# Alleged US raid on Iranian Consulate



## daftandbarmy (11 Jan 2007)

Not sure about this one is. Does anyone have the scoop on Debka File's credibility?


DEBKAfile: Kurdish sources report five helicopters carried US forces to pre-dawn raid of Iranian consulate in N. Iraqi town of Irbil 
http://www.debka.com/

January 11, 2007, 5:21 PM (GMT+02:00)

They were dropped on the roof while armored vehicles encircled the building. The troops used loudspeakers to call out in Farsi and Arabic to the consulate staff not to resist “or else they would be killed.” Five Iranian diplomatic staff members were detained and documents and computers impounded. 

Tehran has strongly protested this breach of its sovereign territory and summoned the Swiss ambassador who represents US interests in Iran and the Iraqi ambassador to demand the immediate release of the Iranian diplomats.

Later Thursday, Jan. 11, Tehran reported three large explosions shaking the southern town of Khorramshahr north of the oil port of Abadan on the Shatt al-Arb waterway. 

DEBKAfile: Khorramshahr, which faces the Iraqi town of Basra, is one of the key towns from which Iran delivers smuggled fighters, weapons and explosives to its Shiite supporters in Iraq. Our sources also report that some hours before President George W. Bush’s policy speech, a series of explosions were heard in Iranian Balochistan. Tehran imposed a blackout on the incident.

These statements and events tie in closely with the new Iraq strategy announced by the US president of confronting Iran and Syria for “allowing networks to use their territory to attack US forces.”


----------



## GAP (11 Jan 2007)

It was on CNN also...the consulate apparently did not have diplomatic status and was being used as a weapons depot.


----------



## KevinB (12 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> It was on CNN also...the consulate apparently did not have diplomatic status and was being used as a weapons depot.



The lose their status (same as Hospitals and Mosques do) when they are used for weapons storage and insurgent training/basing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Jan 2007)

So, the headline could be better put this way:

"US raid on Alleged Iranian Consulate"


----------



## warpig (12 Jan 2007)

Were any weapon’s found that would be considered surplus to that used to protect diplomats in a very hostile situation? For an example of what I mean, the weapons highly likely to be found in the US embassy in Ottawa are not surplus to that embassy, or unexpected. You can’t say the Delegation was a Weapons Storage and insurgent training and staging site without actually finding insurgent training, insurgent weapons and evidence.  

I’m not denying that there in all likelihood people in any official Iranian Delegation who are also working towards supporting the Shiia factions causing so much of the bloodshed.  I understand others here have differing opinions of what this escalation of tensions between Tehran and Washington will accomplish, but I believe this is counter-productive. The Iranians have infinite ability to “conduct business” in Iraq aside from Diplomatic Posts. However, is this just “busy work” for the Americans in keeping with the new Presidential Initiative? I wonder if there were any WMD found also?

So much of the American press on this issue (and the Iranians in General) attributes the focus of the Shiia Insurgents on Iran’s machinations. Not true. The Iraqi Shiia are conducting business independent of Iranian Intentions. The mistake here, and this includes what the Americans are doing to further create tensions with Iran, is that Americans are looking for quick fixes to the issue. Iran is aiding the Shiia Insurgents yes, but they don’t control them or direct them. The US administration is working at two self-defeating issues here.


----------



## DBA (13 Jan 2007)

It looks like a good way to gather specific intelligence on what Iran is doing on the ground. If your about to commit several thousand additional troops to clear an area then gathering such details on one of the actors would be good preparation. Depending on what was kept there by the Iranians it could be a major intelligence win. That's just speculation on my part however.


----------



## GAP (13 Jan 2007)

The US has been effectively pussy footing around when it comes to anything controversial. I am not talking about killing the insurgents, but those that are electing to supply them support. Bush now has nothing to lose (about time) and time to be super aggressive.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Jan 2007)

To raid a consulate, whether you consider it to be one or not, is a slippery slope to go down.  What is to stop other countries from declaring that a US consulate does not have "diplomatic status" or to say that the CIA and NSA personnel posted to consulates are supporting factions a particular country doesn't like.  As much as the rules are counterproductive in certain circumstances they are in place for a reason.  Diplomatic immunity is in place to keep *all* countries from using trumped up charges and allegations to arrest or "raid" embassies and consulates for their own purposes.

