28 April 2012 2:39PMResponse to MoreTears, 26 April 2012 5:08AMYou may well be right however i have a feeling that it would be much more likely for the Saudis to close ranks protectively over their Diplomat, declare it an insulting American ‘plot’ and probably just send him off to another country?
Politically speaking as we know, the Americans kow-tow to the Saudis, not the other way around. Plus any politicos/diplomats would likely consider the CIA’s lame brain Cold war blackmail schemes and necessarily ‘insulting’ the Saudis to be a very bad political move indeed? Diplomats do not have to go through customs and are not subject to the laws of the country they are in.
n.b Not sure if Al Zahani would be subject to Shar’ia law from his own country whilst abroad? Also not sure if the daughter would have a diplomatic passport but do feel that such actions against her would be considered very ‘bad form’?
Certainly by other politicians and diplomatic folk who are the ones engaged in the real diplomacy between countries?
Note that America has in political terms:tried very hard not to offend the Saudis over the pesky fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia (declaring instead that they all lived in Iraq/ Afghanistan!) or uttered a condemnatory whisper over the Saudis repression of their own people or their neighbouring satellite Bahrain? All due to oil of course..
The claim made by Carrie & co. of America having the power to prevent the citizen of another country entering all the countries in Europe is surely arrogant (and worrying) in the extreme?
Whilst trying not to react to this as real life evidence of such claims: i am aware that America has just issued legislation that dictates to any air traveller from Britain to any other country (not including flying in American air space or even to America!) the requirement to publish in advance their full travelling itinerary!…so maybe it’s all true..
If true then this amount of power over other countries betrays America’s own somewhat megalomaniac belief in their own righteousness derived from their near holy war over 9/11 and subsequent sanctification of all things military including military and covert actions deemed ‘necessary’ to protect and defend..
Along with conferring saintly status on military men such as Brody. This is why he is a God-given shoe-in in political terms for his new position as instant politico and why nobody bats an eyelid about it.
(When he has no political experience whatsoever)
As Brody blithely blathered:
“Serving your country is the highest calling, sacred and profound”..
“sacred”? hmm..now that, to me, is the worrying word in that sentence..
Response to pfg2powell, 28 April 2012 8:39AMExactly! i agree:i was amazed to her that too! So what on earth are they doing dragging in diplomats from other countries and threatening them with details of their private life?
Not to mention making threats against the free movement of Al Zahani’s daughter to other European countries?! Not to mention illegally (but for some dodgy Judge they also had ‘something on’) wire tapping Brody and his whole family? (who aren’t technically military but are civilians)
On what authority are they operating exactly? and if they don’t “have a charter to operate in the US” then isn’t everything they are doing illegal?
i agree with you completely about Carrie. i thought that too in the opening sequence. First she was way too young to be doing such a job and yes, it was extremely unlikely she would have been left to wander willy nilly around Iraq as a lone young woman. However she is there in Homeland for token gratuitous T & A action. Pretty much.
When in reality if there was a woman spy agent when would be much more likely to be middle aged to elderly and a veteran to boot. Something tells me she wouldn’t have been shouting down her mobile in the street, yelling at people in the traffic jam and likewise shouting at guards and her ‘prisoner’ through a door for all to hear..All in the middle of a full blown ‘insurgency’ as you say.
Don’t think she would have lasted very long like that? But then no hot action as above..
Isn’t the CIA really the equivalent of somebody’s eccentric rogue and possibly drunken relative? blundering around and messing everything up? presumably all the hard work put in by politicians and diplomats? Emboldened and enraged by 9/11 and it’s zealous aftermath of infinitely allowed interpretations of ‘the end justifies the means’?
who does the CIA answer to? and who do they take their orders from? ie. do the politicians and or the President know what they are up to and condone it? is there even a ‘plan’?!
i have no idea…
clarissima28 April 2012 3:12PMcorrection to above post first line: should read:i was amazed to hear that too!