Is there a Statuite of Limitations on International Kidnapping: Interesting article on an Iranian who wants to become the UN Envoy. I'm wondering if there is a statute of limitations...

sye Loc: The Old Dominion Near DC

Interesting article on an Iranian who wants to become the UN Envoy.

I'm wondering if there is a statute of limitations for kidnapping? He has confessed that he supported the American Embassy takeover in Tehran with translation services.

The US govt wants to ban him from entering the US and has refused to recognize his position if he does come to the UN.

I wonder if we can arrest his ass when he lands at JFK International or any other US airport.

I hear that there are vacancies at Gitmo. It's cheaper than anyplace in NYC.

Of course this is just wild imagination because the incumbent will probably change his mind and invite the AH to the White House for a welcoming ceremony and dinner "in the name of international friendship."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-blocks-irans-pick-as-envoy-to-un-setting-up-new-confrontation/2014/04/11/d1c20aca-c19f-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

I don't think they really have a leg to stand on - after all, the POTUS ordered drone strikes on 4 US citizens resulting in all 4 dead - based on an assumption - admitted to it on national television and is still sitting in office...
Seems to me the precedence for illegal activities and forgiveness has been set...

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

sye wrote:

Interesting article on an Iranian who wants to bec... (show quote)

The US has a perfect right to refuse a ViSA for anyone connected to the Iran Hostage crisis. Although there's no evidence that he was threatening any Embassy employees, he was a member of the group who stormed the Embassy and held employees hostage and therefore can be classified as an "UNDESIRABLE" and "US SECURITY RISK".
Just because he claims to have been only a translator, this is no excuse for his actions in support of the hostage takers.
UN Diplomats are free to roam our streets and have diplomatic immunity. He doesn't live on UN grounds or on Iranian territory at the embassy and his residence and vehicles are also considered to be Iranian territory and therefore off limits for US law enforcement agencies.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

sye wrote:

Interesting article on an Iranian who wants to bec... (show quote)

Diplomatic immunity.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

sye wrote:

Interesting article on an Iranian who wants to bec... (show quote)

Arrest his ass? Are you crazy? This administration won't even arrest people who killed 4 Americans at Bengazi in Libya and some of those people are known to our powers that be.

Dennis

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

jerryc41 wrote:

Diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity if his credentials are accepted.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

RMM wrote:

Diplomatic immunity if his credentials are accepted.

If not, then he shouldn't even be allowed in.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

jerryc41 wrote:

If not, then he shouldn't even be allowed in.

If he's classified as "HOSTILE" or "POSSIBLE SECURITY THREAT", then the State Department has perfect right to refuse allowing his entrance to the USA or issuing him a VISA.

He's already admitted to being a member of the group that stormed the US Embassy in Iran, so therefore he's proven his position. We can't arrest him if he's a diplomat, but we sure can refuse his access into the country and return him to IRAN if he comes to a US airport.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

If he were being posted as a diplomatic representative to the US, there's no question that he could be rejected. The only question in my mind is whether a case can be made that he is a diplomatic representative to the UN, not the US. While the UN and the Iranian mission are extraterritorial and outside US control, our airports, seaports and New York City and surroundings aren't.

Anyone know the relevant law here?

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

RMM wrote:

If he were being posted as a diplomatic representative to the US, there's no question that he could be rejected. The only question in my mind is whether a case can be made that he is a diplomatic representative to the UN, not the US. While the UN and the Iranian mission are extraterritorial and outside US control, our airports, seaports and New York City and surroundings aren't.

Anyone know the relevant law here?

He still needs a VISA to enter the USA. There's no way to get to the UN or the Iranian Mission or Consulate without first passing US Immigration at the airports. Without approval by the US Department of State and having a valid VISA (even if only a temporary one like Muammar al Gaddafi had when he spoke at the UN), he can't enter the US, even if he is a Diplomat representing his country.

leej

you can't arrest just part of a body or maybe you are referring to the animal he is riding. in that case I'm pretty sure you can't. take it into custody maybe, but no charges

uppics Loc: rockford, il, usa

Shellback wrote:

I don't think they really have a leg to stand on - after all, the POTUS ordered drone strikes on 4 US citizens resulting in all 4 dead - based on an assumption - admitted to it on national television and is still sitting in office...
Seems to me the precedence for illegal activities and forgiveness has been set...

you know, i hate the president, and i take every opportunity to express my hatred toward him, his wife and his dog. i am ambivalent toward the girls, as they can not change their f'ed up parents. although i stand by my statement, i agree w/ his killing of american terrorists overseas who think it proper to kill innocent americans. the more drone strikes the better. drone strikes have saved countless american lives.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

Shellback wrote:

I don't think they really have a leg to stand on - after all, the POTUS ordered drone strikes on 4 US citizens resulting in all 4 dead - based on an assumption - admitted to it on national television and is still sitting in office...
Seems to me the precedence for illegal activities and forgiveness has been set...

Shellback,
Those 4 American citizens were plotting terror activities with other members of Al Qaeda and this activity makes them enemy combatants which constitutes a violation of their citizenship.
In cases like this, there probably should have been a hearing in a Federal Court which revoked their citizenship before the drone strikes though.

uppics Loc: rockford, il, usa

singleviking wrote:

Shellback,
Those 4 American citizens were plotting terror activities with other members of Al Qaeda and this activity makes them enemy combatants which constitutes a violation of their citizenship.
In cases like this, there probably should have been a hearing in a Federal Court which revoked their citizenship before the drone strikes though.

to hell w/ a hearing. given that line of thinking, osama would still be waiting several years for his hearing; instead, osama got his "hearing." it was quick and, from what i hear, deadly. everyone wants their rights protected. someone wantonly kills more than 3,000 innocent americans does not deserve a hearing. those four terrorists did not deserve a hearing, as they plotted against americans. take your liberal spin and email harry or nancy or barbara or barak or jesse or al or any number of others.

singleviking Loc: Lake Sebu Eco Park, Philippines

uppics wrote:

to hell w/ a hearing. given that line of thinking... (show quote)

Osama was not a US citizen, you fool. All US citizens have the right to free speech and association, but when they plot against the US government or it's citizens, they should lose all rights of citizenship, but legally through a court before hostile action can be undertaken.
The office of POTUS has the right to PARDON criminals but does not have the right to execute US citizens without proper procedure and legal representation unless they do hostile action or demonstrate a firearm or weapon with the intent of doing harm and are classified as "A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER".
Osama had no rights under the US constitution when he was not standing on US owned territory. Even foreigners and non-citizens have constitutional rights when they are on US soil.