputations for ourselves. I’m assuming on many issues I’m routinely ignored or detested on sight because I have a conservative reputation on a very liberal forum. That’s fair. > > You seem to care only about the ills of the United States and post lots of negative threads about the United States. This makes me wonder if you’re someone who genuinely believes in the issues you talk about (which would require you to also dislike the actions of Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, Japan, France, Germany, South Africa, Venezuela etc etc etc), or if there is some reason you only care about the ills committed by the United States. > > My concern with the sincerity and intellectual depth of your beliefs is that they appear to be extremely narrowly focused, not that they are insincere simply because they are anti-American. See my reply above for an explanation of my position. The rest is just your perspective, not reality. Of course I despise tin pot dictatorships acting like tin pot dictators; when rule of law democracies engage in the same behaviour, then it is commentary worthy- dog bites man- no story, man bites dog- story. ---
**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:** [April 12, 2014, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/72 "2014-04-12T15:25:05Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Strange that so much time and effort was put into getting UN approval over Iraq and Afghanistan and how when not available for Syria, no action was taken. Lack of UN approval was not so troublesome to Obama. It was lack of US approval that stymied him. ---
**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, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/73 "2014-04-12T15:44:02Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Strange that so much time and effort was put into getting UN approval over Iraq and Afghanistan and how when not available for Syria, no action was taken. I believe the following actions have been taken without U.N. approval: [ul] [li]1958 military intervention in Lebanon[/li][li]1960-1975 military intervention (outright war) in South Vietnam[/li][li]1962 naval blockade of Cuba (in contravention of international agreements which prohibit blockades)[/li][li]1965-66 Intervention in Dominican Republic[/li][li]1966-1967 special forces intervention in Guatemala[/li][li]1969-1975 Extensive bombing campaign against Cambodia[/li][li]1981-1992 troop presence and interventions in El Salvador[/li][li]1982-1984 conventional troop and Navy intervention in Lebanon[/li][li]1983-1984 invasion of Grenada[/li][li]1986 Air strikes against Libya[/li][li]1989 Intervention in Panama[/li][li]1992-1994 Blockade of Serbia and Montenegro[/li][li]1993-1996 Intervention in Bosnia[/li][li]1994 Intervention in Haiti, overthrow of leadership[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Sudan[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Afghanistan[/li][li]1998 Air strike on Iraq[/li][li]1999 Air strike on Serbia[/li][li]2001 Troop deployment in Macedonia[/li][li]2004-2005 Intervention in Haiti[/li][/ul] I’d argue we act so frequently without U.N. approval that seeking U.N. approval is actually the exception to the rule. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/74 "2014-04-12T15:45:48Z")
> [@](#): > > Is the US wrong to ban the Iranian UN ambassador from entering the USA? No. The guy was part of a group who held a number of people with diplomatic immunity hostage during the 1979 revolution. That’s about as clear a violation of international law as it gets. What’s amusing is to see all of the contortions in this thread to ignore that central fact. The US isn’t required to allow everyone put forward as a diplomat to the UN entry into the country. It’s ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. As to supposition that the UN be moved to another country, I’m perfectly good with that, but in reality this is just mental masturbation, since it’s not going to happen. There is zero chance the UN will move. Almost no one wants it to move. And if it DID move, then whoever the host county was, THEY would have the right to vet applicants to the UN who would be stationed in their country, and have a right to refuse anyone they so chose, just like nation states have the right to refuse regular diplomats to their countries. > [@](#): > > This is not dissimilar to the Texas executions where a treaty signed by the US was ignored by the State of Texas. It’s totally dissimilar. It’s ridiculous for you to assert that the US has to allow anyone submitted by another country as a diplomat to the UN. There is no way ANY country would be so constrained. > [@](#): > > How can any Treaty with the US be trusted when the President’s solemn oath can be over-ridden by other parts of Government. Can you demonstrate where in the treaty the US is forced to allow anyone put forth by another country access to the US? It’s totally ridiculous. What if a nation had put forth Bin Laden when he was still alive as a diplomat? Are you seriously suggesting that the US would be required to allow him entry into the US and give him diplomatic status?? What if some nation proposed Saddam Hussein, again when he was still alive? I mean, get real here. Of COURSE a host nation (the US in the case of the UN) is allowed to vet potential diplomats, even if they are diplomats to the UN because they are going to be living and working in the US and will have diplomatic immunity…which, unlike the Iranians, we will actually respect. ---
**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, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/75 "2014-04-12T15:51:30Z")
Under the letter of the treaty the United States is supposed to enter arbitration with the United Nations when it has an objection to letting someone be appointed to the U.N. as an Ambassador or in some other diplomatic role. However, in ratifying the agreement in 1948 the Congress made it clear that the United States retained unilateral right to reject visa applications of objectionable persons on national security grounds (which is a broad term that is determined at the discretion of the United States.) It’s always been questionable to what degree other parties “accepted” that caveat, and the United States has rarely relied on it (this is the first time we’ve rejected an Ambassador to the United Nations.) But this isn’t the first time we’ve relied on the concept (we had flaps with the U.N. off and on over the PLO and its leadership), and since international law is no different than contract law, I don’t view any sort of intrinsic right or wrong. The United States made its _intentions_ known when it signed the agreement, so it’s not really acting legally improperly as far as I’m concerned. The United Nations is welcome to take us to court if they want. It’s no different to me than when we sign a residential lease and we mark through a provision and initial it to make an alteration. ---