Another question also comes to mind, was this a considered a consulate under Hussein?  Who decided that it did not have diplomatic status?


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Jan 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Bush now has nothing to lose


That is when people become most dangerous


----------



## GAP (13 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> That is when people become most dangerous



agreed. Watch for some controversial actions to take place, if they even make the news.


----------



## DBA (13 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> To raid a consulate, whether you consider it to be one or not, is a slippery slope to go down.  What is to stop other countries from declaring that a US consulate does not have "diplomatic status" or to say that the CIA and NSA personnel posted to consulates are supporting factions a particular country doesn't like.  As much as the rules are counterproductive in certain circumstances they are in place for a reason.  Diplomatic immunity is in place to keep *all* countries from using trumped up charges and allegations to arrest or "raid" embassies and consulates for their own purposes.
> 
> Another question also comes to mind, was this a considered a consulate under Hussein?  Who decided that it did not have diplomatic status?



As I posted in the other thread on this Iran doesn't have clean hands in this regard due to an incident in 1979 (Google for Iran Hostage Crisis).


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Jan 2007)

DBA said:
			
		

> As I posted in the other thread on this Iran doesn't have clean hands in this regard due to an incident in 1979 (Google for Iran Hostage Crisis).


Is retaliation for past ills now an acceptable part of foreign policy?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2007)

Its war........and if its required then do it. If it turns out to be wrong then  apoligize to the offended country, better that then apoligizing to a dead soldiers children.

...and for the "past ills" part, Canada can't talk, its a large part of our 'internal' policies.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2007)

FWIW -- The gouge we are getting here is that it was not a consulate  -- it was afforded no immunity.

The Iranains are dirty in this affair -- and a lot of other stuff in this country and if I could there are a few targets I'd pull the tirgger on in my locale...


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> FWIW -- The gouge we are getting here is that it was not a consulate  -- it was afforded no immunity.


Still want to know how it was decided it was not a consulate, obviously the Iranians believed it was.


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2007)

Since the Iraqi gov't said it was not  : -- last time I looked the elected gov't of IRAQ was incharge of its diplomatic relations -- not the IRANIAN gov't to decided what it wants.
heck what do I know I'm just in Iraq - I'm sure your more intune with the local goings on from your sofa.


----------



## rmacqueen (13 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Since the Iraqi gov't said it was not  : -- last time I looked the elected gov't of IRAQ was incharge of its diplomatic relations -- not the IRANIAN gov't to decided what it wants.
> heck what do I know I'm just in Iraq - I'm sure your more intune with the local goings on from your sofa.


Can you provide a link to that or should I bow to your superior knowledge in the matter?  So far the authoritative source has been CNN, not exactly a scion of accuracy



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Its war........and if its required then do it. If it turns out to be wrong then  apoligize to the offended country, better that then apoligizing to a dead soldiers children.
> 
> ...and for the "past ills" part, Canada can't talk, its a large part of our 'internal' policies.


Are you suggesting the ends justify the means?  As for internal policies, it really doesn't pertain to this discussion


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting the ends justify the means?  As for internal policies, it really doesn't pertain to this discussion



Yup.

........and for the second, you're right,.....except for something called a 'soapbox'


----------



## geo (13 Jan 2007)

In modern usage, a consul is a representative of a sovereign state, posted to a foreign territory, in charge of matters related to individuals and businesses (in other words issues outside inter-governmental diplomacy), or to an officer performing mainstream (political) diplomatic functions within a subordinate post. The office of a Consul is known as a consulate, whether it is a section of the diplomatic post or a separate office, as in all other cities (generally only the capital hosts the diplomatic posts); it may be qualified more precisely after the consular chiefs rank, e.g. consulate-general.

Contrary to popular belief, *although many of the staff of consulates may be career diplomats they do not generally have diplomatic immunity * (unless they are also accredited as such). Immunities and privileges for consuls and accredited staff of consulates under the relevant international conventions are generally limited to actions undertaken in their official capacity and, with respect to the consulate itself, to those required for official duties. *In practice, the extension and application of consular privileges and immunities can be subject to wide discrepancies from country to country.*

1st Q: does Iran entertain dipplomatic ties with Iraq?
2nd Q:  were Embassy personnel present in this consulate?
3rd Q:  were they injured, interrogated, arrested?


