• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

State Department issues warning . . .

I will be as outraged as all of you if the UN is here to enforce or in any way interfere with our vote, just watching from afar would be fine. This is one of the problems with the whacky right wing outrages, if something ever did happen I would not beleive it because of the years of crying wolf.
 
Given the fraud committed by Jeb Bush in Florida in the 2000 election, we need international monitors to protect the integrity of our system.

By the way, notice that this is the rightwing noise machine engaging in the reverso meme: teabaggers around the country are sending "monitors" to polling places to intimidate minority voters, so the RNM came up with this gambit -- project all this on the UN -- to deflect from their dubious and bad faith activities.

It's what conservatives do.
 
That means they can rape, steal and murder at will - plus could interfer with the election.

Too bad that our President so loves Europeans and hates Americans that it is his formal policy that Europeans can rape, murder, steal or do anything else to us lowly Americans with presidential protection and immunity. Wow have I come to truly despise Obama.

It should be warned:

WARNING: President Obama has authorized Europeans to assault or kill any American they wish to that go to vote and looks like might be voting for Romney to prevent that person from voting.

That now is literally true.
 
Did you catch the part about 2002. Oh yea, a fact, nevermind all facts are liberal.
joko104 said:
That means they can rape, steal and murder at will - plus could interfer with the election.

Too bad that our President so loves Europeans and hates Americans that it is his formal policy that Europeans can rape, murder, steal or do anything else to us lowly Americans with presidential protection and immunity. Wow have I come to truly despise Obama.

It should be warned:

WARNING: President Obama has authorized Europeans to assault or kill any American they wish to that go to vote and looks like might be voting for Romney to prevent that person from voting.

That now is literally true.
Click to expand...
 
head of joaquin said:
Given the fraud committed by Jeb Bush in Florida in the 2000 election, we need international monitors to protect the integrity of our system.

By the way, notice that this is the rightwing noise machine engaging in the reverso meme: teabaggers around the country are sending "monitors" to polling places to intimidate minority voters, so the RNM came up with this gambit -- project all this on the UN -- to deflect from their dubious and bad faith activities.

It's what conservatives do.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?? There's no such THING as voter fraud.
 
MaggieD said:
I just thought of this:

Just because they have diplomatic immunity does not mean they cannot be ushered from the premises. Diplomatic immunity means they can't be arrested. To say it extends to states not being able to keep them out, would mean that one couldn't stop a person with diplomatic immunity from committing a murder.
Click to expand...

OK. This is slightly different. Yes I state has that authority but that was not your question. Also murder is not one of the things that is covered by DI, no matter what the TV shows say
 
iliveonramen said:
I don't understand the hullaboo over UN monitors at election polling places honestly.
Click to expand...

I agree I do not see what the big deal is. They stand there watch what happens and go back. Big deal. It is no more an outrage here than anywhere else unless you think that we are so high above everyone else. Fortunately I am not that arrogant or homiophobic
 
wolfman24 said:
OK. This is slightly different. Yes I state has that authority but that was not your question. Also murder is not one of the things that is covered by DI, no matter what the TV shows say
Click to expand...

I am not so sure you are correct--but I imagine in practice the person's country would allow them to be charged or charge them at home.

Diplomatic Immunity - e Diplomat
 
I voted early and thankfully I wasn't harassed my nosey foreign entities while doing so - if I was you would have heard about me on national news because I wouldn't have played that one with a smile.
 
wolfman24 said:
OK. This is slightly different. Yes I state has that authority but that was not your question. Also murder is not one of the things that is covered by DI, no matter what the TV shows say
Click to expand...


Yes it is, unless the country the person is from waives immunity.
 
head of joaquin said:
Given the fraud committed by Jeb Bush in Florida in the 2000 election, we need international monitors to protect the integrity of our system.

By the way, notice that this is the rightwing noise machine engaging in the reverso meme: teabaggers around the country are sending "monitors" to polling places to intimidate minority voters, so the RNM came up with this gambit -- project all this on the UN -- to deflect from their dubious and bad faith activities.

It's what conservatives do.
Click to expand...

THIS is why Progressives/Liberals/Democrats hated President G.W. Bush so much. The sucessor to President (Slick Willy) Clinton failed to secure the Presidency and it all came down to some ignorant people in Florida. Since that debacle they (Progressives/Liberals/Democrats) have consistently bashed President Bush and made every attempt to portray him as "dumb" or "stupid". There was no fraud in the 2000 election.

As for the topic, I personally do not like the idea of "Observers" from the UN being here in the US. We are not a Banana Republic, we don't need to be "monitored" or "observed" and I would really like to know by what right they are even here. If it takes an invitation from the "host" country then who in this country issued the invitation. Otherwise, we should ask them to depart and assist them onto whatever aircraft they are leaving on.
 
joko104 said:
Yes it is, unless the country the person is from waives immunity.
Click to expand...

Well maybe in some places but heres an example.

A Swedish diplomat (low ranking) killed a person in Russia about 2 years ago. The Swedish diplomat was arrested by Russian police, sentences and tried. He is currently (as far as I know still in prison). Now maybe there is more to this story than that but I have heard of other similar cases.
 
Not sure I fully understand this. Why is it thought that we need UN monitors? Who thought we did, and why? Who are these UN monitors? How have they been vetted as impartial? What countries are they from? Why are they only in these certain States, and not in all of them?

To many unanswered questions, this is just now being brought up so close to the election? Who decided that the American people needed to be monitored, without bothering to ask we the people what we thought of this idea beforehand ?

I guess under this administration, what the citizens of this country think doesn’t matter any longer.
 
Iowa?

Wow, the Obama campaign is really stupid. They just gave away Iowa.