**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, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/76 "2014-04-12T16:02:04Z")
> [@XT](#): > > No. The guy was part of a group who held a number of people with diplomatic immunity hostage during the 1979 revolution. That’s about as clear a violation of international law as it gets. What’s amusing is to see all of the contortions in this thread to ignore that central fact. The US isn’t required to allow everyone put forward as a diplomat to the UN entry into the country. It’s ridiculous to even suggest such a thing. > > As to supposition that the UN be moved to another country, I’m perfectly good with that, but in reality this is just mental masturbation, since it’s not going to happen. There is zero chance the UN will move. Almost no one wants it to move. And if it DID move, then whoever the host county was, THEY would have the right to vet applicants to the UN who would be stationed in their country, and have a right to refuse anyone they so chose, just like nation states have the right to refuse regular diplomats to their countries. > > It’s totally dissimilar. It’s ridiculous for you to assert that the US has to allow anyone submitted by another country as a diplomat to the UN. There is no way ANY country would be so constrained. > > Can you demonstrate where in the treaty the US is forced to allow anyone put forth by another country access to the US? It’s totally ridiculous. What if a nation had put forth Bin Laden when he was still alive as a diplomat? Are you seriously suggesting that the US would be required to allow him entry into the US and give him diplomatic status?? What if some nation proposed Saddam Hussein, again when he was still alive? I mean, get real here. Of COURSE a host nation (the US in the case of the UN) is allowed to vet potential diplomats, even if they are diplomats to the UN because they are going to be living and working in the US and will have diplomatic immunity…which, unlike the Iranians, we will actually respect. Try reading the Treaty. ---
**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, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/77 "2014-04-12T16:04:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Under the letter of the treaty the United States is supposed to enter arbitration with the United Nations when it has an objection to letting someone be appointed to the U.N. as an Ambassador or in some other diplomatic role. However, in ratifying the agreement in 1948 the Congress made it clear that the United States retained unilateral right to reject visa applications of objectionable persons on national security grounds (which is a broad term that is determined at the discretion of the United States.) > > It’s always been questionable to what degree other parties “accepted” that caveat, and the United States has rarely relied on it (this is the first time we’ve rejected an Ambassador to the United Nations.) But this isn’t the first time we’ve relied on the concept (we had flaps with the U.N. off and on over the PLO and its leadership), and since international law is no different than contract law, I don’t view any sort of intrinsic right or wrong. The United States made its _intentions_ known when it signed the agreement, so it’s not really acting legally improperly as far as I’m concerned. The United Nations is welcome to take us to court if they want. It’s no different to me than when we sign a residential lease and we mark through a provision and initial it to make an alteration. Exactly the hypocrisy I am claiming. The US signs a Treaty. Congress unilaterally alters this. (In the Texas Judicial Killing- The Us signs a Treaty, Texas ignores it). A treaty entered into with the US is essentially worthless as post hoc events can withdraw the undertakings. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/78 "2014-04-12T16:29:51Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Of course I despise tin pot dictatorships acting like tin pot dictators; when rule of law democracies engage in the same behaviour, then it is commentary worthy- dog bites man- no story, man bites dog- story. As long as you recognize that your silence in the face of Iranian violations of diplomatic immunity makes your condemnation of the US actions in this case less than worthless. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/79 "2014-04-12T16:40:14Z")
The solution is obvious. Let him land in the U.S. and then immediately take him hostage. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920/80 "2014-04-12T17:03:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As long as you recognize that your silence in the face of Iranian violations of diplomatic immunity makes your condemnation of the US actions in this case less than worthless. > > Regards, > Shodan Thirty years ago the US embassy in Tehran was invaded and the IRA ran riot on the streets of Northern Ireland. in 2014 Martin McGuinness, PIRA commander, serial killer and terrorist is Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the US is trying to extract revenge from someone in some way associated with the embassy invasion at the same date. People do things in their youth that are not reflected half a generation later. In 1960 Mandela was a terrorist; in 1990 he was a saint. In 1960 there was massive criticism of Martin Luther King- accused of fomenting Black unrest ; in 2000 there is hardly a township outside redneckville that does not have a MLK Blvd and he now has a Federal holiday. Things change; people change. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-us-wrong-to-ban-the-iranian-un-ambassador-from-entering-the-usa/685920.md?page=5)