Amal Clooney threw a tantrum while meeting with Iraqs UN Ambassador, 9-15-16

Thanks to Henway!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George Clooney’s human rights lawyer wife nearly caused an international incident at the Iraqi UN Mission of Iraq in Manhattan when she lectured the ambassador on ISIS and showed up with an unauthorized camera crew, The Post has learned.

Lebanese-born attorney Amal Clooney originally demanded to meet with the prime minister at the mission during the UN General Assembly, but that was rejected and she settled for the country’s UN Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim, two Iraqi officials confirmed.

She arrived with Yazidi refugee and Noble Peace Prize nominee Nadia Murad on Sept 15, and, right from the get-go, she used a “dismissive, lecturing tone” with Alhakim while discussing how to bring captured ISIS fighters to justice, one official said.

When the conversation turned to the Yazidi people, Clooney made it seem as if they were the only religious sect in Iraq being slaughtered by ISIS, the official said.

The ambassador and his staff tried to offer her a “full picture” outlining each group targeted by ISIS, but Clooney was “completely uninterested” and “tone deaf to the whole thing,” the official said, noting, “It was highly offensive. I have had cousins decapitated.”

Alhakim, who had 65 of his own family members exterminated by Saddam Hussein’s ruthless regime, became infuriated with Clooney and, at one point, turned to her, stating, “This is highly insulting. This is very unacceptable,” the official said.

Despite Clooney’s “obnoxious” behavior, the tense meeting lasted about an hour and 20 minutes because the Iraqi diplomats wanted “to be respectful to Nadia,” the official noted.

When the meeting finally ended, the parties went downstairs to the lobby, where Clooney’s “media team” carrying film equipment had shown up unannounced – a violation of standard protocols that required pre-approval by the mission, the official said.

Clooney requested an on-camera interview with the ambassador, but was quickly shut down and escorted outside with her posse.

“The main issue is what she did and how she did it is absolutely outrageous and using a victim of war crimes as an accessory and political currency. That makes my blood boil,” the official said.

Clooney’s personal assistant did not return an email request for comment and efforts to reach the attorney by phone were unsuccessful.

The Mission of Iraq declined to comment.

This is interesiting. We have to hear from both sides to judge what really happened.

It's also interesting that they reported about that nearly one month after it actually happened, and that nobody who eye-witnessed it (and there must have been many of them), talked about it before...

Yea the timing of this story surprised me too. I agree that we need to hear both sides and from other sources.

Well, here we are:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not another source, just Hollywood gossip keeping the ball rolling, but some of the comments are very interesting.

Paraphrase - 'I don't believe that lawyers are known for being docile people' and 'just because she didn't go in and fall on her knees and avoid eye contact' etc.

I gather Amal is not alone on her case against Isis. Geoffrey Robertson QC, the head of Doughty Street and effectively her boss is heavily involved

I believe the articles, esp about the press she brought and her attitude .  Maybe this is more of her "I'm Amal Clooney, show me reverence- I'm brilliant" personality. 

No, I'm not attacking her, much as some of you will chastise me for.  She does not produce frozen dairy treats in the bathroom, folks.  I believe she does cop an attitude, feels entitles with the  fame her new last name has brought and believes the image Stan has created of her.   Gentle news flash... George's true love does not walk on water.

Bring on the nasty comments and how my thoughts are all wrong!

I often feel embarrassed about my post 2+ years ago where I said my "gut instinct" was not good regarding Amal....and that on paper she was perfect for my "lil bro....BUT I disliked her....

I felt guilty because there is much for me to like about her....She has bizarrely my late Mothers smile....it's hard to see that smile, and not like the face....

Slowly things have happened the poor girl with the scarf....Nadia trailing behind...never ending boastfulness and extravagant entrances and exits all over NYC WDC...All captured by her OWN camera crew, who has their life documented?.... Amal Clooney has her life documented....WHY?

Many people are fighting Isis....I am grateful she is doing something...but it's no better than what many more people are doing daily....with NO camera crew....

This latest revelation comes as no surprise....in fact the only surprise is that more people are not coming forward with similar experiences.....

Run George run....

(change your cell phone and change the locks...it's easy...)

The post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it is more trash than news. I think Amal is an attorney and knows how to get what she wants. I think there is more to this and we don't know all that went on. If this happened why not tell it in September why now? Definitely need to hear Amal's side.

This is the U.N they have security I don't see a film crew just being let in without authorization. Seems odd to me with all the threats in the city.

I don't take anything that Celebitchy writes seriously. They have made it known for a long time that don't like Amal so this story from the Post confirms their narrative of her. ... Amal is kind of a tantrum-throwing a-hole. No I don't buy that. That is just shitty reporting.

I would like to hear from other sources about this story. Maybe it's all true but maybe it's not. Maybe it's about perceptions and miscommunication. I don't know. I will wait to hear more.

Bear in mind that 

 a) we have heard nothing like this from any of the other many Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, Presidents, UN officials and broadcasters that they both met during that week

b) that this is a woman fighting for a woman - no, many other women who have been tortured and raped by a group that first established itself in post-Hussein Iraq.

Perhaps Amal should have been a little more obsequeious. No doubt they would have preferred that......

Pan she is not a wall flower , a strong woman who speaks her mind is throwing a tantrum. When a man does the same thing he is not accused of having a tantrum.

We have never heard anyone say anything bad said about how she conducts herself,  maybe she simply rubbed them the wrong way .

party animal - not! wrote:Bear in mind that 

 a) we have heard nothing like this from any of the other many Ambassadors, Prime Ministers, Presidents, UN officials and broadcasters that they both met during that week

b) that this is a woman fighting for a woman - no, many other women who have been tortured and raped by a group that first established itself in post-Hussein Iraq.

Perhaps Amal should have been a little more obsequeious. No doubt they would have preferred that......

I'm not necessarily an Amal fan--jury is still out for me.  BUT... Why is a woman who has the moral high ground "bitchy" when she goes into a meeting and aggressively advocates and tries to get media attention for her client?  Would this even be a story if she was a male lawyer?  I get that being married to George Clooney plays into the media attention, but I think there is a great deal of sexism as well.  Different standard for women than men in the same profession with the same goals.

Totally agree, Fava and Annemarie.

Sorry. HUGE level of sarcasm in my last point............

I don't read it as sarcasm, PAN, just you expressing your thoughts, just as I expressed mine.

Another thought- being aggressive is not bitchy- bringing your own press coverage...................over the top.

I do believe that story is True,why would Iraqi UN Mission of Iraq 
Lie ?!
They are at the same boat and Nadia case is their's too! Amal lied before when she said that she was threatened  in Egypt and they did expose Amal lies and forced her to take her lies back twice once in media and another when she went there for 2 days,
When you look at Nadia' face everytime Amal try to act friendly in front of the camera "in the car ,at the UN" you can see it is only acting for the cameras and you can tell ,it is a shame!

like people think with your minds C'mon ,Amal is not that important that politicians and diplomatic group spread lies about ,what for?!what personal or un personal reasons that drives them to do that!Nothing

My first take, the one I am leaning towards is  Ummm. Sources speaking for the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN? Speaking to a tabloid/gutter press? Just no. Likelihood of this happening is remote to say the least. 

Second take. Some low level idiot didn't like her tone? Really? Some gutter press hack describes her contact as a "tantrum". Really? Assume for a minute that the Iraqi Ambassador to the UN was actually offended and someone in the diplomatic community actually thought this was a good idea. Assume he wanted to whine at someone who cared. And that happened to be the tabloids. Not likely.

There is almost zero chance there is any truth in this piece. And even if there was a gram or two I would suggest that what we should be offended about is the incredible sexist baloney woven through every sentence.

Well said oldweston.

So true, Oldweston.

No quote from this piece has anything to do with diplomacy or how diplomatic circles run, and yet apparently it comes from an embassy.........

That is because they are diplomatics and pros and expect grown up ,professional lawyer to show up ,not a child act who lecture them ,it is not the Maldives !

This piece seems very odd to me. Though it says that Amal threw a tantrum it looks to me that it was the other way round!

 If Amal requested a meeting she would have been required to give a reason for wanting the meeting and made it clear what she would want meeting to focus on. If she requested a meeting regarding the Yazidi people she would have expected the Ambassador and his staff to focus on that, particularly as Nadia was there with her, and not expect them to widen the the area discussed to include the 'full picture' of what ISIS is doing. They must have known that Amal is representing Nadia and that the Yazidi people would be the focus.

Would they really have been there for an hour and 20 minutes if the Ambassador was unhappy with the way the meeting was going? I don't think so.

Amal is a confident, assertive woman. These Iraqi men would be more used to women who are subservient and 'know their place'. Women who are able speak for themselves might be a problem to them.

I don't believe Amal has a 'media crew'. If there was a film crew it is possible that they are making a documentary about Nadia and her quest to bring ISIS fighters to justice because of what they are doing to the Yazidi people.

Having said that, I just don't believe this article, it doesn't ring true. So much of it doesn't add up in my opinion.

I realy don't trust gossip magazines.

The New York Post is not known for balanced and credible journalism. And this story definitely has a point of view. You have to wonder how and why this story ended up in The New York Post.

Thanks Oldweston and Hebe for your take. I am also not convinced at all by this story.

You guys just crack me up!

melbert wrote:You guys just crack me up!

lol

First I'd like to thank PAN for totally blowing my morning to hell by posting the link to Celebitchy. Having seen the article in the Post I figured I'd just take a quick look to see if there was anything new. HAH! I got sucked into the comments section and have just emerged - AN HOUR LATER - still with no idea what's true. 

However, there is a poster calling her/himself "Dippit" who seems very knowledgeable and whose comments on the viability of Amal's legal approach to the Yezidi situation are very interesting.

Lizzy,
I usually avoid to read the comments because most of the time I find it really embarrassing, people write so much sh...t there, just want to insult others (some did the same there).

Anyway, your post made me curious so I did read them.
The poster you mentioned seems to have some knowledge - or just claims to have. So we still don't know more as before. I mean, even if somebody said :" I took part in the meeting and agree with the Iraqi ambassador / he's completely wrong, Amal was very polite but determining", we still don't know if it's true or if somebody just wants to aggrandize himself.

Onr thought just came to my mind: 
What if a woman would behave like an alpha man, let's just say, like Trump. How would others call her? If a man appears determining, people usually rate this different than a woman appearing the same way.

I think it is simply a man not wanting to deal with a strong woman. I think if this were a man nothing would be being said a woman to some should have no power and even less right to speak her mind.

LizzyNY wrote:First I'd like to thank PAN for totally blowing my morning to hell by posting the link to Celebitchy. Having seen the article in the Post I figured I'd just take a quick look to see if there was anything new. HAH! I got sucked into the comments section and have just emerged - AN HOUR LATER - still with no idea what's true. 

However, there is a poster calling her/himself "Dippit" who seems very knowledgeable and whose comments on the viability of Amal's legal approach to the Yezidi situation are very interesting.

I enjoy reading the comments on Celebitchy because, for the most part, they seem to be more intelligent comments (except for the occasional wacko of course!) Since it's not a George fansite, the comments are more balanced IMO. To me, they are much more thought-provoking than those that either love or hate G and A no matter what the topic. Not all celebrity sites are the same.

Lizzy, I'm sorry - but it is interesting, isn't it?!

What is also quite interesting is what, through her work, Amal has brought to this particular table whether you like her or not - and more importantly to boards like Celebitchy.

PAN  -  You're forgiven. I jumped down that rabbit hole all by my little old self. For the most part, though it was fairly enlightening. I was especially interested by the comments of the lawyers posting about the legal conditions that regulate the actions of the UN on the Yezidi issue.

Their comments about UN regulations as related to Amal's strategy for the Yezidi case were very interesting. It appears that there is no mechanism for proceeding in the way Amal proposes. I can't imagine that she doesn't know this, so I have to wonder just what her strategy actually is - or if she even has one other than to draw attention to the issue.

And, yes, her celebrity has extended information about important issues to sites that would probably otherwise never mention them. It would be nice if her legal efforts were as successful as her media coverage.

Words like *Tantrum* and *Obnoxious* are not words you want on any table that describes one's professional behaviour......or any behaviour ....

I said right at the beginning that this seemed to be inappropriate....on a hiding to nothing substantial .....if the idea was to educate the world, then it might be called a PR exercise...but coming with an expensive price tag ($ per wear) makes it a distasteful PR exercise....

I have to say the word DOOMED....and IF!!! a big fat IF Nadia was used in any such exercise, it makes me believe Karma is available to all....No matter how obnoxious...no matter the tantrum.....and the exercise (PR) might have been doomed because of lack of fore thought, sensitivity, and one's limitations...no matter what price the frock......or how famous the name........

WWHS - I usually tend to agree with you, and I think I agree with what you're saying here, but I'm not sure what you mean in your second paragraph. Please, can you explain?

Sorry Lizzy....I should never bake and post at the same time...

This is what I was alluding to...post's I made at the time of announcement ...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


That basically this whole endeavour is misplaced....No wonder the Ambassador was gobsmacked.....Many are being slaughtered BUT AC was banging home the "Yazidi's case" ONLY....to ppl who had lost family....

Most ppl are aware that the Yazidi position differs in the disaster that was Sinjar massacre ......At that point many young women were separated from their families and captured as slaves.....but aside form Sinjar, the whole region no matter the religion has suffered greatly and many similar fate's.....This must have hurt the diplomats who had lost family members....

There have been continuous rescue missions by military....all with varying degree of success.....ALL OF THE WOMEN AND FAMILIES ARE NOT FORGOTTEN....

I said at the beginning that I thought this was not the subject for her.....but for UN, Governments.....see thread link.....

Hope this helps Lizzy....I'm still cooking today....but hopefully not as distracted...

Tricky isn't it when the UN and Governments have so far failed to agree on anything, and this sort of stuff is still happening right now.....

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

@PAN

and there have been many plans and many rescues....

yep, and there are likely to be many more..........

Iran, Syria's ally and largely Shia, is getting much more closely involved.

What Would He Say wrote:Sorry Lizzy....I should never bake and post at the same time...

This is what I was alluding to...post's I made at the time of announcement ...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


That basically this whole endeavour is misplaced....No wonder the Ambassador was gobsmacked.....Many are being slaughtered BUT AC was banging home the "Yazidi's case" ONLY....to ppl who had lost family....

Most ppl are aware that the Yazidi position differs in the disaster that was Sinjar massacre ......At that point many young women were separated from their families and captured as slaves.....but aside form Sinjar, the whole region no matter the religion has suffered greatly and many similar fate's.....This must have hurt the diplomats who had lost family members....

There have been continuous rescue missions by military....all with varying degree of success.....ALL OF THE WOMEN AND FAMILIES ARE NOT FORGOTTEN....

I said at the beginning that I thought this was not the subject for her.....but for UN, Governments.....see thread link.....

Hope this helps Lizzy....I'm still cooking today....but hopefully not as distracted...

I'm curious, understanding what you have stated here, what exactly do you think Amal Clooney was trying to accomplish during her recent media rounds and UN visit.

What would he say: I noticed you used the words massacre and slaughter are you connected to the Christian Science Monitor?

WWHS-- So is your point that that there is no value in tackling part of a problem?  If you don't take on the whole issue, don't take it on at all?

WWHS - Thanks for clarifying the post that confused me. I guess I can see the value in Amal bringing attention to the Yezidi's plight, but I also agree that her efforts won't have much of an effect - other than to raise her profile.

Some of the commenters on the Celbitchy site are attorneys who seem to have a pretty thorough understanding of the rules at the UN. They seem to feel that there are no mechanisms in place at this time that would allow prosecution of ISIS. Amal has worked at the UN. She should know this.

If that's the case, then what is Amal doing? Is she using the Yezidi problem to bring attention to a bunch of other issues she cares about?(trafficking, education, etc.) Is she trying to get the UN to change its regulations? To me, that's a whole different fight and would take a lot more time than the Yezidis have. I truly don't understand what she's trying to accomplish.

The UN and many foreign governments have failed at taking any legal action. But human rights groups have applauded this effort. Sadly the Obama Administration has done little to pursue prosecution though Obama has said in the past that preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and national responsibility. Supposedly he won't act because he doesn't want current military endeavors to be affected by any legal action.

Regardless of who brings legal action it shouldn't be dismissed because a country or specific individual can't stand trial. As others have said here it's important to go through the process to set a legal precedent, to state that ideologies like those of ISIS are criminal ideologies and it is genocide perpetrated on the Yazidis, not just rape and murder.

If this story has any truth to it I wonder if it had to do with Iraq wanting to take the lead of prosecuting ISIS in their own country. They don't want to be a part of the ICC.
However from what I read Iraq has a pretty sorry human rights record. In 2013 Human Rights Watch said Iraq's criminal justice system is "plagued with arbitrariness and opacity." Their ability to uphold the rule of law, treat prisoners humanely and handle witnesses and evidence properly are in question. Amal must know this. The Iraqis may not have appreciated her strong stance on this case.

Regardless of how this meeting went down the Post did a pitiful job reporting it. The story is incredibly biased and inflammatory. It reads like something from a cheesy tabloid.
Oh yea, that IS The New York Post.

Donnamarie -   Maybe Amal Clooney can follow the recommendation of the UN and define the IS/ISIS ideology as criminal and the "clear" case of genocide as UNJUSTIFIED KILLING (i.e. murder) when she speaks to the media.  This is important because even the law states genocide is criminal, the IS/ISIS view their ideology as righteous and genocide as a clear case of justified killing.ed

I posted a link where the UN stated there recommendations, however I can not find the post.

ladybugcngc wrote:What would he say: I noticed you used the words massacre and slaughter are you connected to the Christian Science Monitor?

No LabyB I am Catholic....I think maybe you are identifying my language as being "dramatic" and "Biblical"....It is....

Because the situation demands it....I think the last 24 hours has proven that the Iraqi Prime Minister had bigger fish to fry in NYC  than an "on camera interview with A Clooney"...

Don't think for a minute that I don't understand that she would/should/might be anguished to secure evidence....but believe me she is off course here...NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR THIS....Many rescues have been secured and constant evidence gathering is done by both the official military and paid for military (soldiers of fortune)....photographs, names and locations are all continuously gathered....This is well known there is no need for a song and dance about it....

The Iraqi ambassador would be more than well aware of the Yazidi situation.....Last night it was confirmed that two Battalion's of Yazidi women have joined with the Iraqi troops in the Mosul arena....

(You might remember 19 Yazidi women were burnt to death in a cage by isis in Mosul)

I reiterate...NO apology for Biblical Language....

WWHS - ISIS/IS and their partners of evildoers view situations of slaughter and massacre as justified killing i.e., a "clear" case of genocide. I'm not sure if you knew that.  We are dealing with people who believe they are the righteous called by god to avenge what they perceive to be unjust and who they perceived to be unrighteous.

I totally agree with you.  I don't see how Amal Clooney's approach was helpful.  I'm not sure if you read the Huffingtion Post article where the UN did site the IS/ISIS ideology as criminal and the "crime" of genocide was also included in their findings.

Huffington Post Article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-r-breedon/post_13319_b_12220544.html

Wwhs I not heard women at war.

Two points that actually come together...

Yes ladyB, I know the ideology situation....

Yes AlisonF, there are women on the front....

And this is where the ideology causes harm to I.S (for a change)...

As far as I know you get a couple of dozen virgins if you blow YOURSELF up, and a fast pass to Heaven by all accounts......

However, if you are killed by woman...it's game over straight down south to Hell....

The Yazidi Women's battalions are well trained and well equipped .... the common I.S trouper on the ground know's this....I don't know, I'm just presuming when the sniping gets too hot....do you risk a bullet from a woman, next stop hell.....or are they all wired up with explosives just in case....so they take fast track to Heaven.....like their ideology promises....

Yazidi and other women who have chosen to fight will be in a unique position....I.S play on people's noodles, so this and the fall of Dabiq will upset the apple cart.....Shall we say THAT bit of ideology has been done and dusted!....


"The Dabiq prophecy is based on a 1,300-year-old hadith or teaching of Abu Hurayrah, one of the Prophet Mohammed’s companions. It has been passed down in a number of different versions, but all describe a great battle between a Muslim army and a force of non-believers, generally translated as an “infidel horde”.


The prophesy has become a fundamental part of Isis’s ideological self-justification, and it is what has led international figures from David Cameron to Tony Abbott to describe Isis as an “apocalyptic death cult”.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


I still believe there is a huge "drug" component to I.S....Mosul should give up a lot of I.S secrets/information....

Maybe our mistake has been to train men to fight ISIS. Maybe we should be sending women after them instead so we could have a double chance of eliminating them. Either the women would shoot them, or they'd kill themselves to keep from getting killed by a woman.

(Not entirely joking. Those Yezidi women's brigades are heroes!)

Wwhs right today news say what you say about suicide of isis.You r thinking on drugs nobody say yet.

You're right, WWHS. Drugs are a fact.

Heavens, if they can get the most highly skilled tech people, huge numbers of professionals across the spectrum, run banks, have a huge arsenal etc etc, drugs would be a doddle