• 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 . . .

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:

The US State Department issued a warning...No, not to the election observers — to Texas:
International election observers planning to visit Texas polling places have “full immunity” from being arrested in the United States, the State Department said when discussing a letter from the Texas Attorney General.
“I’m not going to get into any kind of hypothetical situations or predict where this is going to go other than to say we have every expectation that this will be worked out and to state the fact, which is that under U.S. law they are eligible for immunities,” said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. Reporters tried to get her to state explicitly that Texas could not arrest election observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), but Nuland would only reiterate that OSCE observers have full immunity.

Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?
 
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:



Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?

Good question. What law granting them immunity is the State Dept referring to?
 
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:



Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?

I was curious so i checked it out and members of international organizations that are diplomatic-level staff on missions do have diplomatic immunity.
 
I was curious so i checked it out and members of international organizations that are diplomatic-level staff on missions do have diplomatic immunity.

Got a link?
 
Got a link?

Diplomatic immunity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They have a chart showing who does and does not get diplomatic immunity

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf
Relevant portion

International organizations, such as the United Nations, are relatively modern entities. Th e privileges and immunities
of the personnel of such organizations and the personnel of national missions to such organizations have a diff erent
basis than that of diplomatic and consular representatives. In the case of international organizations, the nations
concerned have agreed that the important purposes of such organizations may be accomplished only if a certain
measure of privileges and immunities are aff orded to their participants. Th e nations concerned have concluded
treaties embodying such grants of privileges and immunities. Some, including the United States, enacted domestic
legislation granting specifi c privileges and immunities to certain categories of persons not covered by the treaties.
In determining the degree of inviolability or immunity, law enforcement offi cers will be guided primarily by the
identity documents that have been issued to such persons. Th e following, however, provides a general overview of the
distribution of privileges and immunities in connection with international organizations

Personnel of International Organizations. International organizations that have headquarters or other offi ces in
the United States are staff ed with administrative and executive employees, as necessary, to carry out their functions.
Th e vast majority of these employees enjoy only offi cial acts immunity as provided for in U.S. domestic legislation
(the International Organizations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. 2881) and no personal inviolability. In certain cases,
however, the most senior executives of such organizations have been accorded privileges and immunities equal to
those aff orded diplomatic agents. Th is is the case for the Secretary General of the United Nations and for all Assistant
Secretaries-General of the United Nations, Principal Resident Representatives of the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank, as well as some senior offi cials of the Organization of American States secretariat.
Personnel of National Missions to International Organizations. Th e United Nations and the Organization of
American States are headquartered in the United States, and most of their member States maintain permanent missions
to the headquarters in the United States. Th e permanent representatives staffi ng these missions are accredited to the
international organization concerned (not to the United States), but their privileges and immunities are nonetheless
oft en defi ned by reference to the status of diplomatic personnel who are accredited to the United States.
As is the case with diplomatic missions, the assignment of privileges and immunities is diff erentiated generally on the
basis of the functions performed. Th e most senior representatives in these missions to international organizations
have privileges and immunities equivalent to those aff orded diplomatic agents. Th e remainder of the staff s of these
missions have only offi cial acts immunity pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act and no
personal inviolability.
Short-term offi cial visitors from other States to the United Nations or to international conferences convened by the
United Nations may enjoy full diplomatic immunity equivalent to that aff orded diplomatic agents. Owing to the
temporary nature of their visit, such offi cials will normally not have the usual offi cial identity documents recognizable
in the United States. Law enforcement offi cials (particularly in New York) should be sensitive to the existence of this
situation and always coordinate with the U.S. authorities indicated in the list of Useful Phone Numbers if confronted
with an apparent off ender appearing to fall into this category
 
Diplomatic-level staff are immune, but the normal staffs are not.

The State Department link has more information.

Th e most senior representatives in these missions to international organizations
have privileges and immunities equivalent to those aff orded diplomatic agents. Th e remainder of the staff s of these
missions have only offi cial acts immunity pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act and no
personal inviolability.

Monitoring elections are official acts.
 
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:



Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?

Comon Maggie Diplomatic Immunity. For petes sake. An officer of a foriegn government operating in the US is often given Diplomatic immunity which excludes them from most of our laws or the laws of other countries where they operate.

UN observers have such immunity as long as they hold to thier charter and do what they are suppose to do. The question here is not whether they have the right to be here but who asked them to be and who authorized it. They cannot just show up, its against the UN charter to "interfere" with the goings on of member nations without being invited or asked to show up.

