<p>According to the Boston globe, it was the State Department which asked Boston’s mayor to provide police protection. It was also the State Department that issued the visas for Khatami and his entourage to enter the US. </p>
<p>Fine, I understand the point of police protecting the citizens of Cambridge from unruly crowds. However, my kids participated in a youth organization in MA – when they had concerts, the organization had to pay for local police to attend the event, and it wasn’t cheap. So if Harvard chooses to invite a speaker who may stir up local crowds, they should be required to pay for the appropriate number of police officers to attend and supervise the event. If I recall correctly, the number of officers is based on the number of expected attendees.</p>
<p>But the streets of Cambridge do not belong to Harvard. Nor are the people who are likely to come and protest going to be students–Most of them will be either unpacking or won’t have showed up anyway.</p>
<p>And keep in mind that the State Dept (can you say Condi Rice) issued visas to Khatami to come to the US and the State Dept ASKED the Boston police to provide protection.
I doubt very much that Harvard issued an invitation to Khatami to speak prior to the State Dept’s own issuance of the visas. Whatever one might think about the extent of Harvard’s clout, I do not believe that Harvard could push a recalcitrant State Dept to issue visas.
My hunch is that the visit was negotiated for a long time between Khatami and the State Dept and only then were appropriate venues for him to speak identified. So, the State Dept, having worked out the modalities for Khatami’s visit to the US, needs to make sure he is safe. Can you imagine the consequences of an attack on him? And having taken on that responsibility, the State Dept has had to approach the City of Boston, since the prospective GOP presidential candidate from MA has refused to allow the Commonwealth to provide this protection. Good move. Now the Democratic mayor of Boston can be the target of criticisms for (mis)using Boston taxpayers money.</p>
<p>Sjmom–inviting a crowd, and inviting a speaker who may draw opposition who cause trouble, can’t possibly be equivalent. If Harvard were hosting the crowd, it would make sense for it to pay to keep it ruly. But it’s not. I don’t think it should ever be the responsibility of a private entity to pay for protection because of opposition to it, whatever I think of the entity or the opposition.</p>
<p>Edit: it’s like when the KKK marched through that city in Illinois years ago. They had a right to march, and it certainly wasn’t their responsibilitiy to provide security (nor would we want them to!)</p>
<p>I may abhor their beliefs and politics, but I respect the right of assembly and the free exchange of ideas–however dispicable.</p>
<p>Harvard is making a choice – why shouldn’t they be responsible for the consequences and costs associated with it? If our taxes aren’t enough to cover additional police for a youth group, why can’t the very-well endowed Harvard cough up the money. Did anyone ask the people of Cambridge or Boston if this was how they want their tax dollars spent? Particulary, it seems that Boston schools could use extra funding.</p>
<p>yea we never spend money on unnecessary things :rolleyes:</p>
<p>A dialouge with Iran is necessary at this moment. And it seems people here don’t really know much about Khatami or Iranian history in general. He is probably the most moderate Iranian PMs in recent decades. He initiated reforms in both economic and foreign policies in Iran at a time of fierce anti-Americanism. Not only is he a democratically elected (twice) leader of Iran, his election was a total surprise because none of the hardcore-Mullahs thought he would win, which should say something about his party affiliations. He also favored dialouge with Western powers at a time when speaking for such matters was akin to political suicide in Iran. </p>
<p>To call him a terrorist is not only an embarrassingly ignorant statement but shows an utter lack of knowledge of world history in general. </p>
<p>Of course, maybe I am expecting way too much from gung-ho “shoot first ask questions later” Americans :rolleyes:</p>
<p>not to mention that article is from the right-wing National Review Online :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Khatami in a nutshell: His regime took part in murders, torture, persecution, effusive praise for Hezbollah, and a call for the destruction of Israel. Known terrorists were protected and supported. There’s your history lesson.</p>
<p>These are facts. Their appearance in NRO doesn’t change their validity. Check them out if you are skeptical. You will find my nutshell description to be quite tame and 100% accurate.</p>
<p>American foreign policy in a nutshell: Reducing stuff to a “nutshell” is nuts, and counterproductive. </p>
<p>You want murder, torture, and persecution? Probably 90% of the “regimes” in the world do that, including many that we do (and should) support, and you don’t have to look farther than Washington D.C. to find a regime that proudly does things that could be characterized that way. Praising Hezbollah? Of course, it’s no secret that Hezbollah is to some extent an Iranian creation, and (unfortunately) it has worked pretty well for Iran so far. Calling for the destruction of Israel? I don’t like that, but if we failed to engage with everyone in the Islamic world who had ever called for the destruction of Israel, we would have no engagement at all with the Islamic world, and we can’t afford that. (Israel can’t, either.) </p>
<p>The US desperately needs more dialogue with Iran, and in the Iranian political spectrum Khatami is one of the best shots at someone who matters with whom some sort of actual dialogue might be possible. The alternative is what?</p>
<p>“To call him a terrorist is not only an embarrassingly ignorant statement but shows an utter lack of knowledge of world history in general.”</p>
<p>This is the statement I was commenting on, JHS. Just defending my original statement after being called “embarrassingly ignorant” and clueless about world history. I could write a dissertation on why Khatami is clearly a terrorist. This is a college admissions message board, so I don’t think this is the place. A “nutshell” is sufficient, IMHO.</p>
<p>It was reported that the feds will provide the needed support and security for Khatami’s visits - not the state of MA or any other state for that matter.</p>
<p>I could also write a dissertion about United States participating (replace Israel with North Korea and Iran) in the same things…it’s easy to point fingers at other regimes. The US has been a state-sponsor of terrorism for a longer time and is partly responsible for the state of Iran today. I suggest you get off the self-righteous moral highground and learn something about history instead. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>JeepMom, the State Dept. requested Boston and Cambridge police (municipal police, not state of course, but nevertheless under Massachusetts’ budget) to provide security, so I’m not sure I understand your point.</p>
<p>Celloguy -…Romney’s action means that Khatami will be denied an official police escort and other VIP treatment when he is in town. The federal government provides security through the U.S. State Department.</p>
<p>I would assume - I know - never assume LOL - that if requested by the State Dept for use of Boston/Cambridge police forces - they would also be reimbursed from State Dept coffers…not from the taxpayers of MA… tho I sure could be off the wall about that ROFL.</p>
<p>I’m afraid that although the State Dept made the request, it’s going to be Cambridge and Boston which absorb the cost sof the visit not shouldered by Harvard. That was the case when Jiang Zeming visited many years ago.</p>