'Of course you realize, this means war.' (U.S. raids Iran consulate in Iraq)

Great Debates
21

I don’t think so.

It is my understanding that a Consulate is an office in a foreign country established to promote (lobby for?) trade agreements and contracts, issue visas, assist in disputes (civil or legal) between it’s citizens and the host country, and stuff like that.

The official Embassy can do all that, as well, but the official Embassy is more. It is also the official residence of the Ambassador, for example. I assume the Consulate/Consul answers to the Embassy/Ambassador.

In short, a Consulate is, at most, an annex to the Embassy, but not an Embassy itself.

I presume that Consulates are established in countries where the workload is larger, or geographical distances make it more convenient to have these sub-offices.

For example, Mexico has an Embassy in Washington DC. It also has a Consulate in San Diego (or is it L.A.?), to be closer to it’s citizens in the Southern California area that need those services.

I also presume that the “rights” these consulates hold, in terms of legal/criminal jurisdictions, warrants, and such, are actually worked out in special agreements made between the two countries.

So, a Consulate will hold as much, or as little, “rights”, as the host country is willing to give it. Embassy’s seem to have a little more “juice” to them, as they have become more of an international ideal and standard.

That’s My Humble Opinion, subject to all the frailities typically found in the Human animal…

22

At any rate, I’m fairly certain consular staff members would have the same diplomatic immunity as embassy staff members. So if U.S. officials are detaining persons found in the Irbil consulate, that might be (or might not be, depending on who exactly those persons are) a violation of international law, quite apart from the question of extraterritoriality.

23

Robert J. Hanlon - Wikiquote I misquoted it. Corrected version: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

24

Google it. It’s been attributed to everyone and his brother and also called Hanlon’s razor .

25

Commonly attributed to Lord Acton, famous English smartass and crafter of aphorisms, most famously, “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

Until this moment, I had thought so also, but cannot find any confirmation that he ever actually said it. Jury out.

26

Goddam trigger-happy Google monkeys!

27

Nope

28

Pretty much, yeah, according to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. It’s a PDF so I’ll quote it:

29

mlees wipes egg off face from presuming too much…

30

And the “recieving State” is the wholly independent, sovereign nation of Iraq. Any such decision as trespass could be made only by the wholly independent, sovereign nation of Iraq. And would be carried out by the assigned agents of the wholly independent, sovereign nation of Iraq.

Wouldn’t it be just simply delicious if the raid uncovered incontrovertible, “smoking gun” evidence that Ahmed Chalabi had been acting as an Iranian agent the whole time?

31

:slight_smile: no kidding!. Thanks to all.

32

If we were to actually see that evidence, yes; but if there was such evidence I expect it has already been shredded and burned, to protect Bush.

33

Maybe it’s still a little too early, but I’m just dying to know how anyone’s going to be able to defend this action. To me, it just seems like the stupidest, most belligerent thing the United States could do that doesn’t involve sending troops over a border or dropping nuclear weapons. I’ve long suspected that Bush has wanted to drag Iran into this fight, and that he would naturally prefer that it look like the United States is not responsible for Iran’s participation. This, however, doesn’t look make it look like Iran’s at fault at all—but the administration’s going to try to spin it like it is. I’ll be curious to see how successful that will be with Bush’s approval ratings much lower now than they were in 2002, when he used them to attack Iraq.

I wish I could say I’m surprised, but it’s been a long time since I’ve been surprised by anything that this administration is capable of. It pains me to say it about an American president (and I’ve never said it about any American president in all of my 37 years,) but I think Bush is capable of dropping a nuke on Iran or some other foreign country. If that should happen, I’ll of course be upset, angry, sad, and scared—but I won’t be surprised.

34

This article sheds, perhaps, a little more light on what this is all about:

35

“Security breeches”? Wonder where I could pick up a pair - they might come in handy in dangerous times like these. Do they come in khaki? :wink:

36

Put me in the “it’s too early to tell” camp. It seems clear that Iran is doing as much as it can to fuel the flames of chaos in Iraq.

If for instance the US forces get word that people responsible for shipping weapons into Iraq are hiding out in an Iranian consulate, then I’m fine with going in and getting them.

37

[QUOTE=Debaser]
Put me in the “it’s too early to tell” camp. It seems clear that Iran is doing as much as it can to fuel the flames of chaos in Iraq…QUOTE]
Oh. And that information comes from, ah, unimpeachable sources?

38

'Luci, do you doubt that it’s in Iran’s best interest both in terms of internal politics and street cred in other countries to see the Americans embarassed, slaughtered, and driven from Muslim lands? Or do you simply doubt they’ve been sending, as I’ve read in countless articles and books such as Fiasco, truckloads of weaponry for insurgent purposes?

Iraq insurgents’ bombmaking gets more lethal
Iran Supplying Iraq’s Bombs?
Iran blamed for deaths of eight Britons in south Iraq

The connection has pretty much been on the table, it would seem, for years now. These advanced shape charges go through our advanced armor like a hot knife through butter – it’s difficult to stop molten steel going mach 1.

Obviously, anyone using these ties as a justification for an invasion of Iran would be a madman, since pretty much every country on Iraq’s border except Turkey has been supplying men, ammunition and fuel to the fire AFAIK and an attempted occupation of Iran would finish us. At this point I don’t know if we could stand the political backlash of even “just” bombing them.

39

What color is the sky on the administration’s planet?

CNN

40

For just one thing, I note that only one of your sources is more recent than 2005, and that that source only gives a tag-end mention of some anonymous official’s claim.

As you may recall, last February, Sunni insurgents blew up the Golden Dome Mosque, a significant Shi’ite holy place. Color me skeptical that the Iranians have continued to ship explosive devices to Sunni insurgents after that incident, assuming they were before. If it were found out that they were doing so, it would cost them their close relationship with Shi’ite groups in Iraq.

The Iranians expect to come out of the current chaos with an Iraq that is (a) weak, and (b) their ally. Assuming Iraq stays together; otherwise they expect the biggest piece of Iraq - the Shi’ite-dominated south and east - to be their ally. If Shi’ites find that they continue to supply explosives to the Sunnis who are trying to blow up Shi’ites as well as Americans, things might get kinda frosty there, don’t you think?

Iran surely expects us to leave Iraq sooner or later. It hardly helps them to mildly hasten that if it costs them their close working relationship with Iraq’s Shi’ite groups.