• 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!

Lawmakers outraged over Iran U.N. choice, seek change in law.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
We can already deny a Visa. Why do we need to make up another law? Menendez isn't to happy about the way Team O is dealing with Iran. Think they will pass this law just to show Obama that his Pen wont work if they do it? What say ye?




Hardline U.S. lawmakers said on Tuesday they were concerned about Iran's selection of a U.N. envoy linked to the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, and called on the Obama administration to do what it can to prevent him from taking up the post in New York.

"That really has got to be a serious question, as to whether or not the State Department gives ... a visa to him," Democratic Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Reuters.

President Hassan Rouhani has chosen Hamid Abutalebi, a veteran diplomat seen as a moderate, to be Iran's new ambassador to the United Nations.

People who know Abutalebi said he was part of the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, which occupied the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979, although not among the core group of student activists inside the embassy who captured and held the hostages.

Reports of his ties to the crisis infuriated lawmakers, many of them hardliners who said they reinforced doubts about prospects for negotiations between Iran and world powers over Tehran's disputed nuclear program.

"We shouldn't accept him. We should change our rules or laws if we have to so that somebody who is guilty of that kind of behavior should not be allowed in the United States of America," said Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, a frequent critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policy.....snip~

http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-out...;_ylg=X3oDMTBhYWM1a2sxBGxhbmcDZW4tVVM-;_ylv=3
 
Ehhh let the past be the past.. I mean we did prop up a ****ed up dictator in their country then gave him passage to come to the US for medical treatment... What i say is let the past be the past. Lets not blow this up. The Islamists won. Now we have to do business with them.
 
I wonder what Carter has to say?
 
If England can ban someone for inflammatory political statements, why can't we ban someone for whatever reasons we want?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Ehhh let the past be the past..
Click to expand...

Is the silliest argument there is.

So let me ask you, who is a socialist, what you think of the fact that the Spanish government gave an overall amnesty to all criminals, murderes and tortures of the fascist Spanish Franco regime which murderd 200 000 people under it`s rule. Almoust all of whom were part of the countris political left?
 
The German said:
Is the silliest argument there is.
Click to expand...

I believe he took it even a step further. He urged letting the past be the past and then used the past (well, his personal interpretation of it) to justify letting the guy in.

It's like two different people wrote each part of his post.
 
The German said:
Is the silliest argument there is.

So let me ask you, who is a socialist, what you think of the fact that the Spanish government gave an overall amnesty to all criminals, murderes and tortures of the fascist Spanish Franco regime which murderd 200 000 people under it`s rule. Almoust all of whom were part of the countris political left?
Click to expand...

Please dont selectively quote and see the rest of the post.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Please dont selectively quote and see the rest of the post.
Click to expand...

ok:

I mean we did prop up a ****ed up dictator in their country then gave him passage to come to the US for medical treatment...
Click to expand...

So in your mind a crime can justify another crime?

What i say is let the past be the past. Lets not blow this up. The Islamists won. Now we have to do business with them.
Click to expand...

Do you know that the quoran says that a virgin woman cannot be executed?

May sound somewhat like a useless fact, but wait...

Whe in Iran a unmarried woman is sentenced to death, a member of the revolutionary guard gets permission to rape her before her execution.

Just one amongst the many uncivilised things going wrong in this country.

To simply say "they won" is just a redicilous way of accepting the inhuman and to engage in apeasment with barbarians.

"Appeasment is to feed a crocodile hoping that it will eat you last."
Click to expand...
- Sir Winston Churchill
 
The German said:
ok:



So in your mind a crime can justify another crime?



Do you know that the quoran says that a virgin woman cannot be executed?

May sound somewhat like a useless fact, but wait...

Whe in Iran a unmarried woman is sentenced to death, a member of the revolutionary guard gets permission to rape her before her execution.

Just one amongst the many uncivilised things going wrong in this country.

To simply say "they won" is just a redicilous way of accepting the inhuman and to engage in apeasment with barbarians.

- Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...


Mornin' German. Do you think we need to pass some law when we cn just pull his visa? Have you seen any commenting from those overseas and what we are saying about this Iranian Ambassador to the UN? Comments on anything we have said or the Iranians?
 
You may not like Aboutalebi's alleged past activities, although I don't see anyone suggesting he was a murderer, torturer, ethnic cleanser or any other stripes of human rights abuser. The US has granted, and continues to grant visas to every shade of despotic bastard who is permitted to work at the UN. What's special about this guy? Other than the fact that he provides Republicans with an opportunity for moral outrage and causes the White House a degree of diplomatic discomfort. Fake outrage is really no outrage at all.
 
Andalublue said:
You may not like Aboutalebi's alleged past activities, although I don't see anyone suggesting he was a murderer, torturer, ethnic cleanser or any other stripes of human rights abuser. The US has granted, and continues to grant visas to every shade of despotic bastard who is permitted to work at the UN. What's special about this guy? Other than the fact that he provides Republicans with an opportunity for moral outrage and causes the White House a degree of diplomatic discomfort. Fake outrage is really no outrage at all.
Click to expand...

