It’s really not clear what the current policy on assassinations is. When asked, Fleischer gives non-answers like this
And there’s no way (with good reason) that an executive order changing our assassination policy would be publicly released. That being the case it’s hard to say anything without the potential for mis-speaking.
I didn’t intend to play gotchya on this, just clarify what we know about the subject.
True, and you can see why: he doesn’t want to threaten to kill anyone and he doesn’t want to tell any heads of state ‘you’re safe.’ CIA agents also like to give non-answers like this just because it’s safer not to have other people know what you won’t do. Nonetheless I do think the revised answer is the right one. It’s been against official policy, like your link says, for decades.
Since the legislators have occasionally ended a session with a rousing “death to America” chant I don’t see this as a political departure in any way. It’s
also still a theocracy as long as Ayatollah Ali Khameinei remains supreme leader.
Not exactly. We’re counting on the popular idealism to push Iraq away from Iran. In any case, the Shia in Iraq by definition have unsavory ties. But in any case, they don’t seem to be pushing for closer relaqtionships with Iran.
According to what I’ve read, the average Joe Bagdad doesn’t like the chaos, maybe, but figures it’s better than Saddam or Theocracy. They have an up close and personal view of things. And the leaders seem to agree.
This is also why terrorism is actually being counter-prodictive. The terrorists are not Iraqis or Kurds. But the attacks are seriously damaging the credibility the rest of the Islamic world has with Iraq.
Historically, the protections and exemption granted to embassies (or military vessels) have been sometimes explained by this “legal fiction” you’re refering to : the embassy is a parcel of foreign territory.
But if it were truly the case, the host country would have no rights at all on the embassy grounds (for instance, it couldn’t reclaim the land or ask the staff to pack up and leave), which isnt the case.
Nowadays, the international law only refers to the immunities and priviledges the embassies and their staff benefit from. I don’t even think the word “exterritoriality” appears anywhere in the Vienna convention. I’m not sure how to explain it clearly. Basically, the embassy buildings are part of the territory of the host country and said host country has the same rights on these parcels of land than on the rest of its territory except for the limitations enumerated in the relevant treaties and conventions, or established by the jurisprudence of international courts, or maybe derived from the “general rules followed by civilized nations” (I don’t know the correct english terminology for this) .
It happens that these limitations are extremely extensive. But still, the “default” is that the host nation extends its sovereignty to the embassies’ grounds. If, say, the american embassy in Paris was considered part of the american territory, the reverse principle would apply. The USA could do whatever it wants on this piece of land (say, build an office building not respecting Paris zoning laws and rent it, stockpile nuclear bombs there, etc…) except if it was explicitely forbidden by a treaty.
To say the truth, I don’t know if the US could claim juridiction and try Iranian citizens who broke in the embassy and comitted crimes there. I mean…they surely could, since each nation define the extent of the juridiction of its courts. But since all matters related to diplomatic buildings and personnel are closely regulated by international treaties and jurisprudence, it could run contrary to established rules. My international law courses are long behind me, and I’ve no clue what could be the precedents. I believe, though, that usually, the local perpetrator of a crime commited in an embassy is handed to the local authorities. But the Teheran hostage taking is hardly similar to an irritated local punching the nose of an embassy’s staff member.
There has been a ruling by the ICJ about the Teheran case, but AFAIK, it only refers to the responsability and liability of the Iranian state, not to the actual hostage takers, who aren’t subjects of international law, anyway.
Paul in Saudi, how does the average Saudi regard neighboring Muslim countries? How do they feel about Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, etc? Considering that those countries are piled right on top of each other, is there a lot of infighting between countries?
Following the hostage crisis, the U.S. tried to get back at Iran by a proxy war, i.e., by supporting Hussein in Iraq’s war with Iran. Iraq lost that war (that is, was the first side to get exhausted and stop, and won no territory by it), therefore the U.S. lost.
wouldn’t that be as if Germany made a stink about us electing Eisenhower president in 1952?
Of course you are going to elect the heros of a prior war (especially one that succeeded) to office.
BTW, the proof that they won the war was not merely our failed sponsorship of Saddam–consider that we ultimately paid tribute for the return of our hostages.
Bill (disclaimer: former coworker) sounds pretty pissed off about the whole rumor thing and is not enamored of the neoconservatives who suggested it in the first place, but AFAIK he knows quite a bit about Iran, and if he says Ahmadinejad was not involved in the hostage-crisis flap I’m inclined to believe him.