Ahmadinejad Cannot be Denied Ground Zero Visit

Americans are up in arms over the much-publicized proposed visit of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Ground Zero memorial site during his stay in New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly next week. Presidential candidates from both parties tripped over each other in the scramble to get out in front of this controversy and issue the most forceful condemnations possible, indicting everyone from Ahmadinejad himself to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly for their roles in facilitating the visit. While the visit of a radical leader who actively sponsors global terrorism to a site held by Americans to be a sacred shrine to the fallen heroes and innocents of 9/11 is obviously in poor taste and insulting to our sensibilities, the bluster by politicians, and calls by talk show hosts like Sean Hannity urging Mayor Bloomberg to prevent the visit are either craftily contrived or incredibly naive.

The New York Sun broke this story today, surprising New Yorkers with the headline, "U.S. May Escort Ahmadinejad to Ground Zero." Presidential candidates immediately seized on the "controversy" as an opportunity to flex their foreign policy issue muscles, but like the proverbial bully at the beach, reality will soon kick its sand in their outraged faces and limit the campaign mileage they hope to gain through their outspoken opposition to a visit that has not been finalized. Even if it were an established part of Ahmadinejad's itinerary during his stay in New York, there is nothing that any of the current presidential candidates or sitting politicians can do to prevent it, if in fact Ahmadinejad insists on visiting Ground Zero.

Here is how some 2008 presidential candidates reacted to news of Ahmadinejad's proposed sightseeing tour of the 9/11 site:

"It is an insult to the memories of those who died on 9/11 at the hands of terrorists, and those who have fought terrorism for years, to allow the president of the world's top state sponsor of terrorism to step foot at ground zero," a spokeswoman for Senator Thompson, Karen Hanretty, said. "Iran is responsible for supplying weapons and supporting extremist who are killing U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to this very day."

A Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, called the plan "shockingly audacious."

"It's inconceivable that any consideration would be given to the idea of entertaining the leader of a state sponsor of terror at ground zero," Mr. Romney said in a statement. "This would deeply offend the sensibilities of Americans from all corners of our nation. Instead of entertaining Ahmadinejad, we should be indicting him."

Struggling to reignite the flickering flame of his once roaring campaign, Romney's comments conveyed a significant lack of awareness of diplomatic and security protocol for visits of foreign heads of state to the United States and specifically for visits that incorporate attendance at the United Nations General Assembly. Quite simply, whether Americans like it or not, Ahmadinejad is the internationally recognized elected head of state of Iran, and part of America's role as the host country for United Nations headquarters is an international agreement that America will provide protective services to any represented nation that requests such protection. For certain countries whose leaders are considered high value threat targets, their leaders are provided mandatory protection by the Secret Service. Simply stated, America will not allow high threat level foreign heads of state to visit the United States unless they accept the protective services of our government. America takes full responsibility for their safety while on our soil.

Ahmadinejad certainly would fall into that category and thus if he chooses to attend the United Nations meetings next week, he will receive Secret Service protection, with logistical assistance from NYPD and other entities. There is ample historical precedent to justify the diplomatic and security reasons for providing this mandatory protection. World War I was triggered in large part because of the assassination of a visiting foreign leader, and in today's era of increased vigilance against terrorism or retribution, nothing would be more embarrassing for Americans than to have a foreign head of state harmed while on American soil.

A successful attack on a controversial figure visiting the United States would diminish international perceptions of American strength and forever fuel accusations of an American conspiracy to effect regime change through assassination in our own backyard. Presidential candidates did not seem to give much, if any, consideration to the repercussions of not providing Ahmadinejad with the mandatory protection afforded to visiting heads of state. Thirty percent of our own citizens claim to believe that 9/11 was a government conspiracy concocted by the "Bush-Cheney Axis of Evil." It stands to reason that international conspiracy buffs would number in the millions if something happened to Ahmadinejad in America after our government has spoken so openly about its desire for regime change in Iran.

Which brings us to the second fact conveniently ignored by the radio talk show hosts and politicians. There is likewise no provision in our agreement with the United Nations that allows the host country, America, to dictate to a foreign head of state where he can go and where he cannot go while visiting America, with the exception of sensitive national security or military sites. Even that exception has its exceptions, depending on the nature of the site and the stated purpose of the visit. Ground Zero rightly may be considered a shrine, and the idea of Ahmadinejad strutting around it and mocking it with his notoriously smug grin naturally outrages us. Presidential candidates are justified in their sense of anger over the contempt Ahmadinejad would show to all Americans by visiting Ground Zero. However, they have directed their outrage at the convenient targets, Mayor Bloomberg, Commissioner Kelly, the Secret Service, and the U.S. government for not preventing Ahmadinejad from making the proposed stop.

It is the job of these officials and law enforcement agencies to provide safe transit throughout Ahmadinejad's stay in America, not to dictate to him what his itinerary should or should not include. Protective agencies can warn heads of state of potential negative consequences their decisions might bring, but they cannot stop Ahmadinejad from visiting Ground Zero any more than they could stop Bill Clinton from "entertaining" Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office. Ultimately the head of state must decide whether he wants to go ahead with his proposed action, and the protective accommodate the request in by providing a secure environment.

I know of no instance where a foreign head of state has expressed a desire to visit a famous site in America and was denied the opportunity regardless of his political, religious, or terror-sympathizing views. It is the job of the Secret Service, with the help of the NYPD and Port Authority Police to facilitate the secure visit of a head of state to whatever site, tourist or otherwise, he chooses. The old Secret Service motto, "You elect 'em we protect 'em" is a promise that extends to the citizens of other nations when their presidents or prime ministers visit America.

This is not Ahmadinejad's first visit to speak at the United Nations, and he has thus far not offered any explanation as to his reasons for wanting to visit Ground Zero. He may wish to gloat internally over the terrible damage wreaked on 9/11. It may even encourage him to offer increasing support to terrorist groups in hopes they will pull off similar spectacular attacks on America or our allies. Yet at the same time, it may just as likely give him a firsthand view of our resiliency, our ability to rebuild, to move forward, to rise from the ashes of horrible carnage like a phoenix burning with new and brighter flames of resolve and patriotism. He will likely witness that crumbling our buildings will not crumble our spirit or our economy.

Part of the price we pay as the host of UN headquarters is an annual pilgrimage to New York of hundreds of foreign heads of state. Some are our allies, and some are avowed enemies who speak openly of annihilating Israel with nuclear weapons or refer to America as the "Great Satan." Hugo Chavez may have complained about the "stench" left behind by President Bush after our president spoke to the UN, but even the America-hating socialist Chavez received full diplomatic and security resources throughout his visit to New York and will again every time he returns. That is what we as a nation represent; equal treatment under the law, even for those we dislike or who openly despise us. Unless the 2008 presidential candidates specifically propose that UN headquarters be relocated to another country, the Secret Service, NYPD, and Port Authority Police will continue to perform the duties they are mandated by law to perform.

Despite being the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran's elected president will receive the full diplomatic and security resources mandated by law and expected by protocol. That is, after all, what we agreed to when we invited the UN to build its headquarters in New York. Unless we are willing to seriously consider sending the UN packing, it behooves our politicians to play the role of good hosts. Politicians and talk show hosts should remember, "someone elected them, so we'll protect them."

Technorati Tags: Ahmadinejad United Nations Visit to Ground Zero Secret Service Mitt Romney Fred Thompson NYPD Michael Bloomberg 9/11 Iran

"No one dare attack our sacred land": Iran FM's Claim Challenges Relevance of Britain, U.S. as World Powers

One week ago today, the Iranian Navy seized 15 British Navy personnel engaged in searching for smugglers in Iraqi waters. Despite GPS evidence presented by the British government that clearly indicated the British crew was well within established Iraqi waters, Iranian leaders have refused to release the hostages, whom they insist were captured in Iranian territorial waters. Ignoring Geneva Convention policies and British warnings not to do so, the Iranian government produced and distributed videotaped “confessions” in which the hostages “admit” they were in Iranian waters illegally when they were captured. Iran also floated the possibility that the lone female hostage would be released, but has subsequently rescinded that gesture. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki now insists that Britain must apologize for instigating the incident, and suggested that the hostages may yet be tried in Tehran on charges of espionage. The outcome of such a show trial is not difficult to imagine. Espionage is a capital offense under Iran’s version of Sharia law.