Mornin' AB :2wave: .....so how does that work with Menendez who is the Chair Democrat and has been pushing back against Obama and his Team with what they have to say about Iran? Who was also responsible for leading the opposition over the bill for Sanctions on Iran.
 
MMC said:
Mornin' AB :2wave: .....so how does that work with Menendez who is the Chair Democrat and has been pushing back against Obama and his Team with what they have to say about Iran? Who was also responsible for leading the opposition over the bill for Sanctions on Iran.
Click to expand...
Afternoon MMC!

Well, I guess Reps aren't the only ones prepared to court populism.
 
MMC said:
We can already deny a Visa. Why do we need to make up another law? Menendez isn't to happy about the way Team O is dealing with Iran. Think they will pass this law just to show Obama that his Pen wont work if they do it? What say ye?
Click to expand...

This might be more of a kind of turf battle for power between the Legislative and Executive branches that periodically emerges than concern about dealing with deficiencies in existing law. The Executive Branch already possesses the authority to deny persons entry into the U.S., including diplomats, through its management of visas.

For some in Congress, leaving such discretion with the Executive Branch is not sufficient, as the outcome of its exercise of such authority might not always be consistent with the wishes of those Members of Congress. Hence, there is the questioning e.g., by Senator McCain, as to whether new laws are needed. Those laws, of course, would chip away at the Executive Branch's discretionary authority rather than create new legal authority.
 
What prevents the US from not recognizing Abutalebi's diplomatic immunity and arresting him as soon as he lands at the airport in NY? The UN and Iran can scream all they want.
 
Andalublue said:
Afternoon MMC!

Well, I guess Reps aren't the only ones prepared to court populism.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think you are Right.....seems the Demos have been on a roll with it, the past 4 years. But its all coming to a stop now. But really Menendez was the first to talk about not trusting the Iranians and told Obama so himself. Naturally Obama did the usual and wouldn't listen. Then menendez reached out to Mark Kirk for the Repubs and they got that bill put together quick like. Quick enough for Obama to respond with his rationale that it could make the Iranians walk away from the talks.
 
The German said:
ok:



So in your mind a crime can justify another crime?



Do you know that the quoran says that a virgin woman cannot be executed?

May sound somewhat like a useless fact, but wait...

Whe in Iran a unmarried woman is sentenced to death, a member of the revolutionary guard gets permission to rape her before her execution.

Just one amongst the many uncivilised things going wrong in this country.

To simply say "they won" is just a redicilous way of accepting the inhuman and to engage in apeasment with barbarians.

- Sir Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

Many on their side also like to throw out the fact that "Obama won", that is to say "YOU lost, now sit down and STFU."
 
MMC said:
Yeah I think you are Right.....seems the Demos have been on a roll with it, the past 4 years. But its all coming to a stop now. But really Menendez was the first to talk about not trusting the Iranians and told Obama so himself. Naturally Obama did the usual and wouldn't listen. Then menendez reached out to Mark Kirk for the Repubs and they got that bill put together quick like. Quick enough for Obama to respond with his rationale that it could make the Iranians walk away from the talks.
Click to expand...

But the Russian's are key to the talks and inspections in Iran -- wasn't that pooch already screwed given Crimea, sanctions and the troops surrounding the Ukraine?
 
MMC said:
Quick enough for Obama to respond with his rationale that it could make the Iranians walk away from the talks.
Click to expand...

Which one doesn't have to be too cynical to recognise as the real objective in this game - to wreck any possible peace moves between the US and Iran.
 
Andalublue said:
You may not like Aboutalebi's alleged past activities, although I don't see anyone suggesting he was a murderer, torturer, ethnic cleanser or any other stripes of human rights abuser. The US has granted, and continues to grant visas to every shade of despotic bastard who is permitted to work at the UN. What's special about this guy? Other than the fact that he provides Republicans with an opportunity for moral outrage and causes the White House a degree of diplomatic discomfort. Fake outrage is really no outrage at all.
Click to expand...

In general, when countries assign diplomats, they should at least consider the sensitivies of the countries to which they send their diplomats. While Mr. Abutalebi did not play a role in taking or holding the hostages, assuming the news account is accurate, he was still part of a group that seized the American Embassy. Understandably, many Americans have serious reservations about his being appointed to a role that would bring him to the U.S. All in all, this might not be a huge deal and Mr. Abutalebi might well be a qualified diplomat, but Iran's appointments does provide fresh evidence that Iran does not take American sensitivies into consideration. On the larger geopolitical front, such conduct may raise questions as to whether Iran is truly serious about accommodating international needs with respect to its nuclear activities. Even as some progress has been made, reinforced doubts can create barriers to further diplomatic progress.

Finally, as for the State Department's visa decision, a lot will probably depend on just what role Mr. Abutalebi played in the protests, did he have knowledge that the U.S. Embassy would be seized, did he support those activities, how have his positions evolved since then, among other background factors that are typically part of the decision making process. Not having access to that kind of information, I reserve judgment on that matter and trust that the Department of State will make a professional and informed decision.
 
