Tony BarkJesse Watters says America needs to bomb or “maybe gas” the United Nations
ExtremeDullardThe UN is headquartered in New York. This guy therefore is directly calling for terrorist acts to be committed on US soil. That’s slammer-worthy.
Who’s doing the political violence again?
hyperhopperThe UN is not on US soil, it’s been international territory for a very long while
ORbituary“akshually.”
You do get it, right, buddy? It is located within the boundaries of the contiguous lower 48. Moreover, in its most populous city.
Quit being obtuse.
It was acute attempt though.
otterBeing infantile is not the same as being cute.
joelfromausI took it as acute, as opposed to obtuse.
I should add; omg acute angle UwU frfr
And here I thought the problem was chronic.
Yeah, but he’s right in that it’s not US soil, so if someone does bomb it, the American justice system can just ignore it and foreign powers don’t have any power over American citizens located within the boundaries of the US anyway
Yeah, unless the explosion doesn’t contain itself to the like 2 square blocks it occupies.
Nobody disputed that. It’s just exhausting. You think the US would respond neutrally if another entity bombed the UN Building? There’s a tiny park in Tampa that is technically Cuban soil. Do you think Cuba would file articles of war if the US bulldozed José Martí Park for apartments?
No, I think if an American domestic terrorist does it, there’s a nice little “didn’t happen in America” defense.
It’s distasteful how people who are incorrect can bully and convince others to the contrary to bury truth.
The United Nations Plaza is firmly extraterritorial as stated in Article III, Section 7(a) of the Headquarters of the United Nations Agreement (1947). US law applies in this territory only to the extent it does not interfere with regulations of the UN which take precedent as defined in Article III, Section 8. So if the United States of America says the land is not American, why are you stating otherwise? Did you bother to look it up before mocking someone else?
As for your ignorant “but it’s within the borders of…” argument, Vatican City is located within contiguous Italy and even within its most populous city, yet it’s not just extraterritorial but a sovereign country. Did you forget the Holy See existed or do you just deny the validity of the Lateran Treaty because it is surrounded by Rome?
Finally, if all that weren’t true, the US has bombed its own territory and citizens before: Jayayu in 1950. Of course, if you are ignorant of the Holy See, why would you know that.
AFAIK, unlike Vatican City, UNHQ isn’t drawn on any map of the world, and if you were to ask someone to name countries, UNHQ wouldn’t be on anyone’s list.
Moreover, US laws still apply, which makes the territory not independent. It is a special area of the US, but is still firmly US.
A similar situation is with, for example, US military bases. They’re part of the county they’re physically in, but the laws are effectively US. It’s more of a “live and let live” situation - even in Cuba.
Its not a country. It’s extraterritorial.
Bro, what the fuck are you babbling about? It’s in New York you weirdo
It’s like saying an embassy is not US soil. Sure, politically, that might be true, but for all non-political purposes, it very much is within the US.
Yeah, I know, I just don’t have time for pedantic people trying to make bullshit comments when they know the absolute truth is that it’s on US fucking soil
US soil is a completely different thing than the geographic US
Don’t acuse others of being pedantic when you’re just wrong. If you don’t understand the concepts, then don’t comment until you educate yourself.
The US signed a treaty granting the extraterritorial status. It’s not US territory unless the UN abandons it.
Bro fuck off you pedantic little shit weasel
A well thought out rebuttal that no doubt stretched your intellectual gifts.
Bro fuck off you pedantic little shit weasel ^infinity
You write like you’re 14 and reason like you’re 12. I hope you’re a kid.
You need serious help if this is your reaction to losing an argument.
It’s not even true. Embassies are not extraterritorial and remain the territory of the host country.
This is not an embassy. There is a separate, standalone, treaty with the UN giving them that land.
Try arresting someone who has diplomatic immunity. Tell me how that goes for you. Now explain to me why that person was not arrested. After that replace the person with the embassy building and you will finally understand what people are talking about.
That is not the same thing as extraterritoriality.
I’ve never looked into it but thought embassies were “territory” lended to the embassies by the country they were placed in. If not it really shoots holes in conservative talking point that people applying for political asylum should do so at an embassy, because you can only apply for asylum once on U.S. soil I thought
Completely incorrect.
LemmyoutofhereDownvoted for actually knowing the truth. Am I back on Reddit?
We all wish you stayed there.
Yeah. I’m confused. I mean, it’s legally international territory but functions as part of New York for obvious reasons. It’s a little more nuanced, to say the least.
lumpenproletariatDownvoted for being a redditor by missing the point to argue something inconsequential.
It’s not inconsequential if there’s an attack though? It being on foreign soil means a high level judge appointed by Trump can literally just rule that no laws were broken on US soil.
It isn’t. Someone stated something completely false, and you are behaving like a Reddit brigade to censor truth.
SanctusOkay and what would happen if that were bombed or gassed? It doesn’t matter if the land is politically separated. Bombs will physically destroy it and the surrounding area. Therefore it is not the truth in this context because we are speaking of the location of the land itself.
It makes things worse actually. It being on foreign soil means a high level judge appointed by Trump can literally just rule that no laws were broken on US soil.
Regrettable_incidentI actually found that an interesting fact. Also don’t worry too much about downvotes, karma isn’t really a thing here.
You left out the rest of that paragraph, though:
However, in exchange for local police, fire protection, and other services, the United Nations agrees to acknowledge most local, state, and federal laws.
Ok, but that only says they agree to follow local laws. It’s still not American soil as per the agreement.
There’s no dotted line around the UN on maps like Vatican City or Monaco. The UN is a diplomatic construct, and not its own country. It is fully on US soil, and nothing in the treaty says otherwise. (Yes, I checked, at least this copy I found as a [pdf](treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume 11/volume-11-I-147-English.pdf) , which looks to be the official one. I don’t know if there are any addendums though.
That agreement was put in place specifically to guarantee worldwide access to the UN facility for diplomats, regardless of the opinion of the host country. It calls on the local government to maintain access to the facility, but does not allow local government officials on site without permission. It exempts diplomats and other visitors from the local visa requirements, but also states that the site will not used as a refuge for anyone avoiding legal process in the US.
(The original agreement also has arrangements if the UN wants to build their own “aerodome”…)
Can you get to the United Nations without entering the U.S., no. Do you need a passport to enter or leave the U.N., no.
Do you need to remember you have a knife in your pocket, you probably should… I saw the metal detectors got worried at 19 or so and went back out front stashed my pocket knife in the trash can next to one of the umpteen NYPD that seem to be everywhere.
Took the tour and when I left I grabbed my knife out between the can and the case while a cop looked at me in a manner that made me wonder how that conversation was going to go.
Sorry officer I just needed to stash this because I didn’t know if they would hold it at security.
Dæmon S.@[email protected] @[email protected] if it's international soil, why (and how) could US deny Mahmoud Abbas from attending the UNGA, especially during an increasing recognizance of State of Palestine from other countries and the current UN proposals towards a two-state solution? I can also point out examples of this regarding an the country I reside: why (and how) could US make it difficult for part of the Brazilian delegation (such as Ricardo Lewandowski, current Brazilian Ministry of Justice, and Alexandre Padilha, current Brazilian Ministry of Health, the latter of whom ended up not attending in protest to all the restrictions imposed by US) to attend the UNGA?
Well, if you read the Headquarters of the United Nations Agreement (1947), you will find that the United States can deny visas for non-member states which includes the Palestinian Authority.
That doesn’t mean the UN isn’t extraterritorial.
dephyreMy parents live in Ohio, I live in the moment.