NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. raid on Iranian consulate angers Kurds
January 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military operation Thursday in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil that resulted in the arrests of six Iranians has drawn a sharp denunciation from Iraq's Kurdish regional government.

A spokesman for the autonomous regional government and its presidency expressed their "alarm" and condemned the Thursday morning operation.

They characterized it as a raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, "which opened in the provincial capital in an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government."

The Kurdish regional government is based in Irbil.

The Kurdish statement, which includes a call for the immediate release of the detainees, says the consulate is entitled to immunity in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.

Sources: YahooNEWS/CNN/OcceanNEWS©2004-2001
my2cents: see.. the so called "elected" P-Ministers/Presidents of Iraq are NOT in charge.

from your own source: "...the Iraqi Foreign Ministry described the building as a "diplomatic representation.""

Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?

And what did the Iranians do 30 years ago?

Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?US soldiers are officially mandated by the US Goverenmet..
so this is indeed a Vienna Convention violation..

on the other hand If private venezulelan citizens are pelting eggs on the US envasador everytime he goes outside.. that is more a case of insuficient security.

And what did the Iranians do 30 years ago?

Because we all know that two wrongs make a right.

Granted, the Iranians are hypocrites, but still...

but I do think the future independent Gov of Kurdistan..should be able to send the local police to investigate any criminal activity.. and prosecute anyone.

In general.. I am against the principle of inmunity.
Today's embassies are used as spy nests and imperial outposts.

US soldiers are officially mandated by the US Goverenmet..
so this is indeed a Vienna Convention violation..

And when Iran violated the Vienna Convention 30 years ago, they voided their protetction under it. That is part of the way treaties work. You have to be prepared to not follow them if they are broken, otherwise there is no reason to abide by them.

on the other hand If private venezulelan citizens are pelting eggs on the US envasador everytime he goes outside.. that is more a case of insuficient security.

It was not a private citizen who took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. It was members of the Revolutionary Guard, who were led by man of the name Ammenidijad, IIRC. Coincidence? I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

but I do think the future independent Gov of Kurdistan..should be able to send the local police to investigate any criminal activity.. and prosecute anyone.

In general.. I am against the principle of immunity.
Today's embassies are used as spy nests and imperial outposts.

Future Government of Kurdistan?

Turkey won't go for it and I don't think Iraq will go for it.

The principle of immunity was created simply because it eliminated countries from arresting other countries people on trumped up charges.

That being said, Principle of Immunity has been abused many many times

Future Government of Kurdistan?

Turkey won't go for it and I don't think Iraq will go for it.

The principle of immunity was created simply because it eliminated countries from arresting other countries people on trumped up charges.

That being said, Principle of Immunity has been abused many many times
I agree. If you're in a country, you should be bound by that country's laws. Let the host nation's jurisdiction end at the embassy gates, but outside, it should apply. And if the embassy is engaged in spying on the host nation, then its activities are reaching outside the embassy gates and should be subject to investigation.

The principle of immunity was created simply because it eliminated countries from arresting other countries people on trumped up charges.:rolleyes: So there is some countries who do not want the tourist and trade revenue.. and they waste their time creating kanguru-Courts for trumped up charges?

one sure way not to get arrested.. is to never go to such-a Crazy countries.

I agree. If you're in a country, you should be bound by that country's laws. Let the host nation's jurisdiction end at the embassy gates, but outside, it should apply. And if the embassy is engaged in spying on the host nation, then its activities are reaching outside the embassy gates and should be subject to investigation.exactamente.

:rolleyes: So there is some countries who do not want the tourist and trade revenue.. and they waste their time creating kanguru-Courts for trumped up charges?

one sure way not to get arrested.. is to never go to such-a Crazy countries.

True. A few Islamic countries come to mind.

True. A few Islamic countries come to mind.like I said..
If such a country exist.. do not go there.
or If you do.. its at your own risk.

What is the need for an US Embassy in such a Country??

and What is the need for inmunity in any Country (and viceversa)?

Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?

Har, yes. They did it too, so it's okay if we do it?

Logically that's just a tu quoque fallacy, and that wouldn't work legally either. Morally it's repugnant. If a nation starts putting people into concentration camps, shall we now do the same? I mean hey, turnabout is fair play yes? No.

Har, yes. They did it too, so it's okay if we do it?

Logically that's just a tu quoque fallacy, and that wouldn't work legally either. Morally it's repugnant. If a nation starts putting people into concentration camps, shall we now do the same? I mean hey, turnabout is fair play yes? No.

Meh. It's diplomacy. If a treaty is violated, we are no longer held to it. Part of what that means is that if it is not immoral to do so, we should not act as though were party to the treaty any more.

There was nothing immoral about this mission.

Edit: And let's be blunt. Diplomatic immunity is essentially a creation intended to allow everyone to imbed their intelligence people into their embassies.

Meh. It's diplomacy. If a treaty is violated, we are no longer held to it.

No. We are held a party to the Geneva Conventions because we signed it, and regardless of what other nations do we are not treaty breakers. Are we?

like I said..
If such a country exist.. do not go there.
or If you do.. its at your own risk.

What is the need for an US Embassy in such a Country??


In international issues, it kind of helps to have a presence.


and What is the need for inmunity in any Country (and viceversa)?


Ask somebody in an embassy!

And when Iran violated the Vienna Convention 30 years ago, they voided their protetction under it. That is part of the way treaties work. You have to be prepared to not follow them if they are broken, otherwise there is no reason to abide by them.



It was not a private citizen who took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. It was members of the Revolutionary Guard, who were led by man of the name Ammenidijad, IIRC. Coincidence? I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

:rolleyes: You have an "alleged" link..

Let me show you the real link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Hostage_Crisis

and this interesting one by the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3978523.stm

In international issues, it kind of helps to have a presence.
It helps specially the CIA,/Mossad/KGB types.
Ask somebody in an embassy!I do not care about them.. the CIA/Mossad/Gestapo/KGB can burn is hell.
No one should be allowed to break the Law with impunity.

Edit: And let's be blunt. Diplomatic immunity is essentially a creation intended to allow everyone to imbed their intelligence people into their embassies.exactamente.

No. We are held a party to the Geneva Conventions because we signed it, and regardless of what other nations do we are not treaty breakers. Are we?

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.So if the US violates the Convention.. It loses the rigth to diplomatic inmunity? (heh.. chances are he will not answer this with a straight answer: "Yes" or "No")

What is the need for an US Embassy in such a Country??


To have diplomatic relations with that country. You know, that little thing that allows you to have a civil discussion instead of immediately resorting to bombs as soon as you have a disagreement.

and What is the need for inmunity in any Country (and viceversa)?

To prevent the police and/or authorities of said country from locking up your diplomats on trumped-up charges.

And what did the Iranians do 30 years ago?

I think you've answered your own question. But then, US governments do seem to bear petty, childish grudges, don't they? *looks at Cuba*


Har, yes. They did it too, so it's okay if we do it?

Logically that's just a tu quoque fallacy, and that wouldn't work legally either. Morally it's repugnant. If a nation starts putting people into concentration camps, shall we now do the same? I mean hey, turnabout is fair play yes? No.

[...]

No. We are held a party to the Geneva Conventions because we signed it, and regardless of what other nations do we are not treaty breakers. Are we?

Thank you for providing a voice of sanity.

Feathered Cats.:rolleyes:

So if the US violates the Convention.. It loses the rigth to diplomatic inmunity? (heh.. chances are he will not answer this with a straight answer: "Yes" or "No")

Yes.

Have we yet? Diplomatic Immunity is an empty creation, and a courtesy that we extend to other Vienna Convention signatories. It isn't a "moral" thing, it's a purely practical thing. The cost of breaking the convention is that we lose that protection as well.

I think you've answered your own question. But then, US governments do seem to bear petty, childish grudges, don't they? *looks at Cuba*

Oh we are a morally superior creature, aren't we now. Cute.

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.

Thereby, you should agree with random snatching of American's abroad and held in undisclosed locations without legal recourse if classified as "enemy combatants"

Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?
Just because the Iranians are embracing hypocrisy, doesn't mean America should as well.

US soldiers are officially mandated by the US Goverenmet..
so this is indeed a Vienna Convention violation..

on the other hand If private venezulelan citizens are pelting eggs on the US envasador everytime he goes outside.. that is more a case of insuficient security.
Are you drunk, or something?

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.

Where did you get that idea from? It's simply incorrect.

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.

So basically, as the U.S.A. breached the Geneva Convention by dropping Napalm and agent Orange in Vietnam, the Iranians were correct in holding them hostage, as the U.S.A. had thrown away the protection of the convention at the time of the hostage taking?

So basically, as the U.S.A. breached the Geneva Convention by dropping Napalm and agent Orange in Vietnam, the Iranians were correct in holding them hostage, as the U.S.A. had thrown away the protection of the convention at the time of the hostage taking?
Nope. Napalm has never been illegal, except against civilians, and that was only banned in 1980. I'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention doesn't say anything about chemical weapons, either.

Nope. Napalm has never been illegal, except against civilians, and that was only banned in 1980. I'm pretty sure the Geneva Convention doesn't say anything about chemical weapons, either.

No, the additions to the convention post WWI ban chemical weapons. But Agent Orange wasn't a weapon, it was defoliant.

No, the additions to the convention post WWI ban chemical weapons. But Agent Orange wasn't a weapon, it was defoliant.
Ooh, right. That's what you get when you use the all-knowing Wikipedia. :headbang: Yeah, but since it wasn't intended as a weapon, the point is moot anyway.

I got it from here:
Prohibited under the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/
What, does that mean that chemical weapons are all right if you liquefy them and dump them into the water supply? :p

So basically, as the U.S.A. breached the Geneva Convention by dropping Napalm and agent Orange in Vietnam, the Iranians were correct in holding them hostage, as the U.S.A. had thrown away the protection of the convention at the time of the hostage taking?

Why would breaching the geneva convention cut the US out of the provisions of the Vienna convention?

Why would breaching the geneva convention cut the US out of the provisions of the Vienna convention?
Because the ironic Kinda Sensible people posted
Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?
I was responding to that, showing the ridiculousness of his position. But then what can you do with that kind of person? The one who is suckered in by the usual U.S.A. position of "if someone give us a papercut, we are allowed to cut the arm off of anybody who knew, or lived near, the culprit and we are still morally correct". They'll never move the scales from their eyes.

Because the ironic Kinda Sensible people posted

I was responding to that, showing the ridiculousness of his position. But then what can you do with that kind of person? The one who is suckered in by the usual U.S.A. position of "if someone give us a papercut, we are allowed to cut the arm off of anybody who knew, or lived near, the culprit and we are still morally correct". They'll never move the scales from their eyes.

His position makes some sense, i.e, Iran failed to respect US diplomatic privileges, the US is under no obligation to respect thiers. And in fact, the US and Iran do not currently enjoy diplomatic relations because of that to this day.

Any US violation of the geneva convention in Vietnam is irrelevant to that, as it is a completely different treaty. It would be like saying that brazil would be within it's rights to invade mexico because mexico broke its extradition treaty with canada.

Whether or not the US action is an act of war is between the soveriegn government of Iraq and Iran. Iraq, after all, was the recieving nation of the diplomatic mission from Iran.

His position makes some sense, i.e, Iran failed to respect US diplomatic privileges,
30 years ago

...the US is under no obligation to respect thiers.
Today.

Tell me, are the US a party to the convention today or are they not? Have they officially voiced any reservation to honoring the convention when it comes to Iran?

The US is under an obligation to respect the Iranian diplomatic mission. They cannot be detained enroute to the UN for example.

And in fact, the US and Iran do not currently enjoy diplomatic relations because of that to this day.
True.

Tell me, are the US a party to the convention today or are they not? Have they officially voiced any reservation to honoring the convention when it comes to Iran?

Yes. Which is why there is no Iranian diplomatic mission to the US. And vice versa.

The US is under an obligation to respect the Iranian diplomatic mission. They cannot be detained enroute to the UN for example.


UN business. A seperate matter, and part of the price the US pays for hosting the UN.

And as I pointed out, this is between Iraq and Iran. Iraq is the host country.

Yes. Which is why there is no Iranian diplomatic mission to the US. And vice versa.
Can you please back that up? The breaking of diplomatic relations is one thing, refusal to comply with the obligations under the treaty quite another.

Edit: The official reservation is what I want to see. I know that neither Iran nor the US have diplomatic missions in the other country.

UN business. A seperate matter, and part of the price the US pays for hosting the UN.
Both are diplomatic missions - how exactly is it a different matter?

Can you please back that up? The breaking of diplomatic relations is one thing, refusal to comply with the obligations under the treaty quite another.

Edit: The official reservation is what I want to see. I know that neither Iran nor the US have diplomatic missions in the other country.

Both are diplomatic missions - how exactly is it a different matter?

Because the US agreed to accept any and all accreditted UN officials, ambassadors and staff, regardless of their status in the US, as Diplomatically Immune, when the US accepted the UN being on their soil.

Can you please back that up? The breaking of diplomatic relations is one thing, refusal to comply with the obligations under the treaty quite another.

Edit: The official reservation is what I want to see. I know that neither Iran nor the US have diplomatic missions in the other country.

There is no need for an official reservation, because it is not a reservation issue. Go look up the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 60, sec. 2) b).


A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in part or to terminate it either: (i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or (ii) as between all the parties; (b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State; (c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.

Since there has been no effort by either side to cure this issue, neither the US nor Iran are expected to be bound by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations with respect to each other.

Both are diplomatic missions - how exactly is it a different matter?

The right of passage is covered under much earlier UN treaties. It's not a diplomatic mission to the US, but a UN membership issue.

Because the US agreed to accept any and all accreditted UN officials, ambassadors and staff, regardless of their status in the US, as Diplomatically Immune, when the US accepted the UN being on their soil.
So you would say they agreed to follow the Vienna convention when it came to UN diplomats regardless of country of origin. OK. (Oh, and UN diplomats only - usually not staff (http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm).)

However, I'd like to see how the exception to follow the Vienna convention where Iran is concerned is formulated. I have yet to see any evidence that the US has - at least officially - made such an exception to the treaty.

So you would say they agreed to follow the Vienna convention when it came to UN diplomats regardless of country of origin. OK. (Oh, and UN diplomats only - usually not staff (http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm).)

However, I'd like to see how the exception to follow the Vienna convention where Iran is concerned is formulated. I have yet to see any evidence that the US has - at least officially - made such an exception to the treaty.

I don't know of one. However, if the US does not recognize the Iranian government (and I must admit I don't know if that's the case or not), then they presumably also wouldn't acknowledge any Diplomatic privilege conjoined to their Diplomats and Consulates.

There is no need for an official reservation, because it is not a reservation issue. Go look up the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 60, sec. 2) b).
Done.
A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:

(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
Firstly, it must be invoked. Has the US invoked it? This is the official declaration I'm looking for.

Secondly, as the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is deeply rooted in customary law, will such an invocation have any effect in this case? I mean, seeing as how the treaty is (more or less) only a codification of international law? Personally, I doubt it.

Since there has been no effort by either side to cure this issue, neither the US nor Iran are expected to be bound by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations with respect to each other.
Does the US state departement hold that position? I've found no evidence that the government agrees with that position. Do you have any links?

And what about the Algiers Accords and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal by the way? Would they be insufficient to be called an effort?


The right of passage is covered under much earlier UN treaties. It's not a diplomatic mission to the US, but a UN membership issue.
And the US agrees to abide by the Vienna Convention where the UN diplomats are concerned...

Maybe I'm noticing something, but does this Ocean only post when Arabs or Iranians get their asses handed to them?

I don't know of one. However, if the US does not recognize the Iranian government (and I must admit I don't know if that's the case or not), then they presumably also wouldn't acknowledge any Diplomatic privilege conjoined to their Diplomats and Consulates.

Interesting question. I'm not sure about that. However, it seems to me that the US recognizes the Iranian government, as evident by their willingness to have discussions with them on some matters even if there is no official diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The United States has had discussions with Iranian representatives on issues of concern. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran's policies change.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5314.htm#relations

The absence of direct diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States has not meant that there have been no diplomatic contacts for the last 25 years. The United States communicates officially with the Iranian government through the Swiss government, our protecting power in Tehran. We maintain regular contact on legal and financial issues. We engage with the Iranian government on specific issues of mutual concern when it is in our interest to do so. After the Bam and Zarand earthquakes in 2003 and 2005 respectively, we offered our sympathy and assistance. But we are far from a normal dialogue and even further from a state of normalized relations. We will thus maintain our sanctions on Iran which serve to restrict its actions in many areas.
Remarks by R. Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary for Political Affairs in 2005 (http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2005/57473.htm)

Turnabout is fair play. If Iran wanted it's diplomat's diplomatic immunity respected, they should have thought before holding the whole staff of a U.S. Embassy hostage for 400 days, no?

And what did the Iranians do 30 years ago?

And when Iran violated the Vienna Convention 30 years ago, they voided their protetction under it. That is part of the way treaties work. You have to be prepared to not follow them if they are broken, otherwise there is no reason to abide by them.



It was not a private citizen who took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. It was members of the Revolutionary Guard, who were led by man of the name Ammenidijad, IIRC. Coincidence? I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis

two wrongs =/= a right, also the people who took control of the embassy were students, not Iranian gov't employees or soldiers. Khomeini approved of their actions because of the widespread popular support for the embassy storming, it would have been political suicide if he didn't.

Khomeini approved of their actions because of the widespread popular support for the embassy storming, it would have been political suicide if he didn't.

Ah, so if US citizens had wanted Afghanistan nuked in response to 9/11, and if it would have been political suicide for the President to refrain from nuking Afghanistan, that would have made it ok to nuke Afghanistan?

two wrongs =/= a right, also the people who took control of the embassy were students, not Iranian gov't employees or soldiers. Khomeini approved of their actions because of the widespread popular support for the embassy storming, it would have been political suicide if he didn't.

That is true, but by refusing to resolve the issue he put Iran outside of the Diplomatic community in general, which has been harming Iran ever since.

Since diplomatic protection had yet to be given, the Vienna Convention was not violated.

==========================
Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, denied this Friday, saying that the Iranians had been working officially in Iraq but as part of a "liaison office" that was yet to be classified as a consulate with diplomatic protection.
==========================
-- http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/070112115053.lnblstgl.html

Done.

Firstly, it must be invoked. Has the US invoked it? This is the official declaration I'm looking for.

Secondly, as the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is deeply rooted in customary law, will such an invocation have any effect in this case? I mean, seeing as how the treaty is (more or less) only a codification of international law? Personally, I doubt it.

Does the US state departement hold that position? I've found no evidence that the government agrees with that position. Do you have any links?

And what about the Algiers Accords and the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal by the way? Would they be insufficient to be called an effort?


And the US agrees to abide by the Vienna Convention where the UN diplomats are concerned...


I can see we reached the far shores of reason here. The VCLT codifies the customary law which would be used to interpret the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. In other words it describes how the vienna convention of diplomatic relations should be interpreted and applied. Therefore, naturally, such an invocation would be effective.

As to the actual invocation, all that means is the reason that would be relied upon for suspending the relevant parts (or all) of the treaty in respect of the party in breach. I am sure if you contact the US government they will tell you they severed ties with the Iranians because of the hostage crisis in the US embassy. (Or are you suggesting there was some other secret reason?). I've never actually ever heard anyone suggest anything different.

As far as I know, the US position is that it cannot resume normal diplomatic relations with Iran at this time. I have never heard anything to the contrary from the Iranians. Nor have I ever heard of any conference between the two to address this. I cannot prove that there was never a conference however, because that would be trying to prove a negative.

The US also agreed to safe passage for UN diplomats under seperate UN provisions that predate the vienna convention. So its moot. And of course, the UN itself being extra-territorial to the US, extends its own protection to the Iranians once they are there.

Ah, so if US citizens had wanted Afghanistan nuked in response to 9/11, and if it would have been political suicide for the President to refrain from nuking Afghanistan, that would have made it ok to nuke Afghanistan?
I don't condone any unwarranted aggression, the Iran embassy invasion included. I'm not saying its OK, just that it would happen.

That is true, but by refusing to resolve the issue he put Iran outside of the Diplomatic community in general, which has been harming Iran ever since.

yup, it was a stupid thing to do.

I can see we reached the far shores of reason here.
How so?

The VCLT is codifies the customary law which would be used to interpret the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. In other words it describes how the vienna convention of diplomatic relations should be interpreted and applied. Therefore, naturally, such an invocation would be effective.
Are you certain of this? That one can circumvent customary law in this manner? Can you back it up with anything more than your opinion - especially that it would be the official stance of the US on this matter?

To illustrate my objection: Customary law says you cannot attack civilians during war. That would be a war crime. Country A and B enters into a treaty, saying that in case of war they will not attack the civilian population of the other country. A war breaks out, and country A attacks the civilian population of country B, disregarding the treaty. Now, the attack may be invoked as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty - but the customary law will still remain. As such, country B cannot attack the civilian population of country A with impunity.

This was a theoretical construct, but the question remains: Can you invoke the Vienna convention on the law on treaties to circumvent customary law - especially when the treaty is a codification that is so deeply rooted in customary law as the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is? I am of the opinion that you cannot.

As to the actual invocation, all that means is the reason that would be relied upon for suspending the relevant parts (or all) of the treaty in respect of the party in breach. I am sure if you contact the US government they will tell you they severed ties with the Iranians because of the hostage crisis in the US embassy. (Or are you suggesting there was some other secret reason?). I've never actually ever heard anyone suggest anything different.
I'm sure they severed ties with the Iranians because of the hostage crisis - but severed ties does not mean refusal to abide by their obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. After all, it is the prerogative of the individual state to decide whether or not they want to have diplomatic representation in the other country.

If the US meant that the severing of diplomatic ties also would mean that the government would not adhere to the treaty when it came to the Iranians, they would at the very least (According to the VCLT) have to invoke the incident of the hostage crisis and declare an exception. I would think such an exception would be noted somewhere and wouldn't be that hird to find. Alsa, I have yet to found anything to indicate that this is so...

As far as I know, the US position is that it cannot resume normal diplomatic relations with Iran at this time. I have never heard anything to the contrary from the Iranians. Nor have I ever heard of any conference between the two to address this. I cannot prove that there was never a conference however, because that would be trying to prove a negative.
There have been some efforts, but as the US State departement says:
The U.S. Government defines its areas of objectionable Iranian behavior as the following:

* Iran’s efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction;
* Its support for and involvement in international terrorism;
* Its support for violent opposition to the Middle East peace process; and
* Its dismal human rights record.

The United States has had discussions with Iranian representatives on issues of concern. The United States believes, however, that normal relations are impossible until Iran's policies change.


The US also agreed to safe passage for UN diplomats under seperate UN provisions that predate the vienna convention. So its moot. And of course, the UN itself being extra-territorial to the US, extends its own protection to the Iranians once they are there.
And all those provisions are based on centuries old customary law concerning the sanctity of diplomats. Why would the US adhere to part of that law when it comes to the Iranians, but ignore other aspects of it?

It helps specially the CIA,/Mossad/KGB types.
I do not care about them.. the CIA/Mossad/Gestapo/KGB can burn is hell.
No one should be allowed to break the Law with impunity.

You are clearly not thinking this through. Without an efficient intelligence network there would be international anarchy. One nation's relationship with another depends on knowing EXACTLY what they are thinking before their thoughts are transferred into actions.

In days gone by, one nation could send an embassy to another and hear nothing but positive words about the importance of their friendship, while at the same time the host nation's Ministry of Defence (which are often within walking distance of the embassies) could be planning a major invasion, which would only be found out about when the troops roll in!

Intelligence is essential, and all governments realise this. Without 'spying', as you say, there would be no way to know what another nation is planning, paranoia would run rampant and the world would have A LOT more wars.

Are you certain of this? That one can circumvent customary law in this manner? Can you back it up with anything more than your opinion - especially that it would be the official stance of the US on this matter?

How is following the codification of the customary international law on the interepretation of treaties, circumventing said law? As the VLCT explicitly says, it codifies the customary international law on how treaties are supposed to be interpreted. All the VCLT did was combined and explicitly restated the way that treaties had traditionally been understood to be interpreted.

The vienna convention on diplomatic relations, predates the VCLT, however since the relevant part of customary law used to interpret the vienna convention on treaties is identical to the VCLT (as the VCLT itself states), then the two things are one and the same. And thus, any interpretation of the vienna convention on diplomatic relations using the VCLT will essentially be correct.

To illustrate my objection: Customary law says you cannot attack civilians during war. That would be a war crime. Country A and B enters into a treaty, saying that in case of war they will not attack the civilian population of the other country. A war breaks out, and country A attacks the civilian population of country B, disregarding the treaty. Now, the attack may be invoked as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty - but the customary law will still remain. As such, country B cannot attack the civilian population of country A with impunity.

This was a theoretical construct, but the question remains: Can you invoke the Vienna convention on the law on treaties to circumvent customary law - especially when the treaty is a codification that is so deeply rooted in customary law as the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations is? I am of the opinion that you cannot.

All customary international law, apart from non-derogable obligations, (no slave trade and such) can be modified by treaty. Whatever the vienna convention on diplomatic relations states about diplomatic relations that is different to customary international law modifies any customary international law that preceded it.

(Which is irrelevant anyway, because neither the US nor Iran are bound by it in respect of each other anymore. (Because of Iran's breech)).

And as customary international law is derogable, i.e., non-binding, there is nothing requiring the US to respect the soveriegnty of Iran's diplomatic missions. (Nor theirs ours).

That is not to say that the US can just go around smashing them up willy nilly however. They still fall under the protection of the soveriegn that is the recieving party. (In this case Iraq). But it is an issue for that sovereign, and not the US - as I pointed out umpteen posts ago. (I.e. the Iraqis should expel the US, take action against them and pay reparations to the Iranians). The real problem here is not the US's diplomatic relations with Iran (or lack thereof) but the silly fiction of Iraqi soveriegnty which does not work with the usual understanding of international law. That is to say, pretending there is a sovereign when there isn't. There is the same problem with lebanon and isreal.


I'm sure they severed ties with the Iranians because of the hostage crisis - but severed ties does not mean refusal to abide by their obligations under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations. After all, it is the prerogative of the individual state to decide whether or not they want to have diplomatic representation in the other country.

If the US meant that the severing of diplomatic ties also would mean that the government would not adhere to the treaty when it came to the Iranians, they would at the very least (According to the VCLT) have to invoke the incident of the hostage crisis and declare an exception. I would think such an exception would be noted somewhere and wouldn't be that hird to find. Alsa, I have yet to found anything to indicate that this is so...

Severing ties meant exactly that. The US has the right to abrogate the entire treaty because of Iran's breach. Nowhere however does it specify the manner or the time at which the breach must be invoked. It obvious that the US has suspended the entire treaty with respect to Iran, and it is obvious why. I am sure Iran could request a clarification if it so desired.


And all those provisions are based on centuries old customary law concerning the sanctity of diplomats. Why would the US adhere to part of that law when it comes to the Iranians, but ignore other aspects of it?

First, there is no such thing as a centuries old customary international law concerning the sanctity of diplomats. Many of them came to bad ends, and while that might have been a cause for war, it was never considered a breach of 'international law'. In fact, the whole concept of international law is relatively new.

And as I have pointed out, apart from a few modern non-derogable obligations, customary international law is non binding. Nations are free to adhere to it or ignore it without consequence.

Nations are soveriegn. They can do what they like. This is why there are multi-lateral treaties with enforcement mechanisms.

You are clearly not thinking this through. Without an efficient intelligence network there would be international anarchy. One nation's relationship with another depends on knowing EXACTLY what they are thinking before their thoughts are transferred into actions.:confused:
What?
Whaaat???

...you say I am not clearly thinking..

You obviously know EXACTLY what I am thinking.. before my thoughts are transferred into my keyboard.
You must have some xtremely efficient "intelligence".

:D :D ;) :D

And when Iran violated the Vienna Convention 30 years ago, they voided their protetction under it. That is part of the way treaties work. You have to be prepared to not follow them if they are broken, otherwise there is no reason to abide by them.



It was not a private citizen who took control of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. It was members of the Revolutionary Guard, who were led by man of the name Ammenidijad, IIRC. Coincidence? I think not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Alleged_involvement_in_the_1979_Hostage_Crisis


PAYBACK! :D

Let's turn their "diplomatic outpost" into a museum for the American tourists and kurds.

Without an efficient intelligence network there would be international anarchy. One nation's relationship with another depends on knowing EXACTLY what they are thinking before their thoughts are transferred into actions.
#1 There is no way for US to know EXACTLY what they are thinking before/during/after...

#2 There is no way for them to know EXACTLY what US are thinking before/during/after...

#3 it has always been like that.. and (unless you pull extra-terrestrial superpowers out of an Alien's arse).. it is going to be like that for the rest of your life.

Thereby, you should agree with random snatching of American's abroad and held in undisclosed locations without legal recourse if classified as "enemy combatants"

So long as we continue to do so ourselves, we do not have the right to protest if it is done to us. It is morally repugnant on both sides.

I'm not gonna play clusterfuck with the far left though, so I'm dropping it.

I don't understand why we don't just destroy all the Iranian consulates in the country.

I don't understand why we don't just destroy all the Iranian consulates in the country.

Which is why you're not in a position to do such a thing, in an official capacity.

Which is why you're not in a position to do such a thing, in an official capacity.

The Iranians are a nation that is hostile to us. We should do everything in our power to eradicate their agents from the face of the world. It would be adding insult to injury to allow the terrorist-sponsoring regime to continue to operate out of a country in which we have a strong military presence. They are contributing to Iraqi instability; they cannot be allowed to operate freely.

The Iranians are a nation that is hostile to us.
They are not at war with us.
We should do everything in our power to eradicate their agents from the face of the world.
See above.
It would be adding insult to injury to allow the terrorist-sponsoring regime to continue to operate out of a country in which we have a strong military presence.
Prove it.

They are contributing to Iraqi instability; they cannot be allowed to operate freely.
Prove it.

Can't anyone else see that RuleCaucasia is a troll?

Prove it.

http://lugar.senate.gov/iraq/pdf/CRS_IraqRS22323.pdf

It is clear that Iran is responsible for a substantial amount of violence in Iraq, and it is disgusting that the US takes care to comply so closely with international law that it does not attempt to halt Iran's pursuits.

Can't anyone else see that RuleCaucasia is a troll?

Most people do. The "look at me I'm a white supremacist" account name is kinda a giveaway, as are many other indicators which I won't bother going into.

Most people do. The "look at me I'm a white supremacist" account name is kinda a giveaway, as are many other indicators which I won't bother going into.

My name is not intended to reflect an ideology of white supremacy but rather patriotic pride for a certain country in the Caucasus. However, I felt that it would be prudent not to have a ridiculously long name, and thus the name of that particular country was discarded in favor of "Caucasia." It also has a certain "ring" to it; that is to say, it is more euphonious.

http://lugar.senate.gov/iraq/pdf/CRS_IraqRS22323.pdf

It is clear that Iran is responsible for a substantial amount of violence in Iraq, and it is disgusting that the US takes care to comply so closely with international law that it does not attempt to halt Iran's pursuits.

The file says that there is "political support" to Shi'ite militias coming from Iran. "Political support" pretty much means they approve of them, a far step away from actually causing violence. These groups were supported by Iran since the Iran-Iraq war.

My name is not intended to reflect an ideology of white supremacy but rather patriotic pride for a certain country in the Caucasus. However, I felt that it would be prudent not to have a ridiculously long name, and thus the name of that particular country was discarded in favor of "Caucasia." It also has a certain "ring" to it; that is to say, it is more euphonious.

Would that be Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, or Armenia?

The file says that there is "political support" to Shi'ite militias coming from Iran. "Political support" pretty much means they approve of them, a far step away from actually causing violence. These groups were supported by Iran since the Iran-Iraq war.

You obviously haven't read the entire article before prematurely jumping to an erroneous conclusion. You must persevere to be more diligent in the future. I shall do your work for you and re-print the relevant excerpts of the file.

"Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has set up a network
in Iraq, headed by Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani, with the expressed purpose of committing violence against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. The report adds that it is this network that has brought into Iraq new types of “shaped” explosive charges that can pierce U.S. armor, which U.S.
commanders in Iraq have warned in November 2005 are a growing source of lethal attacks on U.S. forces. According to the Time report, Sheibani’s group “consists of 280 members, divided into 17 bomb[-]making teams and death squads. The U.S. believes they train in Lebanon, in Baghdad’s predominantly Shiite Sadr City district and ‘in
another country’ and have detonated at least 37 bombs against U.S. forces this year in Baghdad alone.” The report added that it was explosive devices planted by Sheibani’s group that killed three British soldiers in Amarah (north of Basra) in July 2005."

"According to the Time report, Iranian-supported militant groups, including one called Thar Allah (Vengeance of God), are responsible for assassinations in southern Iraq against former members of Saddam’s intelligence service and even some (presumably Sunni Muslim) members of Iraq’s newly reconstituted National Intelligence Service. Thar Allah
is reportedly headed by Yusif al-Musawi. According to other reports, Iraqi security officials have raided its headquarters and seized documents showing that it gets financial and logistical support from Iran."

My name is not intended to reflect an ideology of white supremacy but rather patriotic pride for a certain country in the Caucasus.

Of course. This would be similar to that vague Eastern European Communist nation that you were from when you posted as MTAE. In other words, its part of your fake personae but you don't want to expound too much on it because you know you'd get caught up in your stupid lies after a while.

-SNIP-

You obviously didn't notice that that was a report in Time.

You obviously didn't notice that that was a report in Time.

Are you stating that Time is not a credible source? I consider it reliable.

Are you stating that Time is not a credible source? I consider it reliable.

Maybe on reporting the news, but not on wartime intelligence.

Maybe on reporting the news, but not on wartime intelligence.

You seem to be a picky person. I don't like picky people.

You seem to be a picky person. I don't like picky people.

I'm sure Pyotr is crushed by that news. Meanwhile, are you deliberately pretending to ignore my posts or what? Because I should remind you that your "I'm ignoring you!" shtick was under MTAE, not RC. I know, it's hard to keep fake online personalities separate, but at least try.

You seem to be a picky person. I don't like picky people.

When it comes on declaring war on countries? Damn right I'm picky on what intelligence is used I'm not going to get into a cataclysmic war based on an article in a magazine.

The US millitary is a joke. Needs to shape up!

You seem to be a picky person. I don't like picky people.
Aside all that...
Why would a bright person play an idiot in a site like this?
There must be a reason... I just never got it. Why is trolling fun?

The file says that there is "political support" to Shi'ite militias coming from Iran. "Political support" pretty much means they approve of them, a far step away from actually causing violence. These groups were supported by Iran since the Iran-Iraq war.

http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/hp220.htm

The world is by now well aware of Iran's defiance of the international community in pursuing its nuclear program and its sponsorship of terrorist organizations that maim and murder innocent civilians. What may be less well-known is that the Government of Iran is facilitating its proliferation and terrorism activities through the world's financial system, using its state-owned banks and an array of front companies and other deceptive techniques specifically designed to evade the controls of responsible financial institutions.

This ones a bit old so some of you may discredit it but hell it's still news and can be used as a reminder...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479438/site/newsweek/

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_gasiorowski.htm

Iran still supports a number of terrorist groups in the region. We can distinguish four main categories:

1. Groups with which Iran has close, long-standing connections based on ideological, religious, or ethnic affiliation: Hezbollah and SCIRI, which share Iran's Shi'ite Islamist ideology; and the Afghan Northern Alliance, which has ethnic links with Iran.

2. The Palestinian Islamist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which Iran supports because of the prominence and prestige of the Palestinian cause and because they are Islamist, even though they are Sunni rather than Shi'ite.

3. Secular Palestinian groups that have turned to terrorism since the al-Aqsa Intifada began in September 2000, which Iran supports because of the prominence and prestige of the Palestinian cause, even though they are secularist.

4. Al-Qaeda and related groups (such as the Iraqi Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam). U.S. officials allege that members of these groups currently are active in Iran and may have been involved in recent terrorist attacks against U.S. targets. It is not clear whether Iranian officials have been helping them and, if so, whether this has been perpetrated by top officials or simply by rogue members of Iran's security forces.



As others have already stated and I completely agree with is Iran has already broken the treaty and cannot expect to use it for their own benefits. You can't agree and sign a treaty then break it and expect to comply for your own purposes.

Meh. Part of the way a treaty works is that if it is violated, there has to be a consequence. Iran lost the right to have diplomatic immunity when it stopped acknowledging others' rights to it.

Mmm, thanks for the lesson, spiff. I had no idea how treaties worked. (Nor did I know the GC is a bilateral agreement which can be unilaterally nullified! Wowie!)

So since the US (http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng) has violated the Geneva Convention, you would have no objections if a foreign nation started putting Americans in gas chambers? I mean hey, turnabout is fair play yes?

1. Groups with which Iran has close, long-standing connections based on ideological, religious, or ethnic affiliation: Hezbollah and SCIRI, which share Iran's Shi'ite Islamist ideology; and the Afghan Northern Alliance, which has ethnic links with Iran.
We were and are allied with the Northern Alliance, the C.I.A. used them to kick the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Also, IIRC the Northern Alliance is made of Afghanis, Pashtuns, and Tajiks.

4. Al-Qaeda and related groups (such as the Iraqi Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam). U.S. officials allege that members of these groups currently are active in Iran and may have been involved in recent terrorist attacks against U.S. targets. It is not clear whether Iranian officials have been helping them and, if so, whether this has been perpetrated by top officials or simply by rogue members of Iran's security forces.
I'm skeptical about the AQ connection, seeing as how they hate Shiites, hell Al-Zarqawi said that Shiites were worse than the ever hated "Crusaders" and "Zionists"

Otherwise, good job. Lot better than RC's

-snip-

Otherwise, good job. Lot better than RC's

Thank-you.

For the record: In no way did I post in RC's defense or in no way am allied with RC's thoughts or views. I have my own thoughts and views and one of those views is that I highly believe Iran is a supporter of terrorism. :D

Ample corroborating proof.

Thank you for helping me out there, good sir. I completely agree with what you stated. I find it silly that certain posters don't accept Time magazine as an adequate source, but they cannot claim that the US government is lying through the site which you posted.

I'm sure Pyotr is crushed by that news. Meanwhile, are you deliberately pretending to ignore my posts or what? Because I should remind you that your "I'm ignoring you!" shtick was under MTAE, not RC. I know, it's hard to keep fake online personalities separate, but at least try.

I am not ignoring your posts. I believe that the moderators have ascertained that I am not, in fact, MeansToAnEnd, as that particular individual was banned for his hateful and arrogant views concerning religion. Furthermore, if you wish me to reply to your poisonous harassment, please ask me a gentlemanly question. Otherwise, kindly keep your malicious and false views to yourself.

please ask me a gentlemanly question.
Here's a gentlemanly question for you; What do you get out of this?

I mean, you are articulate and bright enough not to troll...

Here's a gentlemanly question for you; What do you get out of this?

I mean, you are articulate and bright enough not to troll...

I get to expose nihilistic posters to a more moral viewpoint and I may thus save their immortal soul. That is all that an individual can aspire to do. I am uncertain what you mean by "troll," however. Is my ideology equivalent to that of an uneducated, monstrous brute? Or are you using the word more in the sense of the kindly Shrek, who, despite being an ogre, was somewhat polite and courteous?

I am not ignoring your posts. I believe that the moderators have ascertained that I am not, in fact, MeansToAnEnd,

Sure. Find me a moderator post saying definitively that you are not MeansToAnEnd. I'll wait.

as that particular individual was banned for his hateful and arrogant views concerning religion.

No, you were banned for trolling.

Furthermore, if you wish me to reply to your poisonous harassment, please ask me a gentlemanly question. Otherwise, kindly keep your malicious and false views to yourself.

I'm gonna spread my views to others whether you like it or not, so yes you may as well respond to me. Not that I "wish" you to respond... actually it'd be nice if trolls like you just left this forum and did something more productive. I could give you a few gentlemanly suggestions as to your alternate activities if you want...

I get to expose nihilistic posters to a more moral viewpoint and I may thus save their immortal soul. That is all that an individual can aspire to do. I am uncertain what you mean by "troll," however. Is my ideology equivalent to that of an uneducated, monstrous brute? Or are you using the word more in the sense of the kindly Shrek, who, despite being an ogre, was somewhat polite and courteous?Me, I was only asking. Thank you.

Sure. Find me a moderator post saying definitively that you are not MeansToAnEnd. I'll wait.

I have inquired but they have refused to openly air their answer. However, using elementary logic, it is simple to determine if I am simply an alternate identity of a banned poster. If I were MeansToAnEnd, then I would have been banned. However, I am not banned. Therefore, I am not MeansToAnEnd.

No, you were banned for trolling.

Given that I am currently posting, I have not been banned.

I have inquired but they have refused to openly air their answer. However, using elementary logic, it is simple to determine if I am simply an alternate identity of a banned poster. If I were MeansToAnEnd, then I would have been banned. However, I am not banned. Therefore, I am not MeansToAnEnd.



Given that I am currently posting, I have not been banned.

I think that would be true only if MTAE's ban was a delete-on-sight (unlikely, since the kind of trolling he/she did wasn't enough to merit it).

I think we need to get back on topic of the US Military raiding Irans Consulate and arresting certain Iranians.

We obviously had a pretty good reason behind it. If Iran has a problem with it then why haven't there been any condemnations about it from anyone. If Iran has a problem and we invaded their soveriengn nation then why doesn't Iran declare war with the USA. I would for one would love Iran to declare war then we won't have to go through this diplomacy of dealing with Iran thru the UN.

I would for one would love Iran to declare war then we won't have to go through this diplomacy of dealing with Iran thru the UN.You would, wouldn't you?!?

However, using elementary logic, it is simple to determine if I am simply an alternate identity of a banned poster.

Not so simple at all. "Elementary logic" says NOTHING about how easy it is to see if someone posting from different IP's is the same individual or not.

If I were MeansToAnEnd, then I would have been banned.

I'm going to just refer to this thing called the "real world," where having a different forum account name doesn't make someone a different person.

However, I am not banned. Therefore, I am not MeansToAnEnd.

I have never been convicted of driving under the influence. Therefore, I have never driven while under the influence. Even if I'm driving 75 down the highway right now, chugging an open bottle of vodka with one hand. Makes sense to me.

Given that I am currently posting, I have not been banned.

Once I had an account called "Santa Barbara." But that account was banned cuz I let my NS die out. Yet here I am, still posting. Amazing isn't it, how reality tears your so-called "logic" a new asshole and fills it full of metaphorical splooge?

You would, wouldn't you?!?

First, to answer your question/exclamation, Absolutely. :D

Secondly, I was trying to get this thread back on topic which I obviously failed at. :headbang:

This discussion is pointless, and diplomatic immunity is totally fucked up, the only thing that i mighty agree is a prohibition on search warrants on embassies. This 'diplomatic immunity exists so that your country can't arrest my people on fake charges' is bullshit. Think about it, X country's citizen gets arrested on Y country for fake charge, X country pays the most expensive lawyer on X country, X's citizen go free wether or not he commited a crime...If it doesn't work one can always send two carrier task forces to do exercises 1 mile outside Y's territorial waters, it ALWAYS work.

Edit: And let's be blunt. Diplomatic immunity is essentially a creation intended to allow everyone to imbed their intelligence people into their embassies.

Actually, it was largely first put in play in the days when messages had to be hand-delivered. Guaranteeing the right of passage and freedom from detainment and search allowed governments to hold negotiations and send and receive dispatches with a guarantee of privacy. Sort of a standardized "truce" flag for diplomatic relations.

And, of course, for intelligence reasons. But, of course, this is a bilateral treaty so both sides have equal rights, and both sides have the right to expell any diplomatic staff found to be breaking the law.

You would, wouldn't you?!?

Yep.

Once we're done, refitted, refuled, rested, we can go at Iran from 2 ways.

Iraq

And

Afagistan.

I think that would be true only if MTAE's ban was a delete-on-sight (unlikely, since the kind of trolling he/she did wasn't enough to merit it).


who is MTAE? Some troll?





Was he good?

who is MTAE? Some troll?
Yup.




Was he good?

Very, pissed off huge amounts of people in his 3 month reign.

Yup.





Very, pissed off huge amounts of people in his 3 month reign.

Was he like Oceandrive2 with the lame "##" threads or was he constantly posting "IRAQ IS SATAN!11!!!! NUKE TEHM ALL!!!! KILL DE COMIES!!!"

?

Yep.

Once we're done, refitted, refuled, rested, we can go at Iran from 2 ways.

Iraq

And

Afagistan.

HUA Colonel Fanatasy.

If you want to do that, you either need to reform the way you structure your pre-college program, I mean millitary, or start up national service.

The quickest method will be national service. And even that will take about 24 months to get into operation, even working at a breakneck pace the country can't financially support. (Well, I suppose we could means test social security).

Was he like Oceandrive2 with the lame "##" threads or was he constantly posting "IRAQ IS SATAN!11!!!! NUKE TEHM ALL!!!! KILL DE COMIES!!!"

?

suggested we reinstate slavery, claimed that people on minimum wage could become millionaires and therefore all poor people are poor due to their own damn fault, etc.

As others have already stated and I completely agree with is Iran has already broken the treaty and cannot expect to use it for their own benefits. You can't agree and sign a treaty then break it and expect to comply for your own purposes.
You're entitled to your opinion - however, I'm still waiting for someone to show me that this also is the US governments official stance on this question.

Rather, due to the staunch denials concerning the diplomatic status of the Iranians coming out of Washington, I think that the government don't see it that way. If they felt entitled to take such actions due to the previous breach by Iran, why not say that instead of denying that that the building had any diplomatic status and that the detained personell were not diplomats?
Iran's foreign ministry summoned Iraqi and Swiss diplomats to protest and demand an explanation, according to Iran's mission to the United Nations. Switzerland represents U.S. interests in Iran. Tehran contends that the five men detained are all diplomats, an assertion that Iraq's foreign minister and U.S. officials reject.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html
The US is adamant that the building did not have diplomatic status.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6255335.stm

We obviously had a pretty good reason behind it. If Iran has a problem with it then why haven't there been any condemnations about it from anyone.
You mean like from the Russians?
Russia said the raid was "unacceptable" and a violation of international law.

"It is absolutely unacceptable for troops to storm the consular offices of a foreign state on the territory of another state," Russian foreign ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said.

"It is also not clear how this fits in with American statements that Washington respects the sovereignty of Iraq," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6255335.stm

Or the Kurdish response?
The U.S. military operation Thursday in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil that resulted in the arrests of six Iranians has drawn a sharp denunciation from Iraq's Kurdish regional government.

A spokesman for the autonomous regional government and its presidency expressed their "alarm" and condemned the Thursday morning operation.

They characterized it as a raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil, "which opened in the provincial capital in an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Iranian government."

The Kurdish regional government is based in Irbil.

The Kurdish statement, which includes a call for the immediate release of the detainees, says the consulate is entitled to immunity in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/11/iraq.main/index.html


If Iran has a problem and we invaded their soveriengn nation then why doesn't Iran declare war with the USA. I would for one would love Iran to declare war then we won't have to go through this diplomacy of dealing with Iran thru the UN.
Why would Iran want a war?

How is following the codification of the customary international law on the interepretation of treaties, circumventing said law? As the VLCT explicitly says, it codifies the customary international law on how treaties are supposed to be interpreted. All the VCLT did was combined and explicitly restated the way that treaties had traditionally been understood to be interpreted.
Yes, but the circumvention would be when one used a breach of a treaty as an excuse to not adhere to the customary law upon which the treaty itself was based. That position would correspond to article 43 of the VCLT. Even if a party to the treaty would withdraw from the treaty, the obligations and duties that the customary international law has set forth must be followed.

The vienna convention on diplomatic relations, predates the VCLT, however since the relevant part of customary law used to interpret the vienna convention on treaties is identical to the VCLT (as the VCLT itself states), then the two things are one and the same. And thus, any interpretation of the vienna convention on diplomatic relations using the VCLT will essentially be correct.
When it comes to interpretation of the treaty, it will not be correct conserning the consequence of a breach by one party - since nothing in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations nor customary law indicates that a breach by one party automatically relieves another party of their duties.

All customary international law, apart from non-derogable obligations, (no slave trade and such) can be modified by treaty. Whatever the vienna convention on diplomatic relations states about diplomatic relations that is different to customary international law modifies any customary international law that preceded it.

(Which is irrelevant anyway, because neither the US nor Iran are bound by it in respect of each other anymore. (Because of Iran's breech)).
Here we disagree.

And as customary international law is derogable, i.e., non-binding, there is nothing requiring the US to respect the soveriegnty of Iran's diplomatic missions. (Nor theirs ours).

That is not to say that the US can just go around smashing them up willy nilly however. They still fall under the protection of the soveriegn that is the recieving party. (In this case Iraq). But it is an issue for that sovereign, and not the US - as I pointed out umpteen posts ago. (I.e. the Iraqis should expel the US, take action against them and pay reparations to the Iranians). The real problem here is not the US's diplomatic relations with Iran (or lack thereof) but the silly fiction of Iraqi soveriegnty which does not work with the usual understanding of international law. That is to say, pretending there is a sovereign when there isn't. There is the same problem with lebanon and isreal.
And we disagree. My position is that the US is obligated to respect the Iranian diplomatic missions, and it might be the case that Iraq has failed to protect them.


Severing ties meant exactly that. The US has the right to abrogate the entire treaty because of Iran's breach. Nowhere however does it specify the manner or the time at which the breach must be invoked. It obvious that the US has suspended the entire treaty with respect to Iran, and it is obvious why. I am sure Iran could request a clarification if it so desired.
It doesn't specify in what manner it must be invoked, but it states that it must be invoked. So at the very least that would have to be fulfilled - and I still don't see any official statement claiming that this is the official US position on this matter.


First, there is no such thing as a centuries old customary international law concerning the sanctity of diplomats. Many of them came to bad ends, and while that might have been a cause for war, it was never considered a breach of 'international law'. In fact, the whole concept of international law is relatively new.
The concept of international law might be new, but not the concept of the sanctity of diplomats. And the whole custom that have arisen might be the one of the oldest ones where international law is concerned. But that's another matter.

And as I have pointed out, apart from a few modern non-derogable obligations, customary international law is non binding. Nations are free to adhere to it or ignore it without consequence.
Except that they will face diplomatic consequences. That is the sanctions used.

Yes, but the circumvention would be when one used a breach of a treaty as an excuse to not adhere to the customary law upon which the treaty itself was based. That position would correspond to article 43 of the VCLT. Even if a party to the treaty would withdraw from the treaty, the obligations and duties that the customary international law has set forth must be followed.

Which means that all states have an obligation to observe non-derogable obligations. Respect of diplomatic missions is not one of these.

So no circumvention.

When it comes to interpretation of the treaty, it will not be correct conserning the consequence of a breach by one party - since nothing in the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations nor customary law indicates that a breach by one party automatically relieves another party of their duties.

Except for article sixty and prior customary international law.

Here we disagree.

Really? That's surprising.

And we disagree. My position is that the US is obligated to respect the Iranian diplomatic missions, and it might be the case that Iraq has failed to protect them.

Not quite, I have no doubt that the US has failed to respect iranian diplomatic missions. But then again it is under no obligation to do so.


It doesn't specify in what manner it must be invoked, but it states that it must be invoked. So at the very least that would have to be fulfilled - and I still don't see any official statement claiming that this is the official US position on this matter.

It's an implicit invocation. The treaty is silent as to whether or not it has to be implicit or explicit. Therefore your point is moor.

In any case, I am sure president carter/the US state department made a statement. After all they couldn't have 'secretly' revoked diplomatic status. On the balance of probabilities, it probably mentioned the Iranian hostage crisis as the reason.


The concept of international law might be new, but not the concept of the sanctity of diplomats. And the whole custom that have arisen might be the one of the oldest ones where international law is concerned. But that's another matter.

Sanctity of diplomats is a post renaissance christian european tradition. Claiming it as an long standing international norm is incorrect. (Not to mention a little bit eurocentric and racist).


Except that they will face diplomatic consequences. That is the sanctions used.

No. There is no mechanism for imposing sanctions on a nation for ignoring customary law. Name one.

HUA Colonel Fanatasy.

If you want to do that, you either need to reform the way you structure your pre-college program, I mean millitary, or start up national service.

The quickest method will be national service. And even that will take about 24 months to get into operation, even working at a breakneck pace the country can't financially support. (Well, I suppose we could means test social security).

Things are going to come down to Iran. The ruler of Iran hasn't tempered his country's plan for Nukes. It's like a dog cornered into an alleyway. It might not be today, tommorow, or this week but AhaI'manutjob can wait for the oppurtune time when our pants are around our ankles again.

suggested we reinstate slavery, claimed that people on minimum wage could become millionaires and therefore all poor people are poor due to their own damn fault, etc.

I think I know who you are talking about. We'd probably agree on a few points.

Which means that all states have an obligation to observe non-derogable obligations. Respect of diplomatic missions is not one of these.

So no circumvention.
We disagree again.


Except for article sixty and prior customary international law.
And article 60 is secondary to the general provision in article 43. Prior customary international law does not open for one party to ignore the responisbilities placed upon them by the customary law in the event of a breach where the protection of diplomats are concerned.


Really? That's surprising.
:rolleyes: I've said what needed to be said. I feel no need to repeat myself ad nauseam.

Not quite, I have no doubt that the US has failed to respect iranian diplomatic missions. But then again it is under no obligation to do so.
We disagree.


It's an implicit invocation. The treaty is silent as to whether or not it has to be implicit or explicit. Therefore your point is moor.
Interpreting the treaty, an invocation would have to be explicit. It follows naturally from the term "invoke".


In any case, I am sure president carter/the US state department made a statement. After all they couldn't have 'secretly' revoked diplomatic status. On the balance of probabilities, it probably mentioned the Iranian hostage crisis as the reason.
You're sure, yet stil cannot show me that it has been done, that it is the official US position, nor anything that indicates that it is even an unofficial position. Until you can show that, this entire debate is moot really.


Sanctity of diplomats is a post renaissance christian european tradition. Claiming it as an long standing international norm is incorrect. (Not to mention a little bit eurocentric and racist).
...What? I just noticed this. What?

Racist?

You know, I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to debate this matter. You know what a debate is, right? Obviously you don't want one. My bad, I won't trouble you again. Have a nice day.

No. There is no mechanism for imposing sanctions on a nation for ignoring customary law. Name one.
Look it up yourself. We're done here.