Ockham said:
But the Russian's are key to the talks and inspections in Iran -- wasn't that pooch already screwed given Crimea, sanctions and the troops surrounding the Ukraine?
Click to expand...

Mornin' Ockham. :2wave: Well I guess Putin assured Obama that all would still go forward. I hope they pin him down on any open worded statements like that one. I would be and what do you mean by all will still go forward?! :lol:
 
Ockham said:
What prevents the US from not recognizing Abutalebi's diplomatic immunity and arresting him as soon as he lands at the airport in NY? The UN and Iran can scream all they want.
Click to expand...

U.S. ratification of the Vienna Convention. If he's in a position that carries full diplomatic immunity (and his position would come with such immunity) and the U.S. issues him a visa, it is barred from its own commitments to the Vienna Convention from doing so. Of course, it has the power to do so as there is little Iran could do to prevent it, but such a decision would essentially signal to the world that the U.S. does not respect the privileges and immunities of the foreign diplomats it accepts. That would create a bad precedent. Other states could then deny American (or even other countries' diplomats) the privileges and immunities that go with their positions. Such an environment would impair diplomacy and reduced latitude for diplomacy would not benefit American interests in the larger context.
 
Ockham said:
What prevents the US from not recognizing Abutalebi's diplomatic immunity and arresting him as soon as he lands at the airport in NY? The UN and Iran can scream all they want.
Click to expand...

That's why I asked about.....why do we need to make up another law over this? McCain is heading off into senility.....so why do people listen to him anymore?
 
donsutherland1 said:
U.S. ratification of the Vienna Convention. If he's in a position that carries full diplomatic immunity (and his position would come with such immunity) and the U.S. issues him a visa, it is barred from its own commitments to the Vienna Convention from doing so. Of course, it has the power to do so as there is little Iran could do to prevent it, but such a decision would essentially signal to the world that the U.S. does not respect the privileges and immunities of the foreign diplomats it accepts. That would create a bad precedent. Other states could then deny American (or even other countries' diplomats) the privileges and immunities that go with their positions. Such an environment would impair diplomacy and reduced latitude for diplomacy would not benefit American interests in the larger context.
Click to expand...

Hmm... might not be worth it for such a small fry as this Iranian. Wonder if the UN would be persuaded to reject his eligibility and therefore block diplomatic immunity before he has the ability to use it. I'm sure there's more than one way to skin that cat but as you point out, are the implications worth the risk - probably not is my view.
 
donsutherland1 said:
This might be more of a kind of turf battle for power between the Legislative and Executive branches that periodically emerges than concern about dealing with deficiencies in existing law. The Executive Branch already possesses the authority to deny persons entry into the U.S., including diplomats, through its management of visas.

For some in Congress, leaving such discretion with the Executive Branch is not sufficient, as the outcome of its exercise of such authority might not always be consistent with the wishes of those Members of Congress. Hence, there is the questioning e.g., by Senator McCain, as to whether new laws are needed. Those laws, of course, would chip away at the Executive Branch's discretionary authority rather than create new legal authority.
Click to expand...


Mornin' DS. :2wave: Well I am all for chippin away from those Presidential Powers. No matter who is sitting in there. But then I also look at why create more laws when we already have one that is in place.

Once again.....they use the term Moderate for this Iranian. So far our people haven't been so keen on as to what that Moderation exactly is.
 
MMC said:
Mornin' DS. :2wave: Well I am all for chippin away from those Presidential Powers. No matter who is sitting in there. But then I also look at why create more laws when we already have one that is in place.

Once again.....they use the term Moderate for this Iranian. So far our people haven't been so keen on as to what that Moderation exactly is.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "moderate" is used in a relative sense. This distinction can be lost on the public e.g., the public might view President Rouhani as a partner with whom the U.S. can easily do business. That he might be moderate relative to ex-President Ahmadinejad does not mean that he desires a constructive relationship with the U.S. Putting aside his rhetoric, one sees only small movement on the nuclear front (far short of what is actually needed to alleviate the concerns of the international community and Iran's neighbors), continuing involvement in assisting Iranian proxies such as Hezbollah, no changes in Iran's hardline rejection of Israel's legitimacy, etc. As time passes, and big changes fail to materialize, I suspect that the American public will become disillusioned. Yet, the disillusionment will largely be the result of oversized expectations based largely on hopeful assumptions that had little grounding in fact to begin with.

I see no reason not to reach out to him to "test" him. There may be some areas where improvement in relations could be possible. But my expectations are low overall. First, he is a product of a state that retains a revolutionary ideology that runs counter to American interests and allies. Second, Iran is seeking regional hegemony. Third, Ayatollah Khamenei wields the real power and that would limit any big changes in direction. Iran should be judged by its actions, not its softer rhetoric. To date, its actions remain largely unchanged and the progress to date in the nuclear talks is mostly a matter of process. There is no concrete agreement to limit or end Iran's enrichment activities, much less for it to eliminate its enriched nuclear material. No breakthroughs on that front appear imminent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom