UNITED NATIONS TAKES OVER UTAH FACILITY CLAIMS IT'S "INTERNATIONAL TERRITORY"
-
Aprhys
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1128
UN takes over SLC
Did anyone else catch the video of the journalist who entered the UN meeting in SLC this week? She was told to turn off her camera as the building was now a UN "compound." When the journalist questioned the security guard she was told that her city ended at the doors and that she was on UN territory.
-
Rwp
- captain of 100
- Posts: 173
-
mes5464
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 29586
- Location: Seneca, South Carolina
-
Fiannan
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 12983
Re: UN takes over SLC
They say for every cockroach you see there are a hundred you don't see.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Nepal.html
Guess he got 9 years.
https://globalnews.ca/news/5472769/pete ... led-nepal/
-
Aprhys
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1128
Re: UN takes over SLC
Do a search on YouTube for "United Nations Silences Utah Journalist.” I am not sure how to post links.
-
Fiannan
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 12983
-
Chip
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7985
- Location: California
Re: UN takes over SLC
Right here:
https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ ... ist/256399
Utah politicians who promoted this are traitors. This is utterly WRONG.
https://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/ ... ist/256399
Utah politicians who promoted this are traitors. This is utterly WRONG.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
-
Chip
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7985
- Location: California
Re: UN takes over SLC
That lady in the video reminds me of this guy:
https://youtu.be/GhJdoBvO8Ik
Due process isn't part of the culture, but it sure is fun pretending authority.
https://youtu.be/GhJdoBvO8Ik
Due process isn't part of the culture, but it sure is fun pretending authority.
-
Lizzy60
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 8553
Re: UN takes over SLC
Yes. This is from the official church website:
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... n?lang=eng
Warning!!! Reading the article posted above may cause sever cognitive dissonance.
-
gkearney
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5396
Re: UN takes over SLC
Legally this is the same principle as diplomatic missions. They are legally the territory of the country and not the territory of the United States. The same thing applies to the United Nations offices in New York or other locations in the United States be they permanent such as is the case in the case of the UN headquarters building in Manhattan or temporary offices such as in Salk Lake City.
It is this reason why, if you visit the United Nations you can mail a letter from the UN with a UN and not a US postage stamp. Because once you step foot onto the ground of the United Nations you are no longer in the United States. The same thing applies to the grounds of say the Canadian, or any other nation’s embassy. Once in the compound you are in Canada or some other country and not the United States and different sets of laws apply to you.
It is this reason why, if you visit the United Nations you can mail a letter from the UN with a UN and not a US postage stamp. Because once you step foot onto the ground of the United Nations you are no longer in the United States. The same thing applies to the grounds of say the Canadian, or any other nation’s embassy. Once in the compound you are in Canada or some other country and not the United States and different sets of laws apply to you.
-
The East Wind
- captain of 100
- Posts: 689
Re: UN takes over SLC
The lady doesn't speak very good English so the words she is using could be much different in her own language. Also she is a security guard and hardly an ambassador of the U.N. this video is a nothing burger.
-
largerthanlife
- captain of 100
- Posts: 124
Re: UN takes over SLC
Diplomatic immunity seems to protect criminals everywhere. The U.S. diplomat's wife killed a British citizen in a wrong way incident. Why isn't she in jail?Aprhys wrote: ↑October 27th, 2019, 7:13 am Did anyone else catch the video of the journalist who entered the UN meeting in SLC this week? She was told to turn off her camera as the building was now a UN "compound." When the journalist questioned the security guard she was told that her city ended at the doors and that she was on UN territory.
-
mahalanobis
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2425
Re: UN takes over SLC
I agree that the word "compound" makes this sensationalistic. But the red flags are still there in general (regardless of which city they meet in).
I have no problem with helping refugees and even teaming up with other organizations to do it. What bothers me is then we start feeling the pressure to agree with the other elements of those organizations.
From that article on the church website:
"
...
Over the past six or so years in her work with Latter-day Saint Charities, Sister Eubank said, the predominant focus has been with refugees.
“If you look at why people are forced from their homes, it’s because of intolerance versus inclusiveness and because of environmental degradation, because they can’t afford to stay or the climate doesn’t allow them to stay,” she said.
...
"
Yikes. That was very carefully worded to sound sweet in the ears of the UN folks. Flirting with the UN is a very bad idea IMO. She's regurgitating talking points and not referring to any specific refugee event. Honestly she needs to educate herself before just spewing whatever she thinks others want to hear. This is troubling to me.
I have no problem with helping refugees and even teaming up with other organizations to do it. What bothers me is then we start feeling the pressure to agree with the other elements of those organizations.
From that article on the church website:
"
...
Over the past six or so years in her work with Latter-day Saint Charities, Sister Eubank said, the predominant focus has been with refugees.
“If you look at why people are forced from their homes, it’s because of intolerance versus inclusiveness and because of environmental degradation, because they can’t afford to stay or the climate doesn’t allow them to stay,” she said.
...
"
Yikes. That was very carefully worded to sound sweet in the ears of the UN folks. Flirting with the UN is a very bad idea IMO. She's regurgitating talking points and not referring to any specific refugee event. Honestly she needs to educate herself before just spewing whatever she thinks others want to hear. This is troubling to me.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: UN takes over SLC
She probably doesn't realize, or if she did, would never (be permitted to) acknowledge that the refugee crisis has been fomented by American latter-day gadiantons with some help from LDGs in other countries. As I and others have stated, the refugee crisis has been fomented to disrupt and destroy America and other western nations to groom them for incorporation into the New World Order under a global government.
-
skylight
- captain of 100
- Posts: 225
Re: UN takes over SLC
Rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s???
Highlights from the article posted:
-“I think the U.N., in their mission, is always looking to hold hands with allies and like-minded organizations to bring good things about,” she said. “And we know that there is a shared stewardship for a lot of women in Relief Society.”
- member of relief society board spoke at U.N. conference.
- -music and spoken word highlighted importance of U.N.
- With the theme for the 68th U.N. Civil Society Conference focused on creating sustainable and inclusive cities and communities, Sister Eubank explained just how closely the goals of the two global organizations are aligned in that purpose.
- The Church community also played a key role in assuring the U.N. that there would be broad-based support in their coming to Utah and for a global conversation typical of the U.N. to happen here, and that was crucial, he said.
- The U.N. and the Church have worked together in an official capacity since 2011, when the U.N. recognized Latter-day Saint Charities, the humanitarian arm of the Church, as an accredited nongovernmental organization (NGO).
- The United Nations coming to Salt Lake City is a result of the work of Mayor Jackie Biskupski, Utah governor Gary Herbert, and Utah Valley University, credited Sister Sharon Eubank, president of Latter-day Saint Charities and First Counselor in the Church’s Relief Society General Presidency.
- First conference to be held outside U.N. headquarters New York:
- “But when selecting cities that align with the goals and principles upheld by the U.N., that criterion made Salt Lake stand out. “
Highlights from the article posted:
-“I think the U.N., in their mission, is always looking to hold hands with allies and like-minded organizations to bring good things about,” she said. “And we know that there is a shared stewardship for a lot of women in Relief Society.”
- member of relief society board spoke at U.N. conference.
- -music and spoken word highlighted importance of U.N.
- With the theme for the 68th U.N. Civil Society Conference focused on creating sustainable and inclusive cities and communities, Sister Eubank explained just how closely the goals of the two global organizations are aligned in that purpose.
- The Church community also played a key role in assuring the U.N. that there would be broad-based support in their coming to Utah and for a global conversation typical of the U.N. to happen here, and that was crucial, he said.
- The U.N. and the Church have worked together in an official capacity since 2011, when the U.N. recognized Latter-day Saint Charities, the humanitarian arm of the Church, as an accredited nongovernmental organization (NGO).
- The United Nations coming to Salt Lake City is a result of the work of Mayor Jackie Biskupski, Utah governor Gary Herbert, and Utah Valley University, credited Sister Sharon Eubank, president of Latter-day Saint Charities and First Counselor in the Church’s Relief Society General Presidency.
- First conference to be held outside U.N. headquarters New York:
- “But when selecting cities that align with the goals and principles upheld by the U.N., that criterion made Salt Lake stand out. “
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: UN takes over SLC
What has changed since these statements were made by LDS Church Leaders on the United Nations?
