It has been the long standing practice (I can't cite the specific law) that no harm may come to any official representative of a sovereign nation while he visits the US on the business of that nation. So theoretically the Sudanese govt (or pick your eastern African nation) could name Bin Laden as their ambassador to the US. And even though he has resources that could strike the US independent of his govt he could land at JFK and we couldn't so much as give him a parking ticket (diplomatic immunity), let alone kill him. In fact, he could fly over ground zero in a chopper while giving orders to hit US targets, and we wouldn't even -theoretically - be able to tap his phone, let alone blow him to Allah.
Now, I understand that even Hillary would probably take him down were this to happen, but my question is over these laws. Legally no president could lift a finger. So, should they be repealed? Are they any use?
Just found the scenario interesting.
FR
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Again, in response I ask you a question:
What about reciprocity?
Aside from the obvious GENERAL reasons why, what particular fact made the Iran embassy crisis especially heinous for the US State Department in 1979?
How in the HELL were they ever going to get someone to staff an embassy in touchy or hostile nations again?
If the US can decide to disregard issues of diplomatic immunity at will, then you can be sure that nations like China, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the Philippines, et al, will do so as well... and always touting the phrase "its in our own best interest!"
Osama isn't a national leader, and no national leader will make him an "honorary diplomat" after what happened to the Taliban in '01... and all they did was let him stay in Afghanistan!
If this is in regards to more hypothetical Saddam scenarios, then I'd pose this question back again: How does it effect OUR diplomatic status to have pictures of nearly the entire Bush Cabinet (including Cheney, Rummy, O'Neal, Card, and Spense Abraham) shaking hands with Saddam during the reagan years? Does anyone in the diplomatic community suppose the man changed his spots THAT much in 4 years? Sheesh...
Lest we forget, a phrase I keep repeating to you over and over again is this: What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
T
I love the banter and commentary on this matter but its time for a reality check. diplomatic immunity is key for The US diplomats and those of foreign countries, even the ones we have philisophical issues with. As far as I can remember we don't have to issue diplomatic visas to anyone we deem a threat to the US interest so this arguement is irrelevent anyways. In the past when we have discovered a problem with someone who has a diplomatic visa we revoke their visa and send them home. If they were a large enough threat the aircraft sending them home would just disapear on the way to its destination.
Post a Comment