The Corner

The one and only.

The Final Word?


Okay, I think the arguments have been laid out–I’ll just finalize my position with this (again, keeping it as simple as possible):  When Mario distinguishes our denying Arafat a visa to the U.N. with FDT’s denial of Achmadinejad, I fear he may be distinguishing cases that are not actually distinct:  there was little in law or treaty backing up George Shultz’s position then, too.  The treaty obligations required of us–read as strictly as Mario and Andrew seem to want to read them–applied to Arafat as I understand them:  he was not a head of state per se, but a head of a mission with observer status who had business before the U.N., all qualifying him to receive the visa he sought.

Finally, much confusion over my Lincoln quote.  To clarify:  I was not making a point about the Civil War, I was making a rhetorical and philosophical point: Achmadinejad supports terrorism (and the world does nothing); Achmadinejad is attempting to become a nuclear state (and the world does nothing); Achmadinejad threatens to wipe a member state of the U.N. off the face of the map and (and the world does nothing); Achmadinejad directs the killing of U.S. troops in Iraq (and the world does nothing).  Let the record show, that indictment right there includes at least four illegalities.  What I might call-for the sake of argument-felonies.  BUT THE U.S. must abide a treaty obligation to allow him entry to the U.S. because that is a law too!?  Having said that, I thought Lincoln about apt: Should all those Achamdinejad violations be unaddressed and all we care about be our treaty with the U.N.?  If so, we truly will be the authors of our own obituary, all the while being hailed for our scrupulous adherence to a law of treaty interpretation that we, and only we, seemed obliged to obey.

We, once upon a time, thought it a good idea to bar entry of terrorists to the U.S.  No matter their justification.  That’s all I’m saying.


Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review