David O. McKay
“Unless the spirit of Christianity permeate the deliberations of the United Nations, dire tragedies await humanity.” (Source: David O. McKay. General Conference, October 1947)
Harold B. Lee
“Except the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and principles contained within the Constitution of the United States are inherent in world plans now being formulated, they are but building on sand and the Lord is not in that building.” [Comment: This was said in 1945 when the United Nations was being established.] (Source: Youth and the Church by Harold B. Lee, Deseret Book Company, 1970, p. 220)
J. Reuben Clark
“In furtherance of the general plan in contemplation of a world-state, we have made treaties of alliance containing obligations that infringed upon our sovereignty. We have made multipartite treaties – the League of Nations (which, when it was understood, the people rejected), the United Nations Charter, to which the Senate gave its advice and consent just one month and two days after its signature, the people having no time to examine its merits before it became operative. All of these surrendered some of our sovereignty. Not infrequently they involve commitments for the Chief Executive which he cannot fulfill, as also for the nation which the Chief Executive cannot guarantee shall be carried out.
“These circumstances have brought into high places an expressed feeling that our treaty powers are uncontrolled, even unlimited; that we may by treaty do what our Chief Executive may wish, with the Senate’s prescribed approval.” (Source: An Address Delivered by J. Reuben Clark, Jr. to the 67th Annual Congress of The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, July 1957)
Ezra Taft Benson
We are in the midst of continuing international crises. The outlook for world peace and security is dark indeed. The gravity of the world situation, it appears, is increasing almost daily. The United Nations seems unable to settle the troubles of the world. In truth we are faced with the hard fact that the United Nations, it seems, has largely failed in its purpose. Yes, the days ahead are sobering and challenging ones. We might well ask, America–what of the future? (Source: Ezra Taft Benson: April 1952. General Conference Talk. America – What of the Future?)
“We should pay no attention to the recommendations of men who call the Constitution an eighteenth-century agrarian document — who apologize for capitalism and free enterprise. We should refuse to follow their siren song of concentrating, increasingly, the powers of government in the Chief Executive, of delegating American sovereign authority to non-American institutions in the United Nations, and pretending that it will bring peace to the world by turning our armed forces over to a U.N. world-wide police force.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson, Title of Liberty 176; from an address given at Los Angeles, CA, 11 Dec 1961 ))
“Never forget that history is filled with examples of men who mean to be good rulers but who nevertheless mean to rule.
“With reference to the United Nations and spurious appendages, I would like to quote the Internal Security Annual Report for 1956, p. 213, as made by the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee, as follows: ‘What appears, on the surface at least, to be by far the worst danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations, is UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Among less than ninety Americans employed by UNESCO the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board found fourteen cases of doubtful loyalty.’ Then, in the footnote, we see this: “Information in the possession of the sub-committee, indicating a great deal of evidence not yet publicly adduced, points to the possibility that the parent body, the U.N., may be the worst ‘spot’ of all.” There is no indication that there has been the slightest improvement in the United Nations or its satellites since that time.
“Commenting on the United Nations Charter and the “travesty on exhaustive consideration” as the charter was hastily approved by the Congress, under urging from the State Department, [J. Reuben Clark, Jr.] continues with a devastating analysis and a sober warning to the American people that there will be a day of reckoning. I believe that day is near at hand. The hopes and the aspirations of the people have been betrayed… I urge all to read the solid volume, Stand Fast by the Constitution, which embodies much of J. Reuben Clark’s timely instruction.
Meantime let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson December 10 1963. A Race Against Time))
“Should we disarm? And does it really make any difference whether we disarm unilaterally or collaterally? Either course of action would surrender our military independence. Should we pool our economic resources or our monetary system with those of other nations to create some kind of regional common market? It would constitute the surrender of our economic independence. Should we enter into treaties such as the U.N. Covenants which would obligate our citizens to conform their social behavior, their educational practices to rules and regulations set down by international agencies? Such treaty obligations amount to the voluntary and piece-meal surrender of our political independence. The answer to all such questions is a resounding “no,” for the simple reason that the only way America can survive in this basically hostile and topsy-turvy world is to remain militarily, economically and politically strong and independent.
“We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating those soothing but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look to the world as it is, not as we would like it to become. Such an objective, and perhaps painful, survey leads to but one conclusion. We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world. President George Washington, in his immortal Farewell Address, explained our true policy in this regard:
‘The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.’” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho)
“Among the nations of the world today, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural, and political environments. To add fuel to the fire, the concept woven into all of the present-day proposals for world government (The U.N. foremost among these) is one of unlimited governmental power to impose by force a monolithic set of values and conduct on all groups and individuals whether they like it or not. Far from ensuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances of war.
“In this connection it is interesting to point out that the late J. Reuben Clark, who was recently described as ‘probably the greatest authority on [the Constitution] during the past fifty years’ (American Opinion, April 1966, p. 113), in 1945 – the year the United Nations charter was adopted – made this prediction in his devastating and prophetic ‘cursory analysis’ of the United Nations Charter:
‘There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end… The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war… It is true the Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace… The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.
‘Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we will have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho)
In conclusion, let us again consider the statement of Ezra Taft Benson; “let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations.”
David O. McKay
“Unless the spirit of Christianity permeate the deliberations of the United Nations, dire tragedies await humanity.” (Source: David O. McKay. General Conference, October 1947)
Harold B. Lee
“Except the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and principles contained within the Constitution of the United States are inherent in world plans now being formulated, they are but building on sand and the Lord is not in that building.” [Comment: This was said in 1945 when the United Nations was being established.] (Source: Youth and the Church by Harold B. Lee, Deseret Book Company, 1970, p. 220)
J. Reuben Clark
“In furtherance of the general plan in contemplation of a world-state, we have made treaties of alliance containing obligations that infringed upon our sovereignty. We have made multipartite treaties – the League of Nations (which, when it was understood, the people rejected), the United Nations Charter, to which the Senate gave its advice and consent just one month and two days after its signature, the people having no time to examine its merits before it became operative. All of these surrendered some of our sovereignty. Not infrequently they involve commitments for the Chief Executive which he cannot fulfill, as also for the nation which the Chief Executive cannot guarantee shall be carried out.
“These circumstances have brought into high places an expressed feeling that our treaty powers are uncontrolled, even unlimited; that we may by treaty do what our Chief Executive may wish, with the Senate’s prescribed approval.” (Source: An Address Delivered by J. Reuben Clark, Jr. to the 67th Annual Congress of The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, July 1957)
Ezra Taft Benson
We are in the midst of continuing international crises. The outlook for world peace and security is dark indeed. The gravity of the world situation, it appears, is increasing almost daily. The United Nations seems unable to settle the troubles of the world. In truth we are faced with the hard fact that the United Nations, it seems, has largely failed in its purpose. Yes, the days ahead are sobering and challenging ones. We might well ask, America–what of the future? (Source: Ezra Taft Benson: April 1952. General Conference Talk. America – What of the Future?)
“We should pay no attention to the recommendations of men who call the Constitution an eighteenth-century agrarian document — who apologize for capitalism and free enterprise. We should refuse to follow their siren song of concentrating, increasingly, the powers of government in the Chief Executive, of delegating American sovereign authority to non-American institutions in the United Nations, and pretending that it will bring peace to the world by turning our armed forces over to a U.N. world-wide police force.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson, Title of Liberty 176; from an address given at Los Angeles, CA, 11 Dec 1961 ))
“Never forget that history is filled with examples of men who mean to be good rulers but who nevertheless mean to rule.
“With reference to the United Nations and spurious appendages, I would like to quote the Internal Security Annual Report for 1956, p. 213, as made by the Senate Internal Security Sub-Committee, as follows: ‘What appears, on the surface at least, to be by far the worst danger spot, from the standpoint of disloyalty and subversive activity among Americans employed by international organizations, is UNESCO – the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Among less than ninety Americans employed by UNESCO the International Organizations Employees Loyalty Board found fourteen cases of doubtful loyalty.’ Then, in the footnote, we see this: “Information in the possession of the sub-committee, indicating a great deal of evidence not yet publicly adduced, points to the possibility that the parent body, the U.N., may be the worst ‘spot’ of all.” There is no indication that there has been the slightest improvement in the United Nations or its satellites since that time.
“Commenting on the United Nations Charter and the “travesty on exhaustive consideration” as the charter was hastily approved by the Congress, under urging from the State Department, [J. Reuben Clark, Jr.] continues with a devastating analysis and a sober warning to the American people that there will be a day of reckoning. I believe that day is near at hand. The hopes and the aspirations of the people have been betrayed… I urge all to read the solid volume, Stand Fast by the Constitution, which embodies much of J. Reuben Clark’s timely instruction.
Meantime let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson December 10 1963. A Race Against Time))
“Should we disarm? And does it really make any difference whether we disarm unilaterally or collaterally? Either course of action would surrender our military independence. Should we pool our economic resources or our monetary system with those of other nations to create some kind of regional common market? It would constitute the surrender of our economic independence. Should we enter into treaties such as the U.N. Covenants which would obligate our citizens to conform their social behavior, their educational practices to rules and regulations set down by international agencies? Such treaty obligations amount to the voluntary and piece-meal surrender of our political independence. The answer to all such questions is a resounding “no,” for the simple reason that the only way America can survive in this basically hostile and topsy-turvy world is to remain militarily, economically and politically strong and independent.
