<sarcasm>
How can we be sure he wasn't radicalized during his visit to Iran? Surely such an inconvenience is a small price to pay for the safety and security of our great nation? If he's got nothing to hide, what's he afraid of?
</sarcasm>
I'm not sure what to make of that news. Customs/airport laws/regulations are bad or a Norway politician should be above the law just because of his social class, so holding him is scandalous because the law shouldn't apply to him?
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.
The airport security workers didn't think "OMG IRAN MUSLIM TARGET ACQUIRED DETAIN DETAIN DETAIN".
They weighed principles of the previous century and laws that, for all they know, might have been abolished overnight against the clear intent and the messy law of the new policy of harassment and inequality of the new USA administration; and they thought holding a diplomat at the airport was the safest course of action for them.
The other principle that could apply is that holding anyone who doesn't represent any credible threat is unnecessary. I think his argument isn't that he's above the law, but more that it's inconceivable that they could honestly think that detaining him was necessary.
Let's be honest, you can say the same about a lot of demographic slices, but for equality reasons society, or someone, insisted that everyone be potentially subject to extreme screening. If we insist on not using our brains, then enjoy the ride when it's you that gets caught up in it. (Yes, I know this person is truly exceptional, but it's only a matter of degree.)
I’m not an expert here, but in the article it says he had a diplomatic passport. If that was so, and he’s an accredited diplomat, then the Vienna Convention (ratified in the USA and Norway both) applies here. It says that diplomats are not to be arrested or detained.
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.
You can disagree with our participation in the treaty, but it’s what we’ve got!
However, he didn't say "I was held even though I'm a diplomat", he said "they shouldn't have held me after they saw I was PM of Norway, they should have realized I'm not dangerous".
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.
EDIT: The article doesn’t totally, clearly, and unambiguously say, “the subject of this article is an accredited diplomat.” If that’s not so, then obviously my comment doesn’t apply. But it’s certainly suggested by his claim that he has a diplomatic passport.
“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.
It sounds like you're saying that you think he's capitulating the conceit that arabs are terrorists? I don't really read his words that way, but I guess I can see it. And if so, then yes: definitely distasteful.
As others have noted, holding a diplomatic passport doesn't mean that any given country recognizes you as a diplomat. "Diplomatic passport — Issued to diplomats of a country and their accompanying dependents for official international travel and residence. Accredited diplomats of certain grades may be granted diplomatic immunity by a host country, but this is not automatically conferred by holding a diplomatic passport."[0]
Since he's not a government official—the story is quite explicit that he's working for a private organization—he's fraudulently travelling on a diplomatic passport. He should have been arrested at the border, interrogated, barred permanently from the USA, and deported.
Prime minister of tiny Norway is about as powerful and important as a small city mayor in the USA.
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.
That's possible. But to me it's not totally obvious. He said the US embassy in Oslo checked/authorized his travel credentials. So either he's lying or the US embassy fucked up.
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?
Possibly related is last week's purge of State Department personnel[1]. With State iced out by the Administration and CBP let off the reins, it makes sense that there would be miscommunication there.
Diplomatic passports are not necessarily restricted to "official travels" in the strict sense, and it is up to the issuing nation to decide who gets one and when they are allowed to use it. (But it also has no internationally fixed "special powers", any nation can decide for itself if it treats its carriers any different)
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)
I don't think he would have accreditation to the US, when he is just traveling for a specific event there and explicitly asked the US embassy if his travel documents are ok beforehand. Without accreditation, a diplomatic passport mostly is a way of saying "in some way representing our country, please treat accordingly" as far as I know.
I think there is a difference between a diplomatic passport, and a diplomatic agent. Just because a country issues you a diplomatic passport does not mean the US considers you a diplomatic agent. For example, in the recent Chinese billionaire arrest, I think he had a Panamanian diplomatic passport, but was not a diplomatic agent.
What law is he being above? The article says he checked with the US embassy in Oslo before travelling, and they said it was all good. He isn't trying to be above the law, he double checked with the law first.