What steps have Britain and the UN taken to resolve this critical situation? Tony Blair demanded the release of the hostages, to which demands Iran responded with increased rhetoric and blunt refusals to comply. To add insult to injury, Iran released to the media a letter allegedly written by female hostage Seaman Faye Turney, in which Turney robotically asks her government to withdraw troops from Iraq. Tony Blair became “livid” at the Iranian attempt to dictate British foreign policy, the refusal to release the hostages, and the obviously forced confessions (hint to future Iranian fake confession writers: British citizens refer to their Parliamentary representatives as MPs, not “representatives”). Blair requested that the UN Security Council condemn Iran for the seizure and issue a resolution calling upon Iran to immediately release the British crew.

In a pathetic display of its own irrelevancy, the UN Security Council, at the behest of such stalwart defenders of international law as Russia, could not agree on issuing a call for the immediate release of the hostages. The UK Times Online reported:

The UN Security Council, voicing “grave concern”, meanwhile called on Iran to allow consular access to the detained British naval personnel and urged “an early resolution of this problem, including the release of the 15”.

Britain originally asked for a tougher three-sentence statement to “deplore” the detention of the British personnel and “support calls” for their immediate release, but this was blocked by Russia and several other members.

“We will not be able to accept a call for the immediate release of the 15 UK naval personnel,” Vitaly Churkin, Russian’s UN envoy, declared during the debate.

The final two-sentence statement was read to the press outside the Security Council chamber, making it weaker than a formal declaration.

Apparently “grave concern” is the extent of the Security Council’s reaction to what under international law is an act of war: forced boarding of a vessel under flag of a recognized nation, compounded by taking uniformed military personnel of a sovereign nation hostage. Whatever one thinks of President Bush personally or politically, it is clear he was justified in his blunt warning to the UN that if it did not take action against Saddam Hussein after 14 of its resolutions had been ignored it would become an irrelevant organization in world affairs. Unfortunately, terrorists have paid close attention to the UN’s reactions to provocations and Iran clearly determined that President Bush was right about the UN’s irrelevancy. Hence the brazen taking of British hostages with little concern that any nations other than Britain and the U.S. would be inclined to interfere.

The west has a tendency to underestimate radical Islamic nations like Iran, whether out of a sense of cultural superiority or sheer ignorance. Iran has proven itself an astute observer of internal politics in America and Britain and has calculated that neither government has the political unity necessary to mount an effective response to this hostage incident. The political climate in America has become so acidic that Iran is certain America will not respond militarily to this provocation against our closest ally.

Democrats begging for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and impeachment of President Bush should consider carefully the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki:

To a question on probable US military attack on Iran, he said the Americans are now engaged in domestic issues and are not in a position to enter into another crisis.

"No one dare to attack our sacred land," he said.

“Engaged in domestic issues” is a euphemism for blind bush hatred in Congress. Non-binding resolutions criticizing the new “surge” in Iraq; over dramatized investigations into U.S. Attorney firings the President was constitutionally empowered to conduct; adding non-military pork funding to the Iraq War appropriations bill; and inserting ill-advised provisions into that bill to establish a withdrawal date from Iraq are precisely the “domestic issues” Mottaki and the Mullahs count on to tie the hands of our Commander in Chief. Conservative radio hosts and bloggers frequently use the term “embolden our enemies” when referring to the effects of the Democrat controlled Congress’s efforts to shackle President Bush’s executive war powers. Mottaki’s comments are proof that our enemies are indeed emboldened by this Congress and that bravado resulted in the hostage incident now upon us.

Britain is in a less rancorous but equally tenuous political position, as Prime Minister Blair is in effect a lame-duck leader until replaced in the next UK election. His liberal party has cut military expenditures so significantly during his tenure that France now has a larger Navy than Britain, which once ruled the seas. In fact, Belgium’s navy is now approximately the same size as Britain’s. Britain has been slowly reducing its military presence in Iraq, and other than typical criminal investigations did virtually nothing in response to the London Subway bombings in 2005. It is easy to see why Mottaki feels very confident that no nation dares to attack Iran. Even though Iran is known to be the world’s largest supplier of terrorist financing and equipment, to date no nation has taken direct action against it except the U.S. and then only under Republican presidents.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, interviewed on the Sean Hannity radio show yesterday, expressed some hope that the hostage incident can still be resolved diplomatically, but that is the politically correct answer one would expect from the nation’s head diplomat. Hannity reminded Secretary Rice of President Reagan’s response in 1987 when the Iranian Navy attempted to mine the Persian Gulf, in which commercial oil and military vessels of various nations were operating. President Reagan considered the Iranian mining strategy a danger to American and international interests and without begging for UN permission or sanctions or written resolutions, President Reagan ordered military strikes against the Iranian ships laying the mines. After several of Iran’s naval vessels were sunk, Iran stopped its mining operations. When Iran resumed mining the Gulf in 1988, Reagan again ordered military action that resulted in significant losses to the Iranian Navy. The mining stopped and was not resumed again. Some regimes only respond to, and respect, force. Iran is governed by such a regime.

The U.S. and Britain now face a moment of decision in which the global relevancy of both nations may hinge on their response to this Iranian provocation. If Britain takes no action beyond becoming “livid” or pleading with the UN Security Council to merely “condemn” the action, Britain will certainly be targeted by terrorists for increasingly brazen attacks. If the U.S. fails to take decisive action on behalf of its dearest ally and continues being distracted by partisan sniping, it may suffer a similar fate.

President Bush warned the UN about becoming irrelevant, and Bin Laden referred to America as a “paper tiger.” Perhaps both were right. The only thing that today’s Democrats become angry enough to go to war over is paper: resolutions, appropriations bills, and hanging chads. The War on Bush has spanned more than 6 years, and the only two casualties have been the world image of the President of the United States, and the unity of the American people in the face of grave danger from terrorists. It is difficult to determine who is more gleeful over President Bush’s low approval ratings, liberals or emboldened terrorists.

Foreign Minister Mottaki’s confidence that no one dares attack Iran may be premature. According to an unnamed U.S. government source quoted in the New York Sun today:

“The Iranians are going to be shocked to find out how badly they have miscalculated," this official said. "Remember, Jimmy Carter is not the president of the United States these days."

444 days is a long time to let an act of war go unpunished. It is fitting that Carter was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, because from 1979 to 1981 he contributed a great deal to the “peaceful” seizure of the U.S. Embassy and Embassy staff in Tehran through his spineless non-response to that act of war. It is no coincidence that the man whose face is circled in the picture at right with a U.S. Embassy hostage is the same man who orchestrated the kidnapping of the British crew last week: Ahmadinejad. Britain and America should hope history is not repeated in the current hostage incident. In that context, one week has already been too long to let an act of war go unpunished.

Spy the News! Poll Results: Radio/Cable/Internet News Personalities

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers to identify which radio, cableTV, or Internet news personality influenced their opinions most.

Here are the results of our poll:

Laura Ingraham 43%
Rush Limbaugh 29%
Sean Hannity 14%
Hugh Hewitt 14%

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: Which 2008 Presidential Candidate Best Represents Your Values?

Technorati Search Tags: Radio Personalities News Personalities Laura Ingraham Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity Hugh Hewitt Polls

Recent Washington DC "Snow Jobs"

In honor of the first snowfall in Washington DC this winter, it seems appropriate to recognize recent DC “snow jobs” that recently blanketed the nation with a fine layer of obfuscation:

1. The John Warner, Susan Collins, and Norm Coleman “Snow Job” – Yesterday, these 3 illustrious (or is that blusterous?) Republican senators joined the Democrat chorus singing longingly for an end to President Bush’s attempt to liberate an oppressed people and help them along the path toward a stable representative democracy. According to these three, the President’s strategy for a surge of troops and renewed efforts to secure and hold Iraqi cities is flawed and doomed to failure.

They are simultaneously disappointed with the current situation, opposed to the idea of a troop increase, and politically petrified of casting senate votes to end the funding of the war and bring the troops home, as anti-war activists desire. What a quagmire these Republican ship jumpers find themselves in! What policy will achieve the goal of representative democracy for Iraqis and renewed American credibility as a formidable preserver of freedom? Victory! What is it Americans want to see, at least the half that place national security and America’s credibility over a desire to embarrass President Bush? Victory! To bluster about any other outcome being satisfactory is a “snow job” that must make Iraqis despair of ever achieving success and safety. Neither will occur unless America fights to win.

2. The Maxine Waters “American Money is too Precious to Give to Anyone but Americans Snow Job” -Radio host Jerry Doyle made a profound comparison during yesterday’s show. Doyle pointed out that Congresswoman Maxine Waters, D-CA, is co-sponsoring a resolution to gradually end funding for the Iraq War because America is allegedly not winning the war and thus it is a waste of taxpayer money. By that same logic, Doyle argued that the government should cut off federal funding of all gang task forces in Waters’ Los Angeles district, since millions of dollars have been spent to end the gang problem there but recent statistics indicate there are over 40,000 known gang members in Los Angeles, and those numbers are growing along with the violence and financial crimes they perpetrate.

If Waters favors pulling our troops out of Iraq because we cannot win there, and leaving the cities and nation for the terrorists to plunder, Doyle suggested, America should do the same with Los Angeles. The city will never solve the gang problem, so why try? Los Angeles residents should be forced to pull out and relocate (like Democrat suggestions for our troops to be “redeployed”). Thus the anti-gang strategy, like Waters alleges of Bush’s Iraq strategy, is a failure not worth further expenditure. Gangs that infiltrate and intimidate Los Angeles, like the terrorist thugs threatening Iraqi citizens, are not worth fighting. No expenditure of taxpayer money for programs that yield negative results can be justified in Waters’ opinion.

Instead of using the tired excuse of wasted taxpayer money to obscure her true objection to the war, Waters should propose a Congressional resolution declaring that Iraqi freedom from a murderous tyrannical dictator and an attempt to protect a fledgling democracy until it can sustain itself is unworthy of our national affluence and largesse. According to Waters’ previous statement to Congress, we should stop spending money to help a constitutional government in the Middle East and use it only to benefit our own people. She made the following Ameri-centric statement: “This conference report throws billions of dollars into the sands of Iraq, while at the same time this Administration and the Republican Congress call for drastic cuts to dozens of vital domestic programs. This is immoral and wrong. We should be investing in schools and health care for all Americans.”

I think all Americans would agree our schools are better and safer than those in Iraq and that the health care options available to Iraqis, where terrorists are detonating IEDs near hospitals, are a tad less comfortable than what we enjoy in America. Waters is very generous with precious American taxpayer money when she brings millions of dollars in federal funding to her pet causes in Los Angeles, such as failed public schools, failed gang task forces, and failed government welfare programs. Yet money to protect a democracy besieged by terrorists is too precious to share with non-Americans. Civil liberties, it seems, are only for Americans in Waters’ narrow vision of our world. For an avowed civil rights activist, that is quite a “snow job.”

3. The Tony Snow “Snow Job” – In a previous post this site railed against the Bush Administration’s decision to place the NSA domestic surveillance program under FISA court monitoring. Later that day on his radio program, Sean Hannity interviewed Tony Snow briefly about this decision and Snow responded in a very dismissive manner, as if Americans should not be concerned with this development. Snow assured listeners that the President would never give up any tools available to him in the Global War on Terror, and that the President continued to retain the power to legally authorize electronic surveillance of suspected terrorists in the US under exigent circumstances. The truly deep “snow job” came when Tony Snow denied that the FISA monitoring decision was a response to political pressure. According to Snow, the FISA situation was under review for two years and the administration was satisfied with the alleged reforms to speed and flexibility implemented by the FISA court review.

This begs the question, “what will the President do if the FISA court denies an application for surveillance but the President and his intelligence advisors are convinced the suspect must be monitored?” Unfortunately Sean Hannity did not ask this question. Instead he took Snow’s response at face value and then moved on to the upcoming State of the Union Address. If the President retains the power to legally authorize surveillance utilizing the NSA domestic surveillance program as Snow asserted, then why apply to FISA at all? If a FISA court denies an application for surveillance, the President can ignore that judgment and authorize it under his Constitutional powers as Commander in Chief, as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and other war time Presidents have done, only with less sophisticated surveillance methods.

If the FISA court judgment can be ignored under exigent circumstances, then ALL FISA court judgments are moot, since by definition, a war is an exigent circumstance and thus the President holds exclusive authority to approve monitoring of US citizens suspected of communicating with the enemy, which is the precise purpose of the NSA domestic surveillance program. Thus, if the President holds the legal power to authorize such programs, what motivations, other than political pressure, prompted this administration to reform and utilize the FISA courts which it has intentionally, legally, and justifiably circumvented since the Global War on Terror began? Snow’s dismissal of public concern over this decision signaled discomfort with the situation and a desire to move on to other issues in the interview. A “snow job” from Snow was understandable given the expected duties of his position, but it was disappointing nonetheless.


Technorati: Iraq War Global War On Terror NSA Bush Administration FISA Maxine Waters Tony Snow Sean Hannity John Warner Susan Collins Norm Coleman Jerry Doyle Los Angeles Gangs