Prescient

Well well well. Seems my post of some weeks ago has come to fruition as topical sooner than I had anticipated. I asked in an earlier post whether or not , in this age of terror, our diplomatic immunity laws were a bit antiquated in terms of the enemy we now face.

First, as to what has occurred. The president of Iran, Ahmedadenajad (thus forward known as "Ahmed") is coming to New york City to address the UN. Not only that, he put in a request to Mayor Bloomberg to visit and lay a wreath at Ground Zero, right where the towers stood. Bloomberg, being the idiot billionaire he is, said, "sure." Naturally the high velocity sh** smacked the fan as a consequence and Bloomberg subsequently rescinded the offer saying the NYPD made a plea to the mayor's office advising him that it would be a security nightmare and it just wasn't feasible. The state police, same story; and the secret service, no doubt under direction from the White House, also declined to provide an escort. Ahmed has now decided to go anyway, with Iranian state bodyguards et al, and lay his wreath. And of course, a major American University, Columbia, has offered to let him address the college and he has accepted.

Now, lest we forget, this is no ordinary foreign leader or convoy. We are in a global war on Islamo fascism, commonly refered to as "The War on Terror." He is the sponsor-in-chief of terror world wide. His army regulars (i.e. special forces in a raid/kidnapping) and munitions are killing our boys in the field as we speak. And the topper, he has been clearly identified by eyewitnesses as one of the hostage takers in the Iranian Hostage Crisis. That's right, the very man whom participated in seizing our embassy will now be given safe passage under the same customs and laws he chose to reject. In fact, his participation in that is one of the fame inducing credits that led to his being the mayor of Tehran and eventually president. So we have an ACTUAL TERRORIST whom has personally committed acts of terrorism against our nation in the past, and whom is personally directing acts of terror against us in Iraq, not to mention region wide, laying a wreath at the site where we suffered our most lethal terrorist attack. This is the precise scenario I described prior. Do diplomatic immunity laws apply to him? Should they?

There is precedence for this. The roots of this tradition are found in the prerogatives of Western European nobility, thus representatives of the Ottoman Empire were subject to arrest were hostilities to break out during their visit. Now, I realize that the modern rules codifying safe passage for diplomats were established in 1961 in Vienna - The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, but my question is given we are at war with states and organizations that disregard the very nobility such laws are rooted in, is it time to make exceptions?

Now of course I understand the fire storm that would erupt if we were to begin seizing the diplomats of any nation for which we had a squabble with, i.e. China, Russia, etc. Seizing such envoys would be viewed as an act of war by their respective countries and nothing short of disaster. Much like the Roman diplomatic convoy whom was urinated on upon exiting Carthage, ("This stain will be washed away with blood") we, in blanketly revoking or disregarding this law, would be starting our own "Punic wars" with everyone, so obviously a general rebuke is not what I am suggesting. But are we not already at war with Iran? Are they not part of the axis of evil? Wasn't there a promise to go after terrorists and their state sponsors? "With us or against us" is a phrase I seem to recall.

My point is this. Ahmed is not here to meet with our leader in hopes of ceasing current hostilities. He is not negotiating terms of his surrender, nor a treaty or any other aspect of ending a war. He is not a traditional war time envoy. He is simply "coming here." Given his participation in siezing our embassy; given the acts of war he is currently committing against us in Iraq; given his regulars are engaging us in theater; and given he is not a member of an envoy meant to discuss the cessation of those engagements, he is a legitimate target for arrest in my opinion. So the moment he steps off the plane we take him in to custody and publicly announce that his personal acts of terror in the Iranian Hostage Crisis and his directing of terrorist activities in Iraq has caused us to revoke his diplomatic status and he will be prosecuted as an enemy combatant - then send his ass to GITMO. And by the way, criminal acts outside of the official diplomatic capacity are legal justification, according to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to revoke an ambassador's status and arrest him. Doesn't the 1970's hostage taking in Iran qualify?

At the very least the administration should announce, prior to his arrival, that we will not honor his diplomatic status and he will be subject to arrest as an enemy combatant. Then he will cancel his little trip and we will at least spare the families directly affected by 9/11, and all Americans, the insult of his presence.
FR