There is No Danger, There is No Danger, There is No........

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I have no special expertise on diplomatic immunity and I don't have the time to do any research, so I won't argue the point as to whether or not the Iranians could have been arrested.

While my expertise in this regard is also not anything special I do know that their diplomatic immunity does not prevent them from being arrested at all, just in some (most) cases.

Quote:

However, the fact that they were not arrested is not a clear indication that there was a concern that they might be taking these photographs for terrorist purposes. Again assuming you are right about the law and diplomatic immunity, in order for the authorities to shrug the convention aside and assert an emergency situation, they would need far more convincing evidence that these fellow were terrorists than simply the fact that they were taking pictures which might assist terrorists.

Agreed, that they were not arrested is indicative of the weight of the evidence and not necessarily the nature of the suspicion, this was my point.

Brandon seems to think it represented a credible threat. Pointing out that they were not arrested was intended to illustrate that there was not even sufficient evidence of this threat to do so.

0 Replies

NY POST ARTICLE

Looks like they may not have been even acting like tourists

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This

Quote:
Non uniformed guards at embassies almost always translate as "spies."

Is an assertion, and one you are basing your argument around, NOT a fact. Can you tell me what you base this belief on?

Provide me with some sort of evidence of this and I will readily give credence to your idea. Until you can do that, I have to stand with my origional statement that this sounds more like a conspiracy theorist's wet dream than reality.

Cycloptichorn

I base the belief on what I have read and heard over the years.

But a quick google search turned this up:

"foreign relationsA country's dealings with other countries. Specialized diplomatic bodies first appeared in Europe during the 18th century. After 1818 diplomatic agents were divided into: ambassadors, papal legates, and nuncios; envoys extraordinary, ministers plenipotentiary, and other ministers accredited to the head of state; ministers resident; and chargés d'affaires, who may deputize for an ambassador or minister, or be themselves the representative accredited to a minor country. Other diplomatic staff may include counsellors and attachés (military, labour, cultural, press). Consuls are state agents with commercial and political responsibilities in foreign towns.

"After World War II there was an increase in the number of countries represented by a diplomat of ambassadorial rather than lower rank, although in recent years improved communications have lessened the importance of the career diplomat as the person on the spot. In the USA foreign relations are handled by the State Department."

SOURCE

I'm sure more can be found.

0 Replies

I don't know much about the law, but I have always thought that someone with diplomatic immunity could commit murder in front of a dozen witnesses, and, although he could be arrested, he could not be prosecuted, and could not be held long. I am unaware of any emergency exemptions, although, as I say, I don't know much about it. Does anyone actually know, as opposed to more speculation? I would have thought that in cases of crimes committed by persons with diplomatic immunity, the most the host country could do would be to return the person with a strong protest, even for murder, theft, etc.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

I don't know much about the law, but I have always thought that someone with diplomatic immunity could commit murder in front of a dozen witnesses, and, although he could be arrested, he could not be prosecuted, and could not be held long.

For the most part "diplomatic immunity" is a courtesy and is not absolute, but either way, if those individuals posed a serious threat that we knew of I would expect dimplomatic immunity to have little to do with how they are treated.

Quote:

I am unaware of any emergency exemptions, although, as I say, I don't know much about it. Does anyone actually know, as opposed to more speculation?

Yes, I know that if the US so desired and they presented a terrorist threat we could arrest them.

I know that if the US so desired and they presented a terrorist threat we could interrogate them.

Even the highest level diplomats can be arrested as outlined by the US state department below:

US State Department wrote:

1Reasonable constraints, however, may be applied in emergency circumstances involving self-defense, public safety, or the prevention of serious criminal acts.

As far as I know they were not even arrested and questioned.

0 Replies

Hi, Craven.

I know that they could be arrested, and I know that reasonable constraints could be applied. I'm sure we could interrogate them too. However, as far as prosecution or long term imprisonment in the host country goes, I must ask you to cite your source.

0 Replies

As far as long term imprisonment goes we usually can't prosecute without a waiver unless we wanna ruffle some feathers.

But why do you ask? Prosecution is irrelevant as there's nothing to prosecute them for as far as I know.

Do you know of anything that could even get a prosecution going?

If they were a terrorist threat and were neither arrested nor interrogated what does it matter whether they can be prosecuted?

0 Replies

But in case you want the source here's the international law on the subject:

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961

To expidite your reading you'll want Article 31, paragraph one sub-paragraphs a.

0 Replies

There is No Danger, There is No Danger, There is No........

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know