Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Democrats side with....Ted Cruz? Goddammit, they all bet on Kentucky winning, didn't they?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, Democrat Party, Kentucky, Republicans, Senate, senate democrats, iranian foreign ministry, Senate floor  
•       •       •

1703 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2014 at 9:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-08 10:16:02 AM  
The UN should probably not be based in the US for exactly this reason.
 
2014-04-08 10:19:41 AM  
Republican idea: put a restriction on somebody else.

I also agree, the US should never have the UN center command in this country. Ever.
 
2014-04-08 10:32:38 AM  

Ned Stark: The UN should probably not be based in the US for exactly this reason.


Cuts down on expenses. You want to pay for all that NSA staff to travel to a foreign country?
 
2014-04-08 10:37:26 AM  
Has this issue ever arisen before?  What sort of diplomatic immunity do UN delegates have?
 
2014-04-08 10:43:25 AM  

flondrix: Has this issue ever arisen before?  What sort of diplomatic immunity do UN delegates have?


It came up with Ahmadinejad previously:

"As host of the United Nations, the United States is obligated to allow foreign leaders to speak before the world body barring extraordinary circumstances.
"We have host country obligations and we are going to live up those host country obligations," McCormack said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-grants-ahmadinejad-visa-for-address- to -un-security-council-1.215976
 
2014-04-08 11:43:24 AM  
Wow.

I actually thought Cruz would go through his entire Senate term without nominating a single bill, much less having one pass.  Any indication that Obama will sign it?
 
2014-04-08 11:51:46 AM  

dsmith42: flondrix: Has this issue ever arisen before?  What sort of diplomatic immunity do UN delegates have?

It came up with Ahmadinejad previously:

"As host of the United Nations, the United States is obligated to allow foreign leaders to speak before the world body barring extraordinary circumstances.
"We have host country obligations and we are going to live up those host country obligations," McCormack said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-grants-ahmadinejad-visa-for-address- to -un-security-council-1.215976


I would think "directly took our citizens hostage" would count as extraordinary circumstances.  I have to, unfortunately, agree with Cruz and the rest.
 
2014-04-08 12:11:57 PM  

palelizard: I would think "directly took our citizens hostage" would count as extraordinary circumstances.  I have to, unfortunately, agree with Cruz and the rest.


Also it's foreign leaders, I think the US still has the right to refuse an ambassador for whatever reason strikes their fancy, although I can see why we'd be a lot more forgiving of a UN ambassador we hated than one to the US.
 
2014-04-08 12:20:47 PM  

MisterRonbo: Ned Stark: The UN should probably not be based in the US for exactly this reason.

Cuts down on expenses. You want to pay for all that NSA staff to travel to a foreign country?


Move the whole thing to Canada. Its next door, they're a friendly folk, and they've got lots of space up there.
 
2014-04-08 12:34:42 PM  

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Also it's foreign leaders, I think the US still has the right to refuse an ambassador for whatever reason strikes their fancy, although I can see why we'd be a lot more forgiving of a UN ambassador we hated than one to the US.


Countries always have a right to refuse diplomats to THEM.  However, ones to the UN are another matter, as they're there for the world, not for the United States.  We're a bit more limited in our refusal options.  Case in point, letting in Qaddafi a few years ago.
 
2014-04-08 12:43:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Countries always have a right to refuse diplomats to THEM. However, ones to the UN are another matter, as they're there for the world, not for the United States. We're a bit more limited in our refusal options. Case in point, letting in Qaddafi a few years ago.


How many UN delegates, or other people with business at the UN, would be considered criminals in one member country or another?  I would imagine quite a few.  Beginning with the entire US delegation, of course.
 
2014-04-08 12:45:14 PM  
Wait until they find out that the bill ends with "...and repeal Obamacare." in tiny print.
 
2014-04-08 01:01:08 PM  
Nobody ever said Cruz COULDN'T be right, just that he almost never is, and, when he is, it's usually for the wrong reasons. Probably wrong this time, though.

Interesting that the US can mess with UN delegates by controlling Visas. Unique perk of hosting the headquarters.
 
2014-04-08 01:42:50 PM  

palelizard: I would think "directly took our citizens hostage" would count as extraordinary circumstances.  I have to, unfortunately, agree with Cruz and the rest.


He didn't directly take anyone hostage.

Mr. Aboutalebi insisted that he was not even in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, the day the United States Embassy compound was seized by a group calling itself Students Following the Imam's Line. It was eight days later, he said, when he first agreed to translate for the group when a Vatican envoy visited the hostages. The week after that, he recalled, "I did the translation duringa press conference when the female and black staffers of the embassy were released" by the students
No evidence has emerged to support claims that Mr. Aboutalebi was among the leaders of the embassy siege, which was well-documented by the international news media at the time.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/irans-reformers-include- mo re-than-one-former-hostage-taker/

Requiring US approval of every UN delegate runs contrary to the UN.
 