----------



## KevinB (13 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Can you provide a link to that or should I bow to your superior knowledge in the matter?  So far the authoritative source has been CNN, not exactly a scion of accuracy



Well the Iraqi gov't has mentioned it on the local news (according to the locals we have) 

The other info I have comes from UN country IntSums and other stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2007)

> U.S. Troops Raid 2 Iranian Targets in Iraq, Detain 5 People
> 
> By Robin Wright and Nancy Trejos
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> ...



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/11/AR2007011100427.html



> .......The attack was denounced by senior Kurdish officials, who are normally America’s closest allies in Iraq but regarded the action as an affront to their sovereignty in this highly tribal swath of the country. Iran’s Foreign Ministry reacted in Tehran with a harsh denunciation that threatened to escalate tensions with the Bush administration.
> 
> ....Witnesses said the attack was directed at a building that an American official described as a liaison office that was properly accredited with Iraq as an Iranian government facility. It was unclear whether the Iranians who were arrested carried diplomatic passports and whether the office was supposed to share some of the immunities enjoyed by embassies and consulates.
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middleeast/12raid.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=489150d45b330eff&hp&ex=1168664400&partner=homepage





> BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Five Iranians detained by U.S.-led forces were working in a decade-old government liaison office that was *in the process of being upgraded to a consulate*, the Iraqi foreign minister said Friday.
> But Deputy U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said in Washington that the U.S.-led forces entered the building because information linked it to Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq.
> 
> Tehran condemned the raid in the Kurdish-controlled northern city of Irbil and urged Iraq to push for the Iranians' release.
> ...



http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/12/D8MK3JNO0.html

So we have this - Iranians were openly operating a Liaison Office in an area of Iraq that has a tenuous relationship with the central government.  They had the support of the locals but not yet the support of central government.  The Iranians were not yet accredited diplomats and may never have become so regardless of the wishes of Tehran AND the local Kurds.

Iranians in Iraq, including those with Diplomatic Immunity, have been engaged in illegal acts and detained.  This is legal.  Diplomats so engaged are returned to their home country "persona non grata".  Everyone else is subject to the local laws.

Meanwhile Baghdad and Kurdistan are at odds over who gets to make treaties with neighbouring countries.  This will no doubt have had an impact on when/if this place ever became a consulate.

Also, it is in the best interests of both Baghdad and Kurdistan to lay this at the feet of those "misguided" Americans (note the "more in sorrow than in anger" tone) allowing THEM plausible deniability so that THEY can continue to build relations with whoever is currently in charge in Tehran (a bit of an open question these days).

Finally we have new reports of bombs going off in the west of Iran (Baluchistan) with an election coming up - 



> TEHRAN: A car bomb exploded in Iran's southeastern province of Sistan-Balochistan, killing the only occupant of the vehicle, the official news agency IRNA reported on Friday.
> 
> "The explosive material was planted in a car at a Zahedan (the provincial capital) street, where the governor general's building is located," said the top local security official, Mohsen Sadeghi.
> 
> ...



http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=4799


the prospect that Khamanei may be dead or dying (or not)

http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/khamaneis-death-neither-confirmed-or.html


and Ahmedinejad losing to the moderates on the council that will replace Khamenei in the last elections, having his term curtailed by a year and then this:



> Rafsanjani says road to be named after the "Martyr" Ahmadinejad
> 
> With Tehran swirling with rumors regarding the pending demise from cancer of Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i, the ultimate power jockey, Hojjat-ol eslam Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, hinted recently that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be forcibly removed from power if he doesn't resign voluntarily.
> 
> Following December's widely-boycotted elections, Rafsanjani has now taken over as head of the Assembly of Experts, the body that under the Islamic Republic constitution will name the Supreme Leader when Khamenei dies. In an otherwise fawning paeon to Khamenei ("whose death will have a shattering effect on the Iranian public, who idolize their leader and would largely view his loss as a catastrophe" [sic]), Stratfor notes that "_t might be no coincidence Rafsanjani, in a recent talk with journalists, described a new highway currently under construction in Tehran, as the "highway of Shahid (martyr) Ahmadinejad." Hat tip to Gary Metz for pointing out the Stratfor piece._


_ 

http://www.krsi.net/news/Default.asp?PgNum=4

Like the Khamenei story it would be really interesting if it proves to be true...and not just disinformation.  Either way it is interesting.















