I strongly condemned them when they happened. I argued against their leftist supporters in Germany and the UK. But that is now history. I am more interested in current news.
Maybe you would benefit from consulting, say, Wikipedia, on tu quoque arguments.
Er…I tried to edit it but wasn’t able to because the five minutes was up. As I said I was posting and reading while watching Hannibal on my DVR and paying more attention to the show.
If you felt it was meant to be directed at you, I’m sorry. FWIW, I don’t think that of you if for no other reason than I don’t know you and don’t recall any other posts you’ve put up, opinions you’ve expressed or even if we’ve ever had an exchange before.
My point was that everyone in Tehran knew this was going to happen and deliberately assigned him there to see how the US would react.
Similarly, if for some asinine reason the Republic of Ireland tried to appoint a diplomat to the UK who’d been one of the assassins of Lord Mountbatten, the UK would have said “take him back.”
Admittedly the probability of the last thing happening is up there with Obama opening his next State of the Union address with a call for changing the national anthem to Deutchland Uber Alles.
Only if tu quoque means ignoring Iran when she violates diplomatic immunity, and condemning the US when she doesn’t ignore it.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not similar at all. He’s not being appointed Ambassador to the US.
You know the hostage crisis was 35 years ago, right? Are we supposed to repeatedly condemn all the bad things of the last 50 years in order that you will consider us worthy to condemn the bad things that are happening now?
US refuses to grant entry to a person who held its citizens hostage and terrorized them for more than a year. Effete European leftists engage in reflexive masturbatory pseudo outrage. Film at 11:00.
Martin McGuinness, IRA Assassin and terrorist, PIRA Commander in Londonderry during the era when Mountbatten was murdered, now deputy first minister of Northern Ireland, was greeted at a state banquet by Queen Elizabeth last week when the Queen met the President of the Republic of Ireland and prominent Irish people were invited.
Start practicing your Haydn now!
That is political maturity.
The Senate didn’t alter the treaty, they can’t, actually. When the President negotiates a treaty and puts it forth for ratification, it has to be signed or rejected. What they did is sign it and attach the legislative equivalent of a “signing statement” noting that as it will be implemented under United States law the United States was not surrendering its sovereign right to reject visa for persons out of national security concerns.
Treaties are nothing but contractual agreements, and there are no established rules for them like there are under national legal systems for contracts. Since the Senate’s note was publicized at the time, that means all other signatories were aware of it. If they objected, they should not have moved forward with housing the U.N. in New York. But they didn’t object, which to me is no different from them saying they didn’t care then, so they don’t get to care now.
Our Supreme Court has ruled that unless Congress passes legislation executing a treaty it isn’t binding domestic law, which is the case with the treaty giving consular rights to the accused. That’s the reality. We aren’t the only country where our domestic legal system makes treaty obligations difficult or even impossible to enforce. Various privacy and property rights laws in Germany for example have made it almost impossible for Germany to comply with an international agreement on returned artwork plundered by the Nazis.
Replace “US” with “all countries” and we’re in complete agreement. I’m not sure from whence this fallacy came, but treaties are not like statutes or legal codes. Those are things promulgated by government to regulate how its citizenry acts. If the citizenry disagrees with it the government has internal force to compel obedience (this is true in all forms of government–in democratic systems the citizenry of course can vote to change laws.)
A treaty on the other hand is an agreement between two parties that has no enforcement mechanism other than the willingness to react aggressively in some fashion against the other party violating it. If the other party does nothing, then the treaty is worthless. Most treaties are only worth while as long as they are beneficial to all parties. Once that stops, the treaty stops being worthless as there is no means to compel continued obedience to said treaty short of aggressive action (which can be anything from sanctions to outright war.)
Blinkered and reactionary untravelled ill educated Americans with no concept of morals or world history get rattled about criticism of their Treaty Breaking activities.
Sauce for the Goose…
Let me give you the Wiki definition:
“appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency and not the position presented[2] whereas a person’s inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.[3] To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, such behavior does not invalidate the position presented.”
Which is just what you did and are doing.
Repeatedly saying sauce for the goose undermines your position. International agreements are either morally sacrosanct in which “sauce for the goose” arguments are immoral and invalid, or they are like I say–only useful when they are useful to all parties. You’re the one who speaks of treaties as sacrosanct, it’s odd you undermine them yourself.
Exactly!
It doesn’t necessarily make your arguments invalid, but it may make us regard you as not worthy of taking seriously in general. Someone who is an established hypocrite can be dismissed as an individual regardless of whether certain individual arguments they make are valid.
Nations who respect treaties can be trusted. Nations which do not respect treaties are not to be trusted. I will leave assignation to categories to you.
Congress and Texas aren’t nations.
Since you’ve left assignation to me, then you are compelled to accept my argument that no nation respects treaties beyond the point of their own convenience. Many nations have domestic legal codes which conflict with treaty obligations, end of discussion/story on that one.
This is a person specifically involved in the hostage taking. There’s a difference between having a good relationship with Iran and having a good relationship with Iranian terrorists. They aren’t the same thing.
I thought this board was about combating ignorance rather than a competition to win debates.
Certainly ridicule and abuse weaken someone’s standing, but they do not alter the truth.
Not that it matters, but I was born in Istanbul, spent most of my childhood in Turkey and India, and have been overseas many times as an adult. And I’m not rattled, just faintly–very faintly–amused.
The USA is. Assign it a status- honorable with treaties/dishonorable with treaties.
The very fact that a judicial system allows non treaty making parties to alter the terms of a Trety post hoc is a problem. Most other governments do not allow subsidiary components to overrule the sovereignty of the Head of State. The US chooses to do so with its rather quaint slant in the Constitution. No other state/nation that i know of can have its Head of State sign a Treaty, and then have a subsidiary body alter its terms post hoc.