From my understanding only the President has that authority. And if it was him when did he submit his request and why. That is the real and only question.

After Unification in Germany, UN observers were at the voting places in the east to ensure there was no funny business.
 
Iowa and Texas told international vote monitors are immune from U.S. laws:



Under what theory do these observers have immunity from state laws?
Indeed, that's just wrong.

What's to keep an organization of "internataional vote monitors" from blatantly or subtly harassing/intimidating voters, from falsely accusing precincts that are loaded with voters for their ideological opponent, etc.?

Announcing today the sanctioning of these biased groups of watchers is an affront to Americans and perhaps qualifies as a "political dirty trick" .. and on Political Dirty Tricks Day, no less.
 
What's to keep an organization of "internataional vote monitors" from blatantly or subtly harassing/intimidating voters, from falsely accusing precincts that are loaded with voters for their ideological opponent, etc.?

I suggest that anyone who harasses or intimidates voters should be removed from the area and confined in the county jail until their diplomatic credentials can be confirmed. That way the matter can be handled locally during the critical period, and by officials who are reponsible only to their local electorate. Of course it may take some time to notify the State Dept. that there is a potential problem, more time for State to send a representative to the site to verify the identity of the troublemakers, and of course mistakes will be made. But any mistakes can be resolved with an apology when the troublemakers are released from jail the next week ... or next month ... or whenever.

Do not, I repeat DO NOT, rely on federal law enforcement agencies under Holder's DOJ to do anything at all, especially if the miscreants are members of the New Black Pampers.
 
Do they have the right to stand in the voting booth with you? :lol:
 
Do they have the right to stand in the voting booth with you? :lol:
You know, the "lol" you append underscores the humorously unthinkable nature of a "yes" answer to your question .. but after chuckling for a second I realized that, if these people have a right to ignore the 100 - 300 feet "stay away" law, indeed what other U.S. laws do they have a right to ignore?! :confused:

Suddenly your facetious question is all too frigteningly legitimate! :shock:
 
You know, the "lol" you append underscores the humorously unthinkable nature of a "yes" answer to your question .. but after chuckling for a second I realized that, if these people have a right to ignore the 100 - 300 feet "stay away" law, indeed what other U.S. laws do they have a right to ignore?! :confused:

Suddenly your facetious question is all too frigteningly legitimate! :shock:

Bingo! ;)
 
Comon Maggie Diplomatic Immunity. For petes sake. An officer of a foriegn government operating in the US is often given Diplomatic immunity which excludes them from most of our laws or the laws of other countries where they operate.

UN observers have such immunity as long as they hold to thier charter and do what they are suppose to do. The question here is not whether they have the right to be here but who asked them to be and who authorized it. They cannot just show up, its against the UN charter to "interfere" with the goings on of member nations without being invited or asked to show up.

From my understanding only the President has that authority. And if it was him when did he submit his request and why. That is the real and only question.

After Unification in Germany, UN observers were at the voting places in the east to ensure there was no funny business.

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.
 
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.

I don't understand the hullaboo over UN monitors at election polling places honestly.
 
It is another outrage. John Birch wanted us out, not us to let them in.
I don't understand the hullaboo over UN monitors at election polling places honestly.
 
We have international monitors looking at elections in Texas, why again? Is Texas so prone to election fraud that foreign nations have to be invited in to make sure everything is on the up and up?

and the monitors are from where? China? Pakistan? Mexico? where?
 
I see this as nothing more than a way to insult the US by equivocating our election process with that of tin pot dictators. Unfortunately it's damned if you do (certainly these observers will note "irregularities" to imply funny business) and damned if you don't (what do they have to hide?!), especially so in this likely very close election.
 
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.

"International election monitors threatened with violence as
Texas Rangers force UN officials away from polling place"
 
I don't understand the hullaboo over UN monitors at election polling places honestly.

I think it has to do with a variation of that oft told right wing platitude about American Exceptionalism. Although in this case it means everybody is suspect for election fraud EXCEPT the good old red white and blue.
 
Just the good old conservative red white and blue.
I think it has to do with a variation of that oft told right wing platitude about American Exceptionalism. Although in this case it means everybody is suspect for election fraud EXCEPT the good old red white and blue.
 
We have international monitors looking at elections in Texas, why again? Is Texas so prone to election fraud that foreign nations have to be invited in to make sure everything is on the up and up?

and the monitors are from where? China? Pakistan? Mexico? where?

That's a good question. Why Texas of all places?
 
Back
Top Bottom