Chinese embassy blitzed by Nato was hiding Serbs

[CardSharp]

A foreign embassy is considered sovereign territory of that nation, and should not be target of air strikes. An excuse such as "map error" certainly isn't going to cut it, and I doubt anybody in China believes Americans' explanation.

Right, I'm wondering myself why this point was ignored. As someone commenting the one of the article said.

You still don't bomb embassies.
Even if Milosevic had had a Balkan turbo folk party with Ceca and danced in the skulls of albanians in the Chinese embassy, it was still off limits

 

[gubbi]

Right, I'm wondering myself why this point was ignored. As someone commenting the one of the article said.

Agreed embassies are strictly off limits. But in a war zone, even if you decide to offer protection to a belligerent party, you dont let them carry out their war activities from the protection of your country's embassy. That amounts to declaration of war and you lose your 'neutral' status. reports indicated that the Serb general was using the compound as a comm center. So what do you think?

 

[CardSharp]

Agreed embassies are strictly off limits. But in a war zone, even if you decide to offer protection to a belligerent party, you dont let them carry out their war activities from the protection of your country's embassy. That amounts to declaration of war and you lose your 'neutral' status. reports indicated that the Serb general was using the compound as a comm center. So what do you think?

Are you a lawyer? or are you just making up laws that you think make sense and support your argument.

 

[gambit]

Are you a lawyer? or are you just making up laws that you think make sense and support your argument.

It is not 'made up'. If it is clear that IF, in a war, an embassy is used for the purpose of war, said embassy can lose protected status. The same reason apply to a place of worship, a hospital (including ships and ambulances), or a school. Any place that has initial 'protected status', meaning immunity from the prosecution of war, must maintain vigilance in keeping itself clean of any war waging capability, and that includes combatants, except for a contingent of soldiers to protect the embassy. Did you know that in war, it is illegal to shoot a medic, even if he is armed? But only as long as he does not use his weapon for purposes other than to protect his charges. I suggest you spend some time reading up on the laws of war, as much as laws can be applied to war, and you will see ample reasons where an embassy can lose protected status.

 

[CardSharp]

Easy, cite me some international law. No reasoning or hand-waving arguments needed on your part.

 

[CardSharp]

Come on you're always talking about facts and how you're the only one on this forum who uses them. This is your chance.

 

[gambit]

Easy, cite me some international law. No reasoning or hand-waving arguments needed on your part.

Come on you're always talking about facts and how you're the only one on this forum who uses them. This is your chance.

You must be joking...You are that helpless in using keyword searches like 'international law war structures protected status' or variations thereof...??? Dang...What happened to that supposedly high Chinese IQ...???

 

[CardSharp]

You must be joking...You are that helpless in using keyword searches like 'international law war structures protected status' or variations thereof...??? Dang...What happened to that supposedly high Chinese IQ...???

Bul lshit, if you really want to put my face in it (and you do), you'd post it. You don't even know where to start looking and you're pretending to be some kind of authority. Hypocrite and now a liar.

 

[Nan Yang]

It is not 'made up'. If it is clear that IF, in a war, an embassy is used for the purpose of war, said embassy can lose protected status. The same reason apply to a place of worship, a hospital (including ships and ambulances), or a school. Any place that has initial 'protected status', meaning immunity from the prosecution of war, must maintain vigilance in keeping itself clean of any war waging capability, and that includes combatants, except for a contingent of soldiers to protect the embassy. Did you know that in war, it is illegal to shoot a medic, even if he is armed? But only as long as he does not use his weapon for purposes other than to protect his charges. I suggest you spend some time reading up on the laws of war, as much as laws can be applied to war, and you will see ample reasons where an embassy can lose protected status.

Under what INTERNATIONAL law did United States use to justify bombing Serbia ?

 

[tanlixiang28776]

Under what INTERNATIONAL law did United States use to justify bombing Serbia ?

When you are America you get to write the laws. Capiche?

 

[gambit]

Bul lshit, if you really want to put my face in it (and you do),...

Yes I do...

you'd post it.

Yes I will...

You don't even know where to start looking and you're pretending to be some kind of authority.

Here I go...

Embassies are not

This has become a common misperception, but nothing could be farther from the truth. Embassies are not the sovereign territory of the sending state; they are business offices protected under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (‘the Convention’).

The confusion arises from Article 22 (1) of the Convention which provides that ‘The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.’ Article 22(3) further stipulates that ‘The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.’ Also, Article 29 provides that ‘The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.’ Furthermore, Article 30 grants the private residence of a diplomatic agent, her/his papers, correspondence, and his property (except it is of a private commercial nature) the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.

Inviolability does not mean that embassies, consulates and other protected buildings have been granted extra-territoriality. Despite their inviolable status, they remain the territory of the receiving states. The law simply suspends certain rights normally associated with the control of territory. Embassies do not have police or courts on the premises. Thus, if a crime is committed within an embassy, that crime occurs on the soil of the receiving state, not that of the sending state. If embassy personnel apprehend a burglar on the premises, they have no right to try and impose sentence. Instead, they must hand the offender over to the authorities of the host state for prosecution.

The 'receiving State' is the host State.

The 'sending State' is the guest or the Ambassador.

International laws are no different than 'ordinary' laws in that much of them are 'interpretive' or 'extrapolative', meaning we can infer the negative just by reading the positive. The laws does not have to spell out every situations with their accompanying remedies and punishments. The word 'crime' is not in the Vienna Convention of 1961, yet it is understood that if a 'crime' is committed within the boundaries of an embassy, a consulate, or a mission, special procedures and officials must take precedent.

Here is the clincher...

Nationals of a receiving state or a third state taking refuge in foreign embassies (and often requesting asylum for political reasons) are common. Even then, except Latin American countries, most countries don’t recognize ‘diplomatic asylum’ as a practice sanctioned by international law.

Just because seekers of 'diplomatic asylum' are often not pursued and prosecuted by the host State does not mean the practice is condoned. Usually the respect for diplomatic relations outweighs the person seeking asylum. So if most countries do not recognize 'diplomatic asylum', what make you think anyone will recognize members of a belligerent party in a war taking refuge inside an embassy and perhaps continues to perform deeds that will benefit their State of allegiance? None. And if the 'sending State' embassy is complicit in those deeds, those suspensions of rights previously mentioned can be reinstated upon request from the other belligerent party in said war. The reluctance to cross embassy lines is so strong by most States, even when there are reasonable justifications, that events like the Iranian takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran are considered 'shocking' and contribute to the perception that embassy grounds are extra-territorial.

Here is what extra-territoriality means...

Extraterritoriality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extraterritoriality is the state of being exempt from the jurisdiction of local law, usually as the result of diplomatic negotiations. Extraterritoriality can also be applied to physical places, such as military bases of foreign countries, or offices of the United Nations. The three most common cases recognized today internationally relate to the persons and belongings of foreign heads of state, the persons and belongings of ambassadors and certain other diplomatic agents, and ships in foreign waters.

Here is what an embassy really is to the concept of extra-territoriality...

Diplomatic mission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.

We do not know (yet) the details of what went on inside the Chinese (sending State) embassy in Belgrade (receiving State) so it is too early to tell if China was complicit in any actions, if any occurred, done by the Serbs that could benefit the Serbian military. We will have to wait to find out what those actions were and the degrees of effectiveness and benefits to the Serbian military.

Hypocrite and now a liar.

Incompetent.

 

[CardSharp]

Excellent work, the rest of your post aside, you've made my point for me. My response was to this guy's rumours about Serbs/serb military signals coming from the Embassy.

Agreed embassies are strictly off limits. But in a war zone, even if you decide to offer protection to a belligerent party, you dont let them carry out their war activities from the protection of your country's embassy. That amounts to declaration of war and you lose your 'neutral' status. reports indicated that the Serb general was using the compound as a comm center. So what do you think?

As you say

We do not know (yet) the details of what went on inside the Chinese (sending State) embassy in Belgrade (receiving State) so it is too early to tell if China was complicit in any actions, if any occurred, done by the Serbs that could benefit the Serbian military. We will have to wait to find out what those actions were and the degrees of effectiveness and benefits to the Serbian military.

and the US has not made the case for bombing the embassy based on intercepted signals or the presence of Serbian military inside the embassy. The US has always maintained it was an accident.

Incompetent.

Well, let's not get a big head. I don't think the material here is not exactly worthy of the international court of arbitration. (wikipedia and a Nigerian article about gun runners?)

 

[gambit]

Well, let's not get a big head. I don't think the material here is not exactly worthy of the international court of arbitration. (wikipedia and a Nigerian article about gun runners?)

Do you really think that is all there is about this topic? But really...I do not need to go further. Those two sources are good enough as I have faith that the readers will do their own keyword searches and verify for themselves. They will decide whose argument is the more credible.

 

[Patriot]

The Americans who are actually defending the bombing of Chinese Embassy should perhaps use the same standard for treatment of Mr Davis Raymond.

 

[CardSharp]

Do you really think that is all there is about this topic? But really...I do not need to go further. Those two sources are good enough as I have faith that the readers will do their own keyword searches and verify for themselves. They will decide whose argument is the more credible.

If you say so. I wonder why lawyers don't use wikipedia more often then.