>Speaking to the TV2 channel, Bondevik expressed further concern about the Trump administration’s tactics. “I understand the fear of terror, but one should not treat entire ethnic groups in such a way,” he said.
>“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.
Given that "the terrorists'" (Osama's, at least) goal was to have americans question their government's foreign policy, they most certainly have not won:
Al Qaeda and ISIL/ISIS/Daesh are different beasts. The latter's stated intention has been the establishment of a modern caliphate that counts all of the world's Sunni Muslims as citizens and that wages a war against the rest of the world (Shia, Jewish, Christian, whatever). It wants all Sunnis to be ejected from the West and sent back to live under its caliphate. Given that, it "wins" when the West (a) rejects Muslims (especially Sunnis fleeing ISIL) or (b) talks about Islamism as an existential threat (i.e. lionizes ISIL).
So far the terrorists are certainly winning as the individuals at the wrong end of the received terrorist threat-made-actual will testify. Given that negotiation with ISIS is not on the table (nothing to negotiate unless you call submission a negotiating point) what would be the recommendation for the West to remedy the situation?
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?
Build the wall along the Mexican border. Then build one along the Canadian border. Soon enough the world will chip in for a roof and we'll all be happier! :)
About that, I'm not really taking sides here but when US drives an aircraft carrier to the Mediterranian or sets up a military base in Turkey right next to the Russian border everyone thinks that it's totally fine. If Russia did the same it'd immediately be reflected as an "act of aggression" in the western media.
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.
While I don't like the recent executive order from Trump, this situation seems unrelated to it, instead revolving around the earlier H.R.158 [0] bill that passed at the tail end of 2015 (the article does mention this in passing), which disqualifies any non-citizen from entering the US under the visa waiver program if they have traveled to one of the seven countries since march 1st, 2011 (amongst other things). Trump's recent EO explicitly makes exceptions for diplomatic passports, and I worry that conflating these documents will only undermine the rhetorical grounds for repealing them.
I just want to underscore the law at fault instead of fueling partisanship.
From the aftenposten[1] article he was in the US last year, after the law was passed, with same passport and the same stamp and was not stopped or questioned about it.
I kind of agree. I don't know how the process works which is why I'm asking for someone more knowledgeable. But my current understanding is that is how it is done.
Or pretend to have lost their passport and get a new passport without stamp. Or get a secondary passport that's made available by most governments because of issues like this one.
But you are right in principle. Letting people through because they look important is a big security hole.
>Has he visited the US between that law passing and before Trumps ban without any issues?
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.
Yes, same far from defending Trump. But in theory, if DHS would have followed the Obama bill, he should have denied him entry as he can't use VWP anymore.
You are aware that getting a new, clean passport without any trace of his visit to Iran would have cost him less than the efforts of going through, say, getting an ESTA in place?
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'm surprised he didn't have a second diplomatic passport.
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.
My understanding is that it was because US travelers with an Israel stamp would have trouble if later trying to visit a country not friendly toward Israel.
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.
I had a conversation about this yesterday and I assumed USA keeps a database of your entries into other countries thus ending this new passport hack. Can anyone confirm this?
I feel worse for the wrestlers: ”On Friday, Iran took retaliatory action by banning US wrestlers from participating in the Freestyle World Cup, one of the most prestigious competitions in international wrestling.”
The USA banned the European Champion in Taekwondo from entering (he's originally from Iran), thereby barring him from the US Open.
(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.)
Does everyone have a memory loss? Just a few years ago Obama was going to bomb Iran back to the stone age.
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.
(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.
What would happen if Iran did not signed the deal?
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.
For all its bluster about avoiding the Eternal September, HN is one of the most selectively-forgetful and intellectually dishonest places for any sort of political discussion.
Political discourse across divides is difficult, which is why even the topic of what time politics should have on HN leads to heated words.
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.
Maybe I'm having a memory loss, because I seem to remember that every news article that contained the words "Obama" and "Iran" had at least one comment saying "Haha what would spineless Obama concede to Iran this time? Such a disgrace." or some variation.
91 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 73.1 ms ] threadus 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
You can disagree with our participation in the treaty, but it’s what we’ve got!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. 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?
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.
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.
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.