MaggieD said:
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:



Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?
Click to expand...
 
No it isn't. It's not true at all. But in an election, perception is reality.

joko104 said:
That means they can rape, steal and murder at will - plus could interfer with the election.

Too bad that our President so loves Europeans and hates Americans that it is his formal policy that Europeans can rape, murder, steal or do anything else to us lowly Americans with presidential protection and immunity. Wow have I come to truly despise Obama.

It should be warned:

WARNING: President Obama has authorized Europeans to assault or kill any American they wish to that go to vote and looks like might be voting for Romney to prevent that person from voting.

That now is literally true.
Click to expand...
 
wolfman24 said:
I agree I do not see what the big deal is. They stand there watch what happens and go back. Big deal. It is no more an outrage here than anywhere else unless you think that we are so high above everyone else. Fortunately I am not that arrogant or homiophobic
Click to expand...

I think this is a big deal. It's not about thinking we are "so high above everyone else." Iowa and Texas don't need 'em or want 'em, and that's good enough reason to kick their tails back to wherever they came from. In my opinion.

Oh, and the U.N. can set up shop elsewhere too.
 
Let's see if I can clear a couple things up. I have been a diplomat for many years now and have even been recruited for election monitoring duty before in two different countries.

First, there are different kinds of diplomatic immunity. Those with full diplomatic credentials are completely immune from arrest or prosecution. They also cannot be held personally liable in a law suit. Even if it is the weekend and they are out drunk driving and kill someone, they cannot, under international law, be prosecuted by the host country government. There are a few ways that can play out. First, the diplomat's government could waive immunity, allowing the host country to prosecute. Second, the host country could decide to screw international law and prosecute the diplomat anyway. This is rare but has happened and the prosecuting government puts their own diplomats at risk of reciprocity. Third, the host country can PNG (persona non grata) the diplomat. Actually, a government can PNG any diplomat they want for any reason, thus kicking them out of the country. Once again, reciprocity plays a role and for every diplomat they PNG the other country may PNG the same number. Fourth, and this is the most common outcome when a diplomat violates a serious law, the diplomat's home government will pull him back home and prosecute him themselves.

The other type of immunity applies to those on T&A (Technical and Administrative) status. These are your lower level staffers. They still have diplomatic passports and enjoy many of the same privileges, but for the most part their protection only applies if they are carrying out their official duties. If they are off duty and get into trouble they are not guaranteed protection. In practice the embassy will usually go to bat for them if it isn't too serious and something will be worked out. Diplomats on T&A status are aslo not immune from law suits.

Whether or not a diplomat has has full immunity or has T&A status depends on the country and typically the size of the embassy. In some larger embassies I have worked my position did not merit full immunity. Host countries don't like large numbers of diplomats with full immunity floating around. However in some smaller embassies where the American staff only numbered a few dozen, everybody, even my secretary, had full immunity. The exact numbers are worked out between the two countries and the percentages arre usually reciprocal.

And despite the way us diplomats are portrayed in the movies abusing the privilege, immunity works to the advantage of nations with more fair legal systems. I have served in countries where the legal system was so corrupt that without immunity you couldn't have paid me enough to work there.

If the US were to go and start ignoring diplomatic immunity it could put those of us diplomats serving in less civilized nations at risk. I don't think this whole election monitoring thing rises to that level, I am just speaking in generalities.

As for election monitoring, it isn't as nefarious as some might think. All we can do is monitor and it is the officials we monitor. No we don't get to go into the booths and watch the voters. And we aren't even permitted to stop any wrong doing we may see, we can only report it. We have no authority whatsoever to take any proactive measures at the site.

Now, I'm from Texas. And I admit t strikes me as odd having foreign observers there. But that is because I am the typical American who is engrained with the belief that us Americans are special and shouldn't be held accountable in the same way we hold other nations. That is of course the wrong attitude to have, but I understand it. But take heart in knowing that the observers have no influence in the outcome of the election. They are only observing. THe worst that could happen is they lie about malfeasance or ignore malfeasance. In my experience I doubt that would happen, but even if it didn't it wouldn't affect the outcome of the election.
 
The Barbarian said:
Not sure I fully understand this. Why is it thought that we need UN monitors? Who thought we did, and why? Who are these UN monitors? How have they been vetted as impartial? What countries are they from? Why are they only in these certain States, and not in all of them?

To many unanswered questions, this is just now being brought up so close to the election? Who decided that the American people needed to be monitored, without bothering to ask we the people what we thought of this idea beforehand ?

I guess under this administration, what the citizens of this country think doesn’t matter any longer.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I do either.

Maybe it's just in case Obama wins a second term. If there are UN observers, the Republican's screams of "election fraud" will be a bit less shrill.
 
The Barbarian said:
Not sure I fully understand this. Why is it thought that we need UN monitors? Who thought we did, and why? Who are these UN monitors? How have they been vetted as impartial? What countries are they from? Why are they only in these certain States, and not in all of them?

To many unanswered questions, this is just now being brought up so close to the election? Who decided that the American people needed to be monitored, without bothering to ask we the people what we thought of this idea beforehand ?

I guess under this administration, what the citizens of this country think doesn’t matter any longer.
Click to expand...

As othes from this country and others have already stated apparently this is not a new thing (gee imagine that ) these UN folks have been doing this since 2002 and I don't remember hearing much about it back then. According to these people they were invited by our government (now and then) and merely observe no more.

As long as they are invited and only observe what the hell is the big deal especially if as reported they have been doing this for 10 years? I don't get it. So someone stands around to see how we do it.

I am more concerned about what the GOP is doing in Wisconsin
 
Perhaps we should station militia members in the poll places to observe the observers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom