6 ms·

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

by camus2 10y ago

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?

tnzn 10y ago
Well, 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 ago
  this. 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 ago
He had a diplomatic passport, meaning that he should be sent straight through with no questions asked (more or less).
- HelloNurse 10y ago
  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.
jfoster 10y ago
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.
- mistermann 10y ago
  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.)
egwynn 10y ago
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. http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DIPLOMATIC_RELATIONS.pdf 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. You can disagree with our participation in the treaty, but it’s what we’ve got!
- StavrosK 10y ago
  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.
  - egwynn 10y ago
    FTA: 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.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      Yes, but the following sentence is: “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.
DavidWanjiru 10y ago
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.
davidgerard 10y ago
What is the difference between "can" and "should"?
- hhuhggvhg 10y ago
  just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it.
throwawaypa542 10y ago
It's not really any more newsworthy than an average person being held. A public figure being held does make it easier for partisans to shriek about Trump's executive order, though.

by camus2 10y ago

tnzn 10y ago

Well, 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 ago
this. 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 ago

He had a diplomatic passport, meaning that he should be sent straight through with no questions asked (more or less).

HelloNurse 10y ago
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.

jfoster 10y ago

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.

mistermann 10y ago
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.)

egwynn 10y ago

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. http://www.corpsdiplomatique.cd/VIENNA_CONVENTION_1961_ON_DIPLOMATIC_RELATIONS.pdf 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. You can disagree with our participation in the treaty, but it’s what we’ve got!

StavrosK 10y ago
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.
- egwynn 10y ago
  FTA: 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.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    Yes, but the following sentence is: “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.

DavidWanjiru 10y ago

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.

davidgerard 10y ago

What is the difference between "can" and "should"?

hhuhggvhg 10y ago
just because you can do something does not mean that you should do it.

throwawaypa542 10y ago

It's not really any more newsworthy than an average person being held. A public figure being held does make it easier for partisans to shriek about Trump's executive order, though.