2014-04-08 01:46:24 PM  
If the UN moves out of the US, Donald Trump has plans for the building.

img.fark.net
 
2014-04-08 01:55:43 PM  

BitwiseShift: If the UN moves out of the US, Donald Trump has plans for the building.

[img.fark.net image 225x225]


So, he's going to build a Museum of Epic Fail? Because that what I think of when I hear the words "UN" and "Donald Trump".
 
2014-04-08 02:05:10 PM  

moothemagiccow: He didn't directly take anyone hostage.

Mr. Aboutalebi insisted that he was not even in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979, the day the United States Embassy compound was seized by a group calling itself Students Following the Imam's Line. It was eight days later, he said, when he first agreed to translate for the group when a Vatican envoy visited the hostages. The week after that, he recalled, "I did the translation duringa press conference when the female and black staffers of the embassy were released" by the students
No evidence has emerged to support claims that Mr. Aboutalebi was among the leaders of the embassy siege, which was well-documented by the international news media at the time.


http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/04/irans-reformers-include- mo re-than-one-former-hostage-taker/

Requiring US approval of every UN delegate runs contrary to the UN.


Interesting.  It'd have been nice if the original article had mentioned that. I stand corrected.  I should have known Cruz wouldn't be on the right side of anything.
 
2014-04-08 02:33:52 PM  
So much for American legitimacy in world diplomatic affairs.
 
2014-04-08 03:26:58 PM  

CarnySaur: Wait until they find out that the bill ends with "...and repeal Obamacare." in tiny print.


'You can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy - "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera..."Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera..."Memo bis punitor delicatum!" It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal!'
 
2014-04-08 04:27:49 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2014-04-09 06:43:17 PM  

dsmith42: flondrix: Has this issue ever arisen before?  What sort of diplomatic immunity do UN delegates have?

It came up with Ahmadinejad previously:

"As host of the United Nations, the United States is obligated to allow foreign leaders to speak before the world body barring extraordinary circumstances.
"We have host country obligations and we are going to live up those host country obligations," McCormack said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-grants-ahmadinejad-visa-for-address- to -un-security-council-1.215976


Under the United States hosting agreement, which congress approved the president/executive branch to sign and execute in 1947 (PL 357 80th Congress), The US is not permitted to deny visa's to any representative, representatives family, or anyone working under the employment or at the request of the UN from entering the UN headquarters district and it is explicitly stated as an extention to that we must allow the required transit threw US soil as needed. It does however make a distinction between entry into the US and entry into the UN headquarters district.

While the US can't deny visa's or access to the UN headquarters, it is within the US's rights to limit these individuals to just UN headquarters district and necessary transit.

There is some grey area to be had however when it comes to perspective member states that haven't yet achieved full membership status. Under the agreement the US can and has denied at least 1 visa from a non-member state that was supposedly coming to speak on behalf of allowing his state entrance into the UN.. I do not remember his name or the state in question, I just remember reading the story.

Iran, however is a fully member state, as such the US can't really deny his access to the UN headquarters without putting the US in violation of our hosting agreement. As far as what a Violation means, well under the hosting agreement any "disputes" would be handled by a 3 party committee of people, 1 being nominated by the US Secretary of State, 1 by the UN Secretary General, and 1 by both parties. If they couldn't agree on a third party then one is appointed by the international justice of the UN courts. Which simply means unless the Secretary General was supportive of the US position, then the resolution would again end with the US being "Forced" to comply.

That being said, there is no real function that would compel or force the US government to comply really. There is no function of direct control or superseding (the way federal supersedes the state level governments) over the US government unless congress allows it and the UN stands to loose more than it gains by fighting the issue. US due's to the UN are supposedly around 22% of their total intake, and we're currently behind on that. So to fight the issue for the UN would mean moving their HQ at a cost in the Billion's and likely loosing Millions more in US funding as it happens.

Of course this assumes that the president will sign Cruz's law, just because democrat votes are behind it doesn't mean the president is willing to throw his diplomatic missions under the bus to please congress, and a veto override while possible, isn't likely. If the situation was handled smartly, Congress would pass those economic sanctions against Iran that they've been wanting to do since the nuclear talks started happening, and adjust it so that the new sanctions only go into effect if the guy remains their UN ambassador and enters the US. Give the guy his required visa but give Iran a couple hundred million dollar reason to recall their pick and choose again.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report