“We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating those soothing but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look to the world as it is, not as we would like it to become. Such an objective, and perhaps painful, survey leads to but one conclusion. We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world. President George Washington, in his immortal Farewell Address, explained our true policy in this regard:
‘The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…’Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world…Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.’” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho)
“Among the nations of the world today, there are precious few common bonds that could help overcome the clash of cross-purposes that inevitably must arise between groups with such divergent ethnic, linguistic, legal, religious, cultural, and political environments. To add fuel to the fire, the concept woven into all of the present-day proposals for world government (The U.N. foremost among these) is one of unlimited governmental power to impose by force a monolithic set of values and conduct on all groups and individuals whether they like it or not. Far from ensuring peace, such conditions can only enhance the chances of war.
“In this connection it is interesting to point out that the late J. Reuben Clark, who was recently described as ‘probably the greatest authority on [the Constitution] during the past fifty years’ (American Opinion, April 1966, p. 113), in 1945 – the year the United Nations charter was adopted – made this prediction in his devastating and prophetic ‘cursory analysis’ of the United Nations Charter:
‘There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end… The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war… It is true the Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace… The Charter is a war document, not a peace document.
‘Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we will have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.” (Source: Ezra Taft Benson. Address delivered on June 21, 1968, at the Farm Bureau Banquet in Preston, Idaho)
In conclusion, let us again consider the statement of Ezra Taft Benson; “let us have no further blind devotion to the communist-dominated United Nations.”
-
Chip
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7985
- Location: California
Re: UN takes over SLC
How could such well-placed people actually believe environmental degradation and intolerance are causing refugees??? IT'S WAR!!! Perpetual war fueled by central banking! Anyone interested in the truth has long realized this. How can this elude people at the top of a $400B concern? They CANNOT be so ignorant. They could not be stewards of so much and actually be so naive. So, what gives?lundbaek wrote: ↑October 28th, 2019, 1:39 am She probably doesn't realize, or if she did, would never (be permitted to) acknowledge that the refugee crisis has been fomented by American latter-day gadiantons with some help from LDGs in other countries. As I and others have stated, the refugee crisis has been fomented to disrupt and destroy America and other western nations to groom them for incorporation into the New World Order under a global government.
-
buffalo_girl
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 7125
Re: UN takes over SLC
Scary times, isn't it?
Being worthy of personal revelation is our only sure means of navigating the maelstrom.
The 'common' human being is no more than dross to be pushed aside and buried under Babylon.
Being worthy of personal revelation is our only sure means of navigating the maelstrom.
The 'common' human being is no more than dross to be pushed aside and buried under Babylon.
Revelation 18
23 And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
-
marc
- Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Posts: 10480
- Contact:
Re: UN takes over SLC
I posted the video to my city's Facebook page to spread awareness and begin a dialog. I hope everyone else who lives in Utah does the same thing or similar.
-
marc
- Disciple of Jesus Christ
- Posts: 10480
- Contact:
Re: UN takes over SLC
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2410181 ... on_generic
A lady said:
Thank you, lundbaek, for those quotes above!
A lady said:
I replied with, "Does that make it right?"Certain places in the US aren't considered to be legal US soil. Like embassies of other countries and so forth. And US laws don't apply in those places.
Thank you, lundbaek, for those quotes above!
-
gkearney
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 5396
Re: UN takes over SLC
There is a very sound reason to have places like embassies being the legal territories of the nations and entities they represent. If you ever find yourself in real danger overseas you can take refuge in a United States embassy and the local authorities can't reach you there. Remember this protects Americans just as much as it does nationals of other countries who are here.
So before anyone here suggests that such diplomatic missions permanent or temporary should not exist on US soil or think such diplomatic customs are "not right" best to think again, you will be putting for fellow citizens overseas into potential peril with no means of the protection of the United States should we eliminate such diplomatic niceties as these.
So before anyone here suggests that such diplomatic missions permanent or temporary should not exist on US soil or think such diplomatic customs are "not right" best to think again, you will be putting for fellow citizens overseas into potential peril with no means of the protection of the United States should we eliminate such diplomatic niceties as these.