_


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

This could get very messy depending on where the truth lies.  If the feelings of the Kurds are not taken into consideration they could push to become an independent state, something neither Iran nor Turkey wants.  So much also depends on whether the office was in fact engaged in the activiites the US contends and whether they have evidence.  The fact that a cache of weapons, or proof of insurgency support, has not been spread all over the news leads me to believe they came up empty handed.  This would give the Iranians space to make this a diplomatic (propaganda) issue in the days to come.  It will be interesting to see what their next move is.

Domestically, the politacal fallout for Bush could be bad as well.  The increase in troops, coupled with this action, flies in the face of the Baker/Hamilton report on Iraq and makes it obvious that Bush has no intention of taking it seriously.  Baker still has a lot of friends and allies amongst the power brokers in Washington.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup.


Since you support the idea of the ends justifying the means then you must support the actions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or do you only support it for our side, since we are always right?


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Since you support the idea of the ends justifying the means then you must support the actions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, or do you only support it for our side, since we are always right?



What a ridiculous statement.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> What a ridiculous statement.


Yes it is, but you can't have it both ways


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jan 2007)

Sure you can. You cannot equate US actions with those of a terror group.The bottom line in this raid was that it was not an official diplomatic facility and the Iranians there had no diplomatic immunity. One of the Iranians taken is thought to be Hassan Abbasi has been among the highest ranking members of the Islamic regime's terror operations for many years, acting as Khamenei's foreign policy and defense advisor. Abbasi has had an active voice under not only Khamenei but also Rafsanjani and Khatami as well. The Martyrdom Brigades of the Global Islamic Awakening is controlled by Abbasi.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Sure you can. You cannot equate US actions with those of a terror group.The bottom line in this raid was that it was not an official diplomatic facility and the Iranians there had no diplomatic immunity. One of the Iranians taken is thought to be Hassan Abbasi has been among the highest ranking members of the Islamic regime's terror operations for many years, acting as Khamenei's foreign policy and defense advisor. Abbasi has had an active voice under not only Khamenei but also Rafsanjani and Khatami as well. The Martyrdom Brigades of the Global Islamic Awakening is controlled by Abbasi.



If you read back, I was referring to this:



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Its war........and if its required then do it. If it turns out to be wrong then  apoligize to the offended country, better that then apoligizing to a dead soldiers children.


Simply put, the other side also believes they are at war as well


----------



## GO!!! (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Yes it is, but you can't have it both ways



By that logic, it would be completely acceptable for Hamas/Hezbollah/IRA/ETA/West Side Boys to begin perpetrating violent acts in Canada or anywhere else because they should be viewed as a legitimate bargaining entity, on the sole basis of the ludicrous qualifier "we might not be right".

We (and I stress the collective "we" of the democratic west) may not be completely right. BUT we are a whole lot less wrong than the Iranians and the other theocracies in the area. Would you prefer to have Iran dictating policy to the US, or vice versa? I know which scenario I prefer!

Finally, if you don't think we are "right" you could stop collecting your blood money paycheque from the DND every month. Iran is our enemy, it has sworn to "wipe from the face of the earth" a Canadian ally, supports terrorist operations that have killed our citizens in the US, and our soldiers in Afghanistan. It willfully foments discord all over the ME and is seeking nuclear weapons, with which it will no doubt threaten and posture even more once it has them.

We are right - Iran is wrong, if you do not yet realise that, take a vacation there instead of Disneyland!


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> We are right - Iran is wrong, if you do not yet realise that, take a vacation there instead of Disneyland!


And if we put aside our ideals and do what ever we want for the sake of convenience, we are better than them how?  The end cannot justify the means as any group or country can always justify their actions in some manner.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> And if we put aside our ideals and do what ever we want for the sake of convenience, we are better than them how?  The end cannot justify the means as any group or country can always justify their actions in some manner.



