That misses the point that before the UN decided to move to NY it asked for and was given specific undertakings that the US would admit acredited diplomats to the UN and not interfere in its processes.
The US has now unilaterally abrogated that undertaking for petty political gain.
That’s my position, too. This is pure posturing by sniveling politicians, too afraid to be branded the guy who allowed a terrorist into the US. Terrorist or not, we’re the host for the UN, and if we can’t handle the pressure, we should have it moved to another country. It ought to be somewhere more neutral anyway.
Switzerland, anyone? I hear it’s just lovely this time of year.
It’s been tried before, didn’t quite work. I vote for moving the headquarters to the South Pole, that way all the diplomats will be on truly neutral ground 
I know you’re half joking, but that was more the fault of the LoN, not the venue.
I guess it’s safe to say that the American diplomats of 70 years ago saw a brighter age before them and didn’t imagine that some tinpot dictatorship in the ass-end of the world would appoint a war criminal to an ambassadorship in an attempt to mock them.
If it’s “petty political gain” to deny a fugitive from justice diplomatic access to our shores, then I’m all for it.
Of course, you’re correct.
FWIW I remember reading a history book some time ago that somehow linked the architecture of the Palace of Nations with the failure of the LoN. Apparently the Palace was too beautiful, and diplomats sent there felt like they were visiting a holiday destination rather than a workplace. The current venue has a much more gritty feel to it, it’s clear that people go there to work and solve problems rather than to enjoy the building.
(sorry for taking this way off-topic once again)
He cannot be a fugitive from justice as he will have diplomatic imminity anymore than George Bush Senior is a fugitive from justice of any country spied on by the US when he commanded the CIA. Extreme US self centeredness! On country’s spies are another county’s heroes. We currently have ex terrorists as ministers in the Northern Ireland government in the UK. Several US ex CIA are advised not to travel to certain countries as they are wanted there for various crimes.
No. The didn’t realize that future US Congresscritters would such petty, cowardly bastards. The way this works, is someone or some group introduces the bill, and then no one (or few) wants to the one who doesn’t sign it. I haven’t read up on this, but I suspect this started with the Republicans (probably to try to trap Democrats) and the Democrats were too cowardly to stand up to them. And shame on Obama for caving, too.
As a citizen of the US, I feel that I have the right to be self-centered as per my country and its rule of law. If any other country feels that George HW Bush is a criminal, they’re more than free to attempt to invade our soil and bring him to justice. I just don’t think it’ll work out to well for them.
In 1945 the world was still reeling from a series of dictatorships that hasd created the worst mass killing in history. It was realised that in Churchill’s dictum that Jaw Jaw Jaw was better than War War War. The USSR has had the longest term bad relationship with the US and has been in a position to do greater damage overtly or covertly to mock or harm the US, yet becasue they are a founder member with a veto and not open to this sort of blackmail, even the head of the KGB was allowed to address the GA in the sixties!
This is petty politicking with politicians afraid to take the moral high ground.
Imagine that someone sold you land but insisted that their land beyond had access in perpetuity over it. And then 70 years later they turned round and said that your son was to be denied access because he had dissed their son. What would the law say.
Same as Texas killing the Mexican guy even though it violated a treaty signed by the US. It goes to the credibility of the nation and whether its word can be trusted on the international stage. Currently it cannot.
Agreed, but just suppose that he went to a country on vacation and (as with Pinochet) he was extradited to a third country. All legal and above board. Israeli politicians and armed force personnel take special precautions to avoid such attempts to bring them to justice elsewhere.
Totally agree. It was Hawkish (and running scared of the electorate) Democrats who let this pass. One of the problems of Democracy is that it turns honest people into liars and cheats.
“If”.
I can’t imagine that any former president would be that careless, specifically because there are plenty of tinpot “nations” out there that would love to get their hands on an American president and make a show trial out of him.
I’m as liberal as they come, and I have no problem whatsoever with refusing to admit this guy. He was involved in a crime against my nation.
So then, your nation should not host the UN.
You can’t have it both ways.
Fine by me. I’m perfectly OK with the UN finding a nation that is more tolerant of idiot tinpot dictators than we are.
The US was perfectly OK with allowing Ahmadinejad to come to the UN and ramble on about how American Jews masterminded 9/11. I welcome any other country that is more willing to be publicly accused of orchestrating the secret mass murder of its own citizens to step up and grant the UN the privilege of using its soil to allow Third World despots a free microphone by which to decry it.
As long as the third country doesn’t mind dying horribly.
So this Abutalebi person thinks diplomatic immunity is sacrosanct in 2014, but didn’t think so in 1979. Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
So you are liberal, but happy for your country to break its solemn promise for its own ends? I notice no sign of shame.
That is the cost of Freedom. One that the US is obviously no longer willing to bear (at least not in an election year!)
My country never promised to give quarter to terrorists and war criminals. The fault lies with the people who tested our patience by trying to disguise such scum in the mask of diplomacy.