Former Norway PM held at Washington airport over 2014 visit to Iran
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I just want to underscore the law at fault instead of fueling partisanship.
[0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158
Has he visited the US between that law passing and before Trumps ban without any issues?
[1]http://www.aftenposten.no/verden/Bondevik-hadde-iransk-stemp...
I think the decisions about who to detain are typically arbitrary and decided by that particular agent at the time.
But you are right in principle. Letting people through because they look important is a big security hole.
Also detaining the former Norwegian PM would make it look less like they're targeting specific groups.
Doesn't say much, as it only takes a random border idiot to get into that situation -- so you might, or might not, even if before you were coming in without issue.
If customs is triggered by what countries one has visited in the past, know that only someone who has means no harm has these in his or her passport. All others will remove this evidence prior to flying...
I've always had two standard US Blue passports. All I was required to do to get them was write a explanation as to why I needed it and await approval. The most common reason is travel to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, keeping them separate reduces some of the headaches.
I was just there last summer. They gave me a bar-coded receipt in lieu of the passport stamp.
There's still an issue that if you visit Jordan from Israel you get a stamp from Jordan that states the entry point.
(It's an interesting story: his brother was actually a suicide bomber. Nevertheless he himself did get cleared for entry after vetting. The new Trump rules caught him as collateral last week.)
Do you have any references to that?
The news articles I'm reading now have corrected their origin from Iranian to Moroccan, it seems.
Have fun with Russia and China.
I really don't think Russia is how the western media portrays it. And I live in a country with a "bad" history with Russia.
us peons would be treated worse. it's a canary in the coal-mine when a former Norwegian PM, a politician of one of the larger NATO ally nations, is delayed and questioned at the US border.
This demonstrates that the current administration (it didn't ever HAPPEN under prior administrations) is pursuing a course of non-diplomacy which will result in the global isolation of the USA and the loss of friends and political capital abroad.
There's nothing to defend in such behavior, as it's a harbinger of bad things, not good things. Period.
http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DI...
Article 29
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He
shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The
receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall
take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his
person, freedom or dignity.
I half-agree with the GP, that he shouldn't be above the law just because he was PM, but also, the purpose of detaining and questioning people for entry is to determine whether they pose a risk (even though I think that's dumb). A former PM is probably very low on that list.
It should be enough when they found that I have a
diplomatic passport, [that I’m a] former prime minister.
“It should be enough when they found that I have a diplomatic passport, [that I’m a] former prime minister. That should be enough for them to understand that I don’t represent any problem or threat to this country and [to] let me go immediately, but they didn’t.”
And:
“I was surprised, and I was provoked,” he said. “What will the reputation of the US be if this happens not only to me, but also to other international leaders?”
So he doesn't really care about the "brown person" paranoia, all he cares about is "diplomats shouldn't be treated like Arabs", which I personally find distasteful.
He had a diplomatic passport.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#Diplomatic_passport
Do retired small city mayors travel in first class on diplomatic passports and expect to be free from customs and immigration rules that apply to everyone else? They do not.
He isn't a fairytale prince. When he loses his post, he can travel on legitimate documents like the rest of us.
Either way, it sounds like situations like these used to be handled a little more smoothly/amicably. If two nations are friendly to each other, and one fucks up, what's the use in antagonism?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/29/state-depart...
E.g. here in Germany the law explicitly adds the possibility to issue them to people travelling "in the special interest of Germany", which a former PM traveling to an important event he was invited to because of his status (which the National Prayer Breakfast seems to be) would fit. (There even are exceptions where no representative role at all is required, although I doubt they are used much)
A public figure being held does make it easier for partisans to shriek about Trump's executive order, though.
>“I must admit that I fear the future. There has been a lot of progress over the last 10 years, but this gives great cause for concern, in line with the authoritarian leaders we see controlling other major countries.”
I'd be curious to know of which "progress" Bondevik is talking here. My takeaway from the Western reaction on perceived terrorist threats is pretty much: the terrorists have won.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friend...
Currently many Europeans are getting used to armed guards at churches and synagogues, crowded places and other strategic points; I wonder what would cause this situation to be different in say, ten years time?
And US border force always harassed people who visited enemy countries. Several people were not allowed to enter, because they visited Iran, or other 'axis of evil' country.
[citation needed]
(as always on Reddit, don't vote if you arrive with an external HTTP Referer header or you risk being banned 3 days on the whole site for participating in a voting brigade)
> Well the question was ‘if Iran was to launch a nuclear response be, what would our response be’ and I want Iran to know that if I’m the President, we will attack Iran; and I want them to understand that because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps would deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.
US would knock down air defense and industrial potential of the country. Maybe you believe in 'surgical strikes', but similar cases in history tell otherwise.
You're mistaking him with GWB and McCain, who famously sang Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran on stage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg
If you think conversations on political issues are worth having, engage sincerely, and with an abundance of civility.
If you don't think it's possible, please refrain from making the situation worse. Creating throwaway accounts to complain or "speak truth" is just noise. No one reading your comment is going to wake up and say, "You know, I have been intellectually dishonest. I better fix that." You only reinforce the cynical idea that communication is impossible, which is what's dividing so many of us today.