7 ms·
Former Norway PM held at Washington airport over 2014 visit to Iran
- darkhorn 10y agoThe point is that it is not about terrorism, it is about Iran vs Israel.
- muglug 10y agoWell I feel much safer knowing that we’re vetting Prime Ministers thoroughly. You can never be too sure!!!
- chha 10y agoEspecially when they happen to be priests and former PM for the christian democratic party!
- vixen99 10y agoSpecial treatment for special people?
- canadian_voter 10y ago<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>
- mcguire 10y agoFrom Norway? I'd be afraid of explosive lutefisk, too.
- jug5 10y agoWorld doesn't yet realize the depth of American fear and stupidity.
- camus2 10y agoI'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?
- tnzn 10y agoWell, people don't see to care about the life of casual people so let's try getting to them by showing powerful ones.
- justaaron 10y agothis. 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.
- chha 10y agoHe had a diplomatic passport, meaning that he should be sent straight through with no questions asked (more or less).
- HelloNurse 10y agoThe 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.
- jfoster 10y agoThe 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.
- chopin 10y ago>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.
- StavrosK 10y agoGiven that "the terrorists'" (Osama's, at least) goal was to have americans question their government's foreign policy, they most certainly have not won: https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friends_son_being_searched_by_the_tsa/c5cabqo/?st=iypxs7mp&sh=68938c28 https://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/wcpls/this_i_my_friend...
- __derek__ 10y agoAl 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).
- StavrosK 10y agoSure, which means there's no "the terrorists". It's all different people.
- vixen99 10y agoSo 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?
- ensiferum 10y agoI say the rest of the world should build a wall around the US to keep the americans there.
- hhuhggvhg 10y agoWe would just blow up the world unfortunately
- bogle 10y agoBuild 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! :)
- Graham24 10y agoThat's what the Atlantic is for, to keep them as far away as possible.
- throwawaypa542 10y agoSounds like a plan. Then, 'The Americans' can withdraw every last bit of foreign aid and military support for western europe, japan, etc. Have fun with Russia and China.
- ensiferum 10y agoAbout 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.
- equil 10y agoWhile 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. [0] https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158 https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/158
- lawless123 10y ago>But he said he had never had a problem visiting the US before. Has he visited the US between that law passing and before Trumps ban without any issues?
- CaptSpify 10y agoIf anyone has more knowledge about this let me know but... I think the decisions about who to detain are typically arbitrary and decided by that particular agent at the time.
- Arnt 10y agoDifficult to believe that a junior agent dares to stop someone with a Norwegian diplomatic passport.
- dagw 10y agoNot if he's been told by everyone from his immediate superior right on up to the President to stop EVERYONE!!! with an Iranian stamp.
- CaptSpify 10y agoI 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.
- js2 10y agoI 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.”
- cylinder 10y agoSounds like another reason to not host global events in the USA. Los Angeles should drop its bid for 2024 Olympics; there is zero chance now.
- dominotw 10y agoThey love banning people. You are permabanned for life from Iran if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport.
- gcp 10y agoThe 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.)
- bostand 10y agoThis is the first time I hear about a suicide bomber from Iran. Do you have any references to that?
- jankotek 10y agoDoes 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.
- krapp 10y ago>Just a few years ago Obama was going to nuke Iran back to stone age. [citation needed]
- stefantalpalaru 10y agoIt wasn't Obama. Hillary was very nonchalant about it, though: https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_justified_bombing_iran_in_a_june_2013/ https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/5945ho/hillary_ju... (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)
- __derek__ 10y agoBombing nuclear enrichment facilities is not bombing them into the Stone Age.
- stefantalpalaru 10y agoThe "Stone Age" bit might have been a reference to the "totally obliterate them" comment she made in 2008 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O894bXmqqGU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O894bXmqqGU : > 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.