I dont know where you get this idea that the ends justify the means. This raid was not illegal. Also this is the second time that we have caught senior IRG officers in Iraq. There is no question that Iran is meddling in Iraq including support of both sunni and shiite groups that are attacking US/UK troops.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont know where you get this idea that the ends justify the means. This raid was not illegal. Also this is the second time that we have caught senior IRG officers in Iraq. There is no question that Iran is meddling in Iraq including support of both sunni and shiite groups that are attacking US/UK troops.


Please read the entire thread and you will know what I am referring to


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Yes it is, but you can't have it both ways



You can.  Al Qaeda and the Taliban are wrong.  We are right.  

Edit: Sorry Go - Mac provoked me to reply before I read yours.  +1.

Mac keep going the way you are headed and you will deny any and all the right to any recourse but the power of prayer.  The other guys don't recognize our courts, or any other than their own - least of all the UN and ICC.  Ahmadinejad is sufficiently loony that he will declare it a success the day that the world disappears in a mushroom cloud - a worldview no doubt the result of too many hours spent as a twelve year old rolling around minefields in a carpet.  One of very few of his peers to survive the experience apparently.

This isn't about dealing with States according to the rules of law.  This is about dealing with raving loonies that have hijacked the mechanisms of State and are holding their own people, as much as the rest of the world, hostage.  NO war, not even "the last good war - WW2" has been won by playing by rules.  Camp X in Oshawa is continuing testimony to that.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> Please read the entire thread and you will know what I am referring to



Please read what we are writing and read what you wrote -- and see why at least I think your RTFO


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You can.  Al Qaeda and the Taliban are wrong.  We are right.
> 
> Edit: Sorry Go - Mac provoked me to reply before I read yours.  +1.
> 
> ...



I will respond with a quote from another thread, made by someone in Afghanistan.



			
				Garett said:
			
		

> "We're not bad people in the classical sense. I don't mean to sound bitter or anything but the Taliban view us as the enemy. I'm sure most of them really believe that they're the good guys, doing good for the country, and we're the bad occupiers trying to force something on the people. But we're not. I mean, we're not here to take this patch of land on the side of a mountain, we're just trying to help them."



How can we defend our way of life if rules can be tossed out for sake of expediency and justify it simply by saying "we are right"?


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> How can we defend our way of life if rules can be tossed out for sake of expediency and justify it simply by saying "we are right"?



Apparently you can't.  Any suggestions on how YOU might Dare to defend our way of life?

Edit: 
No - more to the point - if you are personally assaulted by someone with "a restricted weapon" and he lost control of it but was still continuing the fight, would you leave the weapon on the ground while the beating continued?  Or would commit an "illegal" act by using the restricted weapon to even up the odds?


----------



## KevinB (14 Jan 2007)

:  your leading a productive life as a troll rmac.

 You have decided based on your personal views against the US (and Canada ?) that a legal action was illegal -- and are creating an argument out of your distorted view of reality.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Apparently you can't.  Any suggestions on how YOU might Dare to defend our way of life?
> 
> Edit:
> No - more to the point - if you are personally assaulted by someone with "a restricted weapon" and he lost control of it but was still continuing the fight, would you leave the weapon on the ground while the beating continued?  Or would commit an "illegal" act by using the restricted weapon to even up the odds?


Ok, that is too much of a tangent to go down.  We could play hypothetical games all day which would be more appropriate for radio chatter


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> :  your leading a productive life as a troll rmac.
> 
> You have decided based on your personal views against the US (and Canada ?) that a legal action was illegal -- and are creating an argument out of your distorted view of reality.


If you had actually read the thread you would realize that I am not arguing whether this is legal or illegal but Bruce Monkhouse's comment on the ends justifying the means.  Since the best you can do is to use insults and (the rather tired) argument that anyone not agreeing with a US action is anti-american, I see no further reason to continue.


----------



## KevinB (14 Jan 2007)

You chose to misinterpret Bruce's comment.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2007)

OK - Tangent Stipulated.

At bottom I do think it comes down to what I-6 suggests: your world view.  Unfortunately that probably goes to the heart of the matter for you and many Westerners.  You don't see this as an existential struggle on par with World War 2.  

You may be right. I may be wrong.  You may honestly hold your opinions from honour. You may equally hold your opinions from fear - a fear that I may be right and the world is not a safe place where teenage Canadians with Maple Leafs on their backs can get drunk in foreign lands.  (My sister-in-law and my wife can both give the lie to that tangent).

The other side however, doesn't see it in the same vein.  They haven't seen it that way since 632 AD if not 2003, 2001, 1993, 1991, 1967, 1947, 1922.......1683......1571......1492...the Reconquista ....the Crusades...732... And that is just their European adventures - no mention of India, China, Africa and even Arabia.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jan 2007)

rmaqueen,
You expect that we should use boxing gloves while our enemies bare-fists us then go right ahead..........I mean YOU jump on a plane and go right ahead, but DO NOT expect our brave men and women to throw away their lives cause you've seen and idolized too many 1960 style WW2 movies.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> At bottom I do think it comes down to what I-6 suggests: your world view.  Unfortunately that probably goes to the heart of the matter for you and many Westerners.  You don't see this as an existential struggle on par with World War 2.
> 
> You may be right. I may be wrong.  You may honestly hold your opinions from honour. You may equally hold your opinions from fear - a fear that I may be right and the world is not a safe place where teenage Canadians with Maple Leafs on their backs can get drunk in foreign lands.  (My sister-in-law and my wife can both give the lie to that tangent).
> 
> The other side however, doesn't see it in the same vein.  They haven't seen it that way since 632 AD if not 2003, 2001, 1993, 1991, 1967, 1947, 1922.......1683......1571......1492...the Reconquista ....the Crusades...732... And that is just their European adventures - no mention of India, China, Africa and even Arabia.


And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.


----------



## GAP (14 Jan 2007)

I think what you are referring to are actions that involved state vs state. International law prevails when states contravene international law and stuff like the Geneva convention....what we are dealing here with are terrorists that recognize no state, convention, or rule. If a state joins the frey in the guise of an insurgent they should be dealt with in a like manner.


----------



## rmacqueen (14 Jan 2007)

As much as I would like to continue a debate on the subject, I realize that this has become a hijack and we should probably carry on with the subject at hand ;D


----------



## KevinB (14 Jan 2007)

I think the thread title should be changed to US raid an alledged Iranian Consulate...

  FWIW I dont think the discussion of this in a hijack, I view your (rmac) viewpoint as typical of the underinformed, warm an fuzzy feelers out there, who for the sake of political face saving/asskissing would rather let let state terrorisim go unopposed (which is how I read your argument).  
  This is not a slippery slope, its very cut and dried. 
IF Iran would stop sending Revolutionary Guards into Iraq (and to a lesser point Afghanistan) and setting up terrorist cells, then there would be no problems.  Keep in mind the IRG wrote the book on current insurgency warfare techniques -- they have exploited it to great effect outside of Iran.  

Even IF that building had been a duly authorized Consulate (and it was not) the actions by the IRG would have nulified the protection given to them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.



Are you freakin' daft?

Our fathers and forefathers fought with a blunt honesty about the evil of their enemies so that at home their wives and children could live by higher ideals amongst people who believed the same things secure that the evil men were locked outside and had no access to harm them.

Extending your hand to some dirtbag who wants you and your family dead based on the fact in his religion you're an infidel and will use rocks, a bat, a gun, a grenade or whatever he can get his hands on to end your life and pretending his views are just as valid and worthy of respect as yours, is absolutely positively nuts.



Matthew.   :


----------



## GO!!! (17 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.



....which was all fine and dandy when the bad guys wore uniforms and fought in national armies.

This is no longer the case. Iranian agents and soldiers are operating in Iraq in civilian garb. To clear that up for you, according to your much vaunted Geneva Convention, and international law, the two senior operatives captured could be executed as spies IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. 

They were not carrying arms openly, wearing rank, insignia or recognised uniform, and were carrying out operations in a covert manner in a nation with which they are not at war. That makes them spies agitators or fifth columnists if they claimed some sort of patriotic connection to the territory they may or may not claim to be protecting. 

Do you advocate their execution? International law does.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jan 2007)

Back to the topic for a moment. One of the captured Iranian's is wanted for murder in Austria of Kurdish leader Andol Rahman Ghassemlu in 1989

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.377268905&par



> Abdol Rahman Ghassemlu, the historic leader of Iranian Kurds, was killed in an apartment in the outskirts of the Austrian capital Vienna where he was scheduled to meet a delegation sent by then Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.
> 
> However, shortly after the start of the meeting between a delegation of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) and Tehran's delegation, a special unit of the Pasdaran is believed to have stormed the apartment and killed Ghassmlu and his aides.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2007)

When considering the "local Kurdish outrage" over this event it is important to recall that while the Kurds in Iraq are united with respect to Iraqi Shia and Sunni  the Kurds themselves are not homogeneous.  

They are a clannish/tribal society like all the others in the area.  They include Syrian-Kurds, Turkish-Kurds, Armenian-Kurds, Iranian-Kurds as well as Iraqi-Kurds.  There are even Russo-Turkmen-Irani-Afghan-Kurds way out to the east of Iran where all those national borders coincide.  There are democratic, fascist, socialist and communist Kurds represented by the PPK, PSK, PUK and PKK with political organizations crossing National borders.

So it is not at all unlikely that the Iranians could find a "local" faction willing to accept them and then even non-supportive Kurds and Baghdad being forced to deal with the "intervention" with care.


----------



## geo (17 Jan 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Back to the topic for a moment. One of the captured Iranian's is wanted for murder in Austria of Kurdish leader Andol Rahman Ghassemlu in 1989
> 
> http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.377268905&par
> 
> ...


----------



## brihard (17 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> ....which was all fine and dandy when the bad guys wore uniforms and fought in national armies.
> 
> This is no longer the case. Iranian agents and soldiers are operating in Iraq in civilian garb. To clear that up for you, according to your much vaunted Geneva Convention, and international law, the two senior operatives captured could be executed as spies IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.
> 
> ...



<criminology student>

Point of note: The collected body of international law does not 'advocate' their execution, it merely permits it. Read through the National Defence Act or the Criminal Code and you'll find numerous offences where a life imprisonment or other serious terms _may_ be handed down for what could still be a relatively minor offense. Section 83 of the NDA, for instance. Very few instances of 'disobedience of lawful command' would justify life in prison, but it could be done.

While spies may be executed subject to the laws of the nation in which the offense was committed, no where is it written that they _shall_ be executed. As Canadians, for instance, we're bound by our own domestic law on this, and we've not had capital punishment in the criminal code since 76, or the NDA since '98. Other countries have their own laws. I'm not aware of any international court with jurisdiction governing the prosecution and sentencing of espionage suspects, so this will always vary in accordance with domestic laws.

</criminology student>


----------



## GO!!! (18 Jan 2007)

OK, "advocate" was the wrong word.

A more accurate statement would be;

Iran, Iraq and the United States all have laws permitting the execution of foreign agitators and espionage suspects, a point they share in common with varying articles of other bodies of collected international law. I would then extrapolate that mcqueen would then find it perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to have executed these two on their identification, as is permitted by both national and international law.


----------



## rmacqueen (19 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> OK, "advocate" was the wrong word.
> 
> A more accurate statement would be;
> 
> Iran, Iraq and the United States all have laws permitting the execution of foreign agitators and espionage suspects, a point they share in common with varying articles of other bodies of collected international law. I would then extrapolate that mcqueen would then find it perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to have executed these two on their identification, as is permitted by both national and international law.


You are assuming a lot on my behalf


----------



## KevinB (19 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> You are assuming a lot on my behalf



Like common sense...


----------



## rmacqueen (19 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Like common sense...


 :brickwall:


----------



## GO!!! (20 Jan 2007)

rmacqueen said:
			
		

> :brickwall:



What, so the collected body of international law is correct and virtuous when applied _against_ the US, but when it actually supports american actions then _I assume too much_?


----------



## rmacqueen (21 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> What, so the collected body of international law is correct and virtuous when applied _against_ the US, but when it actually supports american actions then _I assume too much_?





			
				rmacqueen said:
			
		

> And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.



Considering what I wrote, and following your line of reasoning, then we can also extrapolate that I support the US being put on trial in Nuremberg.:brickwall:


----------

