Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

hack89

(39,171 posts)
54. But the accords also have specific definitions of what a refugee is and is not
Sat Aug 18, 2012, 12:47 PM
Aug 2012
As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to wellfounded
fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside
the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear,
is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country


Where exactly is he a refugee from? Australia - the country of his nationality? Can't be Sweden or Britain - they are not the countries of his nationality are they?

The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with
respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:
(a) he has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against
humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to
make provision in respect of such crimes;
(b) he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of
refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee
;


The accords cannot be use to protect common criminals.

K&R Cleita Aug 2012 #1
this country is a rogue state in a lot of ways. datasuspect Aug 2012 #2
Sadly, I'm believing that more and more as time passes. It won't last. Trust me the gig is about Purveyor Aug 2012 #3
Since 1954? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #4
nah. i'd say since JFK had the temerity to think he ran shit. datasuspect Aug 2012 #14
Ding, ding, ding! hifiguy Aug 2012 #35
No country apart from those in Latin America party to the OAS Convention recognises it. Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #10
good thing we can do summary executions without trials anywhere on the globe then. datasuspect Aug 2012 #12
Fang Lizh and Chen Guangcheng used it at the US embassy. Ichingcarpenter Aug 2012 #18
No, actually, they didn't Spider Jerusalem Aug 2012 #24
Tell that to Cardinal József Mindszenty who spent 15 years at the US Embassy in Budapest. leveymg Aug 2012 #20
There appears to be a difference between political and diplomatic asylum hack89 Aug 2012 #31
The right to asylum is conferred under the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. No distinction leveymg Aug 2012 #41
Then why is the OAS the only group that appears to recognize diplomatic asylum? hack89 Aug 2012 #43
It's the only group to recognize a difference that doesn't otherwise exist in refugee law. leveymg Aug 2012 #45
CNN has just posted a primer on the matter hack89 Aug 2012 #47
That predates the 1951 UN Convention on the Status of Refugees. Moot. Sorry. leveymg Aug 2012 #50
There doesn't appear to be an international consensus forming around your theory hack89 Aug 2012 #51
That's because the 800lb gorilla still dominates that consensus, and others keep their mouths shut leveymg Aug 2012 #52
That's right. You only have the right to asylum if the US likes you. n/t backscatter712 Aug 2012 #53
OK nt. hack89 Aug 2012 #56
But the accords also have specific definitions of what a refugee is and is not hack89 Aug 2012 #54
Ah, that explains why the UK gave up Pinochet to Spain! backscatter712 Aug 2012 #59
Pinochet never claimed refugee status or asylum from any country hack89 Aug 2012 #61
Again, you are wrong. Pinochet's immunity claim was rejected. leveymg Aug 2012 #66
Since I never claimed it was accepted, how can I be wrong? hack89 Aug 2012 #70
Your point was misleading. Made it seem that Pinochet had immunity, which he didn't. leveymg Aug 2012 #72
Since I merely said that he "claimed immunity" hack89 Aug 2012 #74
I've already explained that to you, hack. You're simply wrong on all counts. leveymg Aug 2012 #62
Upton Sinclair said it best: backscatter712 Aug 2012 #64
Considering how no one else seems to agree with you hack89 Aug 2012 #69
Aside from CNN, you've cited no sources. What are they? leveymg Aug 2012 #73
Time will tell. nt hack89 Aug 2012 #75
Luis Posada tama Aug 2012 #39
Way to go Hillary, you Goldwater girl you. byeya Aug 2012 #5
Tough shit. Ecuador is a soverign nation hifiguy Aug 2012 #6
so was Iraq datasuspect Aug 2012 #8
so was Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Indonesia (1958) . . . leveymg Aug 2012 #25
I laugh, but only ironically. hifiguy Aug 2012 #27
U.S. foreign policy has been in reruns so long, it's broadcast in black-and-white. leveymg Aug 2012 #29
If all it was was a case of "date rape" or a "broken condom", the US wouldn't give a shit. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #7
some super important wealthy people ended up with egg on their face datasuspect Aug 2012 #9
Revenge RobertEarl Aug 2012 #22
Revenge, possibly, but I tend to think it is a case of tsuki Aug 2012 #32
Yep. And if they get him hifiguy Aug 2012 #15
yep. datasuspect Aug 2012 #17
Why Our Government Thinks It Has Any Say In This, Sir, Mystifies Me.... The Magistrate Aug 2012 #11
UHHHMERICA!!! FUCK YEAH!!!! datasuspect Aug 2012 #13
Number One In Bestness, Sir The Magistrate Aug 2012 #16
Because they are a member of the Organization of American States? hack89 Aug 2012 #30
Evidently, Sir, We Do Not Consider Its Conventions Binding On Us.... The Magistrate Aug 2012 #34
Since we specifically did not sign that convention in 1954 hack89 Aug 2012 #44
... "We believe this is a bilateral issue between Ecuador and the United Kingdom and that struggle4progress Aug 2012 #40
Oh, that's right, the OAS has no say, only the US does! n/t backscatter712 Aug 2012 #55
The OAS plans a meeting on Ecuador's asylum; the US belong to the OAS; so the US is asked struggle4progress Aug 2012 #67
Things that make you go hmmmmm Marrah_G Aug 2012 #42
Let's be frank: the US doesn't recognize international law, period kenny blankenship Aug 2012 #19
the problems with other countries is that the are ummmmm independent????? dembotoz Aug 2012 #21
Send out the drones. Downwinder Aug 2012 #23
Oh well THAT'S going to go over well with the Central and Latin American countries riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #26
Like I keep saying, this is an International Incident lunatica Aug 2012 #28
Huh then why did they let that blind guy from China hide in the US Embassy malaise Aug 2012 #33
See post 24. n/t tammywammy Aug 2012 #37
That the US felt it had to weigh in on this AT ALL says everything riderinthestorm Aug 2012 #36
Exactly - the US has made it clear they're very interested in this case. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #60
What the US says is becoming irrelevent fascisthunter Aug 2012 #38
I googled pics of the embassy flobee1 Aug 2012 #46
Not likely - London cops are everywhere in that area, specifically looking for him. backscatter712 Aug 2012 #68
The Ecuadorian embassy is only one flat in that building struggle4progress Aug 2012 #77
So, the state who housed Cardinal Mindszenty for decades in its Budapest embassy Jack Rabbit Aug 2012 #48
The Hungarian government had the legal high ground in that particular case hack89 Aug 2012 #49
As Emil Zola said, "The law is an ass." Jack Rabbit Aug 2012 #57
So who was right in that case - the US or the Hungarians? nt hack89 Aug 2012 #58
If one is a lawyer, the Hungarians at least had a case Jack Rabbit Aug 2012 #63
Under the '51 UN Convention, the US could grant asylum to the Cardinal. Certainly, today, Ecuador leveymg Aug 2012 #65
Is this the face the Obama Administration really wants to show to World? 99Forever Aug 2012 #71
The US won't take sides in the disagreement between the UK and Ecuador! Quick! Fetch my salts! struggle4progress Aug 2012 #78
9/11 gave us the right to any fucking thing we want Ezlivin Aug 2012 #76
DU rages as US stays out of bilateral dispute! News at 11 or whenever our meds kick in! struggle4progress Aug 2012 #79
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»US rejects 'diplomatic